John Solum

Hi Ron,

I said this before, but just to remind you, the tectonic plates are parts of larger convection cells in the mantle that include at least the upper mantle (that's to a depth of ~660km), and in places the entire mantle (that's to a depth of almost 3,000 km). So, it's not just a matter of moving the upper 30km or so of the earth, you need to move a lot more (the earth has a radius of ~6,371km). The mantle isn't molten either, by and large, it's solid rock (maybe a couple percent is molten). At the high temperatures and pressures that exist in the mantle, and at the low strain rates, that solid rock behaves like a viscous fluid, but just to illustrate how large the viscosity is, it takes the mantle on the order of 10,000 years to fully react to a stress (the ice sheets were removed ~10,000 years ago, and places like northern Canada and Scandanavia are still rising). If you want the mantle to move faster, you'd have to melt it, and the crust right along with it. So, as a thought experiment, I suppose it is possible for a meteorite impact to cause rapid flow in the mantle, but you'd have to melt a significant portion of the earth. As others have pointed out, there's also no evidence for such an impact.

If a sufficiently large meteorite hit one of the ice caps, then I can't see why it wouldn't melt it, but that wouldn't provide enough water to cover the earth. Also, there's no evidence that this ever happened.

You're chronology's off a bit. Prokaryotes (cyanobacteria) appear ~3.5 billion years ago, while eukaryotes appear ~1.8 billion years ago (that's almost 1.7 billion years later - although it is possible they appeared earlier than that, those are the earliest fossils that have been found). Multicellular life appears ~1 billion years ago (indicated by what appear to be worm burrows) (so that's 2.5 billion years after prokaryotes appeared, and 800 million years after eukaryotes appeared). The diversification of life at the end of the Precambrian (in the Vendian period of Neoproterozoic era) started around 650 million years ago (2.85 billion years after the appearance of prokaryotes, 1.15 billion years after the appearance of eukaryotes, ~350 million years after the first evidence of multicellular organisms), and the Cambrian explosion occurred ~540 million years ago (2.96 billion years after the appearance of prokaryotes, 1.26 billion years after the appearance of eukaryotes, and ~110 million years since the diversification of life at the end of the Precambrian). So, if the difference between the times of the appearance of prokaryotes, eukaryotes, and multicellular life are insignificant, then the difference between the present day and the Cambrian is even more insignificant.

Bait

Hi John,
Thank you, on the plate movement stuff...they were curiosity questions...not trying to prove anything.

[QUOTE]
You're chronology's off a bit. Prokaryotes (cyanobacteria) appear ~3.5 billion years ago, while eukaryotes appear ~1.8 billion years ago

Peez already caught me on that...already embarrased. didn't look close enough at the source of the info. Sorry.
Ron

Bait

Hi Opetrich,


How about something that actually resembles human, ie: Homo Sapien? I often see "Lucy" or more distinctly Australopithecines (of whatever variety) used as the "missing link". But the reality, the scientific evidence shows:

Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy), about 3-1/2 ft. tall, brain cavity too small (about 440 cc.), teeth pointed toward ape family, her jaw was the wrong shape. As far as her being bipedal, perhaps...but her knee joint actually came from a different skeleton found over a mile away, at a strata 200 feet deeper, and there has been some serious questions as to whether she was truly bipedal.
Donald Johanson (the one who discovered Lucy) himself recognised that Lucy was not human.

Susman and Stern of the State university of New York at Stony Brook have concluded that "A. afarensis while capable of walking upright, spent considerable time in the trees."
They base this conclusion on an examination of Lucy,s scapula, foot and hand bones which they say show "unmistakable hallmarks of climbing". They also believe that Lucy,s limb proportions did not allow an efficient upright gait.

Taungs child (Australopithecus africanus)Gracile and Robust, Richard Leaky considers these merely the male and female of the same species. The latter is clearly heavier, has more massive jaws and a pronounced sagital crest - all typical of sexual dimorphism in male apes.

Homo habilis: (Zinjanthropus, or "Zinj") had huge and very unhuman molars, a very small brain and a large bony sagital crest on the top of its skull. It's generally considered today as just another robust australopithecine.

Richard Leaky himself stated in the Science News (1971)"the Australopithecines were long-armed short-legged knuckle-walkers, similar to existing African apes".

Sir Solly Zuckerman (EVOLUTION AS A PROCESS, 1954) stated "There is, indeed, no question which the Australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of human and living ape skulls. It is the ape - so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any differences between them".


Neanderthal man: Currently recognised as Homo Sapien, his brain capacity was even larger than modern man. Does evolution digress?

In 1957 the anatomists Straus and Professor A. Cave examined La Chapelle-Aux-Saints and determined that the individual suffered form severe arthritis, which affected the vertebrae and bent the posture. The jaw also had been affected. The big toe was definitely not prehensile as Boule had claimed. The pelvis was not ape-like. In their report they commented that:

"if he could be reincarnated and placed in a New York subway provided he were bathed, shaved and dressed in modern clothing it is doubtful whether he would attract any more attention that some of its other denizens".

What is more convincing though that man and apes are not related (based on fossil evidence) is the 1972 discovery of the skull by Leaky called KNMR 1470 in Kenya. The skull capacity was measured to 750 cc (obviously human), small eyebrow ridges, no crest, domed skull, and when examined by Professor Cave, he concluded "as far as I can see, typically human".

