Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

16364666869334

Comments

  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 3,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭Myksyk


    J C wrote: »
    ... and then we were introduced to a sponge ... that apparently hasn't evolved at all in over 600 million years ... so what was wrong with the sponge ... that it never evolved ... was it simply a 'stick in the mud'???

    Is this tongue in cheek, or are you genuinely ignorant?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zillah wrote: »
    You make me feel ill, and sad.
    Why??


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    Why??

    Have you read the horrendous response of yours??? :confused:
    J C wrote: »
    Could I respectfully suggest that when you try to spread your beliefs that we are glorified pondslime going to eternal oblivion ... that you should back up these beliefs with evidence ... and specifically, you will need to invalidate the mathematical proof that life had an intelligently directed and designed origin by an intelligence of divine proportions ... before you (or your buddies) go indoctinating Christian Children with your Materialism!!!


    Lets take it apart and see why it makes a sane person ill...
    J C wrote: »
    Could I respectfully suggest that when you try to spread your beliefs that we are glorified pondslime going to eternal oblivion ... that you should back up these beliefs with evidence

    J C, what about the abiogenesis stuff we've been discussing for the past
    month. You know, the stuff we went into excruciating detail over?
    Furthermore what about Miller & Urey's experiments? These things are
    that elusive thing known as evidence in support of communist-marxist
    evolutionary theory. You've done nothing to disprove this at all.
    J C wrote: »
    and specifically, you will need to invalidate the mathematical proof that life had an intelligently directed and designed origin by an intelligence of divine proportions ...

    What proof? You don't have a proof, you have a joke-proof alright,
    but that's not a proof. I mean, if you look at the youtube video
    above on MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF ID, that's so stupid. I mean, actually
    a lack of intelligence. This is not mathematical proof, here is a
    mathematical proof. Your joke-theory is the same, talking about
    permutations has nothing to do with anything we're discussing,
    as we've said to you over and over and over and over again. Your
    "proof" is a proof that molecules in outer space with NOTHING acting
    on them will never form John May. That may or may not be true,
    your proof is so bad at accounting for the environment we'll
    never know. However, as the f'ing abiogenesis video answers,
    there are biological and thermodynamic processes acting on all of the
    material making up the cell and shaping it's development. Natural
    selection, that thing "everybody accepts", (according to you), is
    acting on the cell and elements of it too. Where in your JOKE-PROOF
    do you mention natural selection? Nowhere, therefore you've neglected
    an element of the theory you're describing and this means you ****ed
    up, you're swindling everyone when you call this a proof because it
    is missing serious details. There is a concrete reason why you're
    joke-proof means less than the letter r in the word "yes".
    It's getting so unbelievable watching you deny the fact your proof is
    absolutely worthless in this thread, are you stupid? Have you forgotten
    that we've been telling you that your proof is stupid beyond belief all this
    time? No sane human being accepts your proof