Peez

I was referring to this statement that you made: If I understand correctly, you state that your view requires "faith over evidence." Is that not the name thing as ignoring evidence when it contradicts your faith? Please explain how you think that Oolon was trying to say that animals came from plants. It seems clear to me that he was pointing out that they share a common ancestor. Just to be more precise, I should rather say that biologists do not think that animals evolved from plants. The evidence suggests that both plants and animals evolved from an ancestor that would be called a protist if it were alive today. On the other hand, I must admit that you might find some ill-informed individual who thinks that animals evolved from plants. We think it unlikely that new life forms could appear "spontaneously" now as they seem to have 3-4 billion years ago because chemical conditions are very different now, and there is so much life already present that a new form would have a very difficult time surviving in the face of competition, predation, etc. since the other life forms around it have been evolving for a long time. I hereby officially state that I believe that it is possible that the world is flat. That being said, I should point out that I do not believe that the world is flat, because all the evidence indicates that it is not. Similarly, all the evidence indicates that all bacteria, fungi, plants, "protists" and animals share a (one) common ancestor.

Peez

Peez

By all means, present this evidence. Just to clarify, are you accepting evolution of phyla within kingdoms?

Peez

Bait

Hi all,
John, I’m trying, but still having trouble getting the various things to work. Thanks for you help, and for Oolon’s. I haven’t figured it out yet, I’m trying as you said, but it doesn’t seem to work. I’ll keep trying though.

Ok…on with the debate.

Patrick and John…what you say sounds very reasonable to me. To make sure I understand, you’re saying that yes, if plates moved like the theories stated, that it could have caused oceans to displace, BUT it is highly unlikely because of the amount of energy that would be needed to move them, and that amount of energy basically would have fried everything, vaporized the oceans, etc. Also, based on measurements taken from satellites (GIS), it does not appear that the plates ever moved like that. Right? A couple more questions then.

First, is it possible that a meteor, or some other mechanism could have produced enough energy to move the tectonic (spelled right this time) plates enough to cause the displacement of oceans, etc.? Yes, I understand about the heat that would be involved. Also, could the strike of a meteor have caused the ice caps to melt causing a world flood? (I’ve seen that theory too)

Secondly, it was stated “Only the Pacific and Nazca plates needed some readjustment to fit the model”. So, what type of adjustments (or how much) were needed? Why were they needed? Is it possible that the movement of these particular plates, if they weren’t adjusted, could have caused a flood? Before I get jumped on, I’m just trying to explore as many avenues as I can, not ignoring any tidbit.

Kosh, thank you…I’m already aware of the Black Sea theory….and I personally think it is entirely possible that it could have accounted for the Biblical flood account. There is still the questions of why so many of the other civilizations, on other parts of the world, also have world flood accounts in their legends having many similar points to them. But I’m not discounting this theory out of hand.

Berzerker : The flood account, IMHO, could have been from the Black Sea theory, OR it could have been from the massive flooding you mentioned 14,000 years ago, or some other reason I do not know of right now. Patrick and John have pretty much shot down a couple I knew of. Either of the events you mentioned would seem to be reasonable explanations on the surface. Which is one of the reasons I asked about the meteor…as I recall, there was also a meteor strike somewhere close to the 14,000 year ago scenario, but I’m not positive on that. Both happening at the same time though, could account for the widespread similarities of the various flood accounts throughout the world (in ancient memory), especially if it struck in the ocean.

Peez:
First, as far as the creation of the world and the animals/plants in it, I do not think the Bible necessarily disagrees with science. It all depends on how you look at both. When Oolon states that all life comes from one common ancestor, it seems to mean that plants and animals are related. And since plants arrived first, then logically we would have to evolve from plants too.

Fossil evidence indicates bacteria, acheans and eukaryotic cells began to appear about 1.8 billion – 544 million years ago during the Proterozoic Era (actually the Mesoproterozoic Era). Some scientist believe that cyanobacteria produced oxygen which helped the eukaryotic cells to develop, killing other types of bacteria. These are the first known life forms that there is evidence of, in the earliest known era’s containing life that we know of. Notice I’ve just named four different forms of life that we have fossil evidence of, not just one form. From these, it appears that many other life forms evolved. The Bible doesn’t ever tell what the mechanism that was used to produce the various forms of life…the message that is being relayed in Genesis is simply that he (God) did create them, doesn’t say how.

Cyanobacteria, are aquatic, and they manufacture their own food (they don’t eat the chemicals that made them).and are the oldest known fossils. BTW, they are still around, one of the largest groups of bacteria on earth, and they still manufacture their own food. It is known that cyanobacteria are relatives of bacteria, but are not related to eukaryotes cells…the second oldest fossils we know of. You wanted the evidence…here it is.

I see here four forms of life appearing about the same general time (plus or minus a couple million years). The oldest know ANIMAL fossils appear to be trilobites and brachiopods from the later Cambrian period. Many paleontologists believe that even simpler forms of life may have existed before then, but there is NO fossil evidence of that at all. Others (a few) believe that this is the first moment of Gods creation of animals (which I personally do). Fewer yet believe that this is the first deposits laid down after the biblical flood. (a possibility?). Darwin himself wrote “the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great”.

For your clarification…yes, I can accept the evolution of phyla, which in turn could have became the various animal “kinds”. It doesn’t appear to disagree with the Bible…because the bible doesn’t say. It’s not important to the message that is related. At the same time, I have a question for you. If you can believe life could spontaneously happen, as in all of a sudden some chemicals came together accidentally and poof, life began, then all other life came from that one cell, why is it such a stretch to see how someone else could believe that a designer, a creator, a higher intelligence, purposely put those chemicals together to create life? According to Mark Ludwig in his book “computer viruses, artificial life and evolution”, the chances of life forming by accident (even the single cell E Coli) as described above is roughly 1 in 10 to the 2,3000,000 power, even if you count in redundancy factors, mathematically that is.
Still a miracle, by any stretch is it not?

As far as man is concerned though, which I admitted is in the faith realm, I think man was created altogether separate from the other animals, by God, which is where we disagree. Yes, apes are similar in bone and cell structure, but then, so are many other unrelated animals and plants. But I also see the many differences, a species, a kind all our own. The biggest differences involve man’s ability to reason, his intelligence, as well as the ability to walk upright. No one has yet found any “missing link” that firmly attaches us to apes, at least that I know of. And no ape I know of has even tried to discover where life came from.

Bests,
Ron

ps418

This statement is potentially misleading. The rise is sea level since the last glacial maximum, about 130m, is spread out over about 9,000 years, with a couple of periods of accelerated sea-level rise. The Sunda Shelf records the earliest period of accelerated sea-level rise folowing the LGM, which is dated at 16,000-16,500 14C yrs BP (calibrated age 19,200-18,700 calender yrs BP). Assuming that the facies indicators used by Yokoyama, the Sunda Shelf records a eustatic sea-level rise of about 15m spread out over about 500 years. Sea level throughout this period was dozens of meters lower than today.

Patrick

MrDarwin

On what do you base your statement that "plants arrived first"? And even if they did appear in the fossil record before animals, it does not logically follow that animals evolved from them. You go on to mention archaeans, bacteria, and cyanobacteria as among the earliest life forms, but none of these are plants. In fact, multicellular plants and multicellular animals certainly had completely different origins from unicellular ancestors, which were not themselves plants.

Even if you stretch the definition of "plant" to mean anything that photosynthesizes (i.e., to include such things as cyanobacteria), animals still didn't evolve from plants.

This complete lack of fossil evidence will come as quite a surprise to my paleontologist friends, some of whom study Precambrian animal fossils.

Yes, it was a great problem to Darwin, because these fossils were not discovered until long after Darwin had died.