In addition, Leaky fund two complete femurs, a part of a third femur and parts of a tibia and fibula near the skull which he said: "cannot be readily distinguished from Homo sapiens".

These bones were dated at approx. 2.61 myo (Fitch & Miller, 1970, Nature 226:226-228) using potassium argon dating. The original dating determined even further back, but the bones were retested because the original dating did not match the strata at which is was found. This 2.61 myo date means this HUMAN was a contemporary of the Australopithecus "Lucy", if not older.
Dating of "Lucy" and 1470 has since been re-adjusted, but there is some controversy as to objectivity of that latest testing.

So if "humans", homo sapiens, were present at the same time, generally the same area as "Lucy" and her kind, that would also explain the tools that were found in that area.

Now, I'll give you that apes and man look similar in many respects, especially in bone structure, but there is NO evidence to date that one came from the other. All of the fossils/bones/skulls/etc. found to date indicate either man or ape, with no real sequence in between. Parallel to each other? Perhaps. Virtually every other animal does have evidence of those "in betweens", those missing links, why does not man?

Ok....Now to prepare for Dr. Peez to retaliate.

Ron

Kosh

I suggest you get the hocky pads out.. the
one for goalies!

BTW Ron, I pointed this out to your before, but
you made the same error here, so let me restate:

Modern Man (Cro-Magnon): Homo Sapiens Sapiens

Neanderthal: Homo Sapiens Neanderthalnesis
(I probably got the last word a bit wrong).

The point being, that Neanderthals are not considered be the same species as us, and I think
the way you keep shortening it to "Homo Sapiens"
is misleading.

hydrobabble

Just a clarification regarding aquifers - while it is true that most aquifers are sedimentary, fractured igneous rock aquifers can be highly productive - for example, the basalt (extrusive igneous rock) aquifers of Hawaii and the Pacific Northwest.

Bait

lpetrich:

One of the things I've been disagreeing with Oolon, is the premise that all life has a common ancestor. Maybe we're going round and round on this issue because I'm not being clear enough about my reasoning.

IF all life came from one, and only one (1 celled) ancestor, it would mean that the conditions/chemical/etc. would have been present in only ONE pool, ONE location somewhere on this fairly large earth. Logic would dictate that IF conditions were exactly right at ONE spot, then why would they not be ideal in yet another spot 100 miles away? a mile away? A 100 yards away? Inches away? One spot may have been first, but it is illogical to assume that from that one spot ONLY was conditions exactly right, and only the right chemicals were exactly right to combine. That condition would probably of manifested itself in several/hundreds/thousands of spots in various locations throughout the world.
This by itself means that all life did NOT come from a common ancestor, but many.

Taking that one step further, IF that condition did manifest itself in several spots, then it is probable, statistically, logically, that SOME of those spots would produce similar, but different forms of life, or mutate because of slight differences of conditions due to locale.
This would mean that life would not only NOT come from one common ancestor, but rather many varied ancestors. This also would mean that "plants" COULD have a very different ancestor than "animals", or even further, it could be assumed that the various types of animals/plants/insects/etc. COULD (not proven) have come from vastly different ancestors. Since the conditions would have to be similar, that would explain the similarities of the various components that we share with other life forms.
This hypothesis does not destroy the THEORY of evolution, nor does it dispute the current evidences and fossils that has been discovered.
Ron

Kosh

Incorrect. It means that only ONE of those
hypothetical MANY organisms survived and that
it then gave rise to all subsequent life.

See the difference?

Bait

Hi Kosh,

That depends on which scientist you talk to. Yes, it is called Homo Sapiens Neandertalensis, but many scientist consider them as fully man...Homo Sapiens Sapiens. One reason is his rather sophisticated culture. Neanderthal man used fire, buried their dead with rather elaborate funeral customs, made a variety of stone tools, worked with leather and skins, and even has evidence of of forms of pharmacy, dentistry, and surgery.
In Science 81 (Oct) there was an article about a sculptor by the name of Jay Matterens, a specialist in fleshing out skulls for forensic evidence. He fleshed out a Neanderthal skull, with the aid of anatomists, and it came out appearing as HUMAN, no different than some walking around today.

And yes, there is controversy as to whether the skeleton actually had arthritis or not. I did not examine the skeleton in question (nor am I near qualified enough to), so I only have to go on what was written about the subject.

Some scientist also think that it is possible that homo sapiens archaic and homo sapiens neanderthalensis, who coexisted with Homo Sapiens Sapiens may have been of the same species, and may actually have disappeared into the H. Sapiens Sapiens gene pool. Others say that all three may just be Homo sapiens sapiens to start with, as in no real differences. Recent DNA tests seems to suggest that Neanderthal is another different species from H. sapiens sapiens, but this is even being debated, and there appears to be still a lot of controversy on that subject.

So the evidence and subject is still subject to much debate, and honestly, I really don't know which, if any, is correct.

But on the side of science vs. the bible...IF man was found 2.6 mya,(skull labeled 1470) is that not still beyond the dates normally attributed to men according to YEC views? (but works with my views)

Maybe that will help soften the blow I'm about to receive from Peez..neh?
Ron

Bait

Kosh,
Fair enough, but why would only ONE of those many organisms survive, and not any of the rest, especially if they were similar in make-up?
Ron

Kosh

Why not?

People in Africa die all the time, but with
a similar makeup to those in N. America that
don't.

Could it be perhaps...environmental conditions?
Food supply?

One got lucky?