Peez

If the Bible is taken literally, I cannot see how the two can be reconciled. If you choose to accept the Bible on faith, and reject the evidence that we have gathered using our "God-given" senses, then this is true. He means more than that, but certainly having a common ancestor means being related. Two problems here. Just how do you define plants? Land plants evolved about 500 million years ago, but (aquatic) animals were around before that. In any event, even if "plants" evolved before animals, that would not imply that animals evolved from plants. Just because your uncle is older than your father does not mean that you "came from" your cousins" (which would be equivalent to animals "coming from" plants. Where are you getting those figures? All my resources indicate that the first prokaryotes appeared at least 3.5 billion years ago. Oxygenic (oxygen-liberating) photosynthesis appears to have got started between 2.5 and 3 billion years ago. The first eukaryotic cells showed up a bit more than 2 billion years ago. The earliest multicellular organisms evolved about 1.5 billion years ago. Of course, animals diversified greatly just over 600 million years ago, and land plants made their entrance about 100 million years after that. [from Biology, Sixth Edition. Campbell and Reece, 2002] Perhaps, though this is conjecture. It is safe to say that many bacteria died as the atmosphere accumulated more and more oxygen. No. See above. You have been in error, but even if we do not find fossils of the earliest single common ancestor of all life on this planet, that does not in any way preclude the existence of such an organism. Yup. This is the view that some hold, usually called "theistic evolution." I would just point out that god(s) are not required as an explanation for the pattern of evolution, though some feel more comfortable assuming that one or more dieties were involved. Cyanobacteria (also called "blue-green algae") make their own food (in the sense of energy containing carbon compounds), but they do need many chemicals from their environment (and need to expel other chemicals). No. See above. Yup. Some (e.g. Oscilatoria) produce toxins that are responsible for "swimmers itch." Cyanobacteria are not just related to bacteria, they are bacteria, and they are related to eukaryotes (though distantly). Um, where? You have made a number of assertions (some inaccurate), but provided no evidence at all. You need to do more research, see above. No. The earliest fossil animals were Cniderians (this is the group that includes corrals, sea anemones, and jellyfish), appearing more than 550 million years ago (in the late Precambrian). You are incorrect. Not only is there evidence of simpler forms of life, there is evidence of simpler animals. Note that unicellular life goes back more than 3 billion years before that, and even multicellular organisms appeared about 1 billion years before. You can choose to believe that, if you wish, but that is not what the evidence indicates. The story of the biblical flood is entirely at odds with the evidence. Ask Patrick for details. Charles Darwin is not an authoritative source, any more than James Watt is on computers. As you say, that depends on how you look at it. Many fundamentalists (I am not calling you one) interpret the Bible to state that things like dogs and cats and hawks and apple trees (at the least) were individually created. If the phyla were individually created, and evolution took over from there, you would still have to accept that dogs and cats and hawks (and horses and trout and lampreys) all evolved from a common ancestor. Not to mention Homo sapiens . Many Christians agree, and happily accept that evolution occurred and that the Bible is about what is right and wrong (not about biology, physics, etc.). It is silly in the extreme to try to estimate the probability of something happening when you don't know how many possible outcomes would be alive. Such naive estimates typically assume that one (and only one) combination of chemicals in one (and only one) structure will be alive, and that chemicals and structures arrange themselves randomly. None of that is true. We know that chemicals and structures do not arrange themselves randomly (if you expose hydrogen to oxygen and heat, you don't get random combinations of hydrogen and oxygen, you get water), and we know that more than one set of chemicals can be alive (no two cells are identical). In fact, there is no reason to assume that a living thing has to be remotely similar to those living things with which we are familiar. As for believing in a "designer," since there are no observations that require a designer as an "explanation" (of course, a "designer" does not explain complexity, it just pushes it back one step: who designed the designer?), and since there are many observations which contradict the idea of a sane "designer," I see no need to impose such an idea any more than I feel the need to believe in the tooth fairy. The Bible in particular is very much at odds with the real world in terms of science, and I find much of the morality therein to be objectionable (but that is another topic entirely). Nope. Those plants and animals are not unrelated. They are merely more distantly related. All living things on this planet are related. Humans are Chordates, they belong in that phylum according to every standard that we know. Further, we share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees. To believe otherwise is to reject evidence in favour of faith. That is, of course, your choice, but it should stay out of the science classroom. Well, there is you. Even if we were to accept that "intelligence" or "reason" are traits that should be used to justify that we are not at all related to other animals despite the many other common traits (why not put bombardier beetles in their own group, unrelated to other groups, just because they have a unique feature?), there is evidence that we are not so unique as some would like to believe. In fact, chimps (and other animals) show signs of having similar faculties, merely much less complex.

Peez

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Peez ]</p>

Bait

Peez,
I haven't a chance to look at all you've presented, but you asked where I was getting my figures. You can find them at:
<a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/vendian.html" target="_blank">http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/vendian.html</a>
Ron

Peez

Um, I hope that you won't think me rude, but, did you actually read the text at that site? Right there, on the first page, it states that: (emphasis mine) From this, you conclude that "The oldest know [sic] ANIMAL fossils appear to be trilobites and brachiopods from the later Cambrian period."? What about the immediately following paragraph: Am I missing something here? This sort of thing can injure your credibility, even if (as I assume) it was unintentional.

Peez

Bait

Peez,
VERY unintentional...thanks for the catch.(blushing, hanging head, all that)

Ron

lpetrich

One little problem: meteor strikes don't make continents move. Instead, they dig big pits. Look at the Moon with a small telescope some time -- lots and lots of craters, but no plate tectonics.

Also, if one wants to make a flood by melting some polar ice, one ought to go where there is a lot of it -- Antarctica, with Greenland straggling behind. The Arctic Ocean's ice covering is a few meters or so on average, unlike Antarctica's or Greenland's big ice sheets.

A meteorite hitting Antarctica could indeed vaporize much of its ice cap, if it is big enough. But a big-enough meteorite would also produce a giant crater, and would splatter a lot of material outside of that crater. But neither that crater nor that splattered material has ever been found. And all that water vapor being injected into the atmosphere would seriously screw up the climate, causing a mass extinction. Which has not happened. Tree-ring chronologies have found zero evidence of such a catastrophe over the last 9000 years -- at least.

The "adjustment" was because the present-day motion of those plates was not exactly what was expected from earlier work, which extrapolates from several million years of plate motion. However, all the others were found to be moving at their expected speeds.

(stuff on flood legends being widespread...)

How much is that supposed to prove? Lots of rivers flood every now and then, thus inspiring flood legends. And flood legends can be copied from place to the place; the Bible's is a copy of a Mesopotamian account. Furthermore, their details often differ -- compare the Greek story of Deucalion and Pyrrha to the Mesopotamian/Biblical story.

"Plants" and "animals" are not very meaningful categories for single-celled organisms. Consider flagellate algae.

It's NOT expected to occur all at once. A RNA-world microbe is significantly simpler than an E. coli bacterium.

But why is the similarity so great? What great purpose does that serve?

Good Grief! There's nothing special about walking upright; birds do it all the time, many dinosaurs did it, and kangaroos do something of the sort.

What would you consider a satisfactory "missing link", Bait? There are lots of fossil hominids now known, and the earlier ones tend to look more simian. Also, toolmaking capabilities gradually grew over time, a side effect of greater brain capacity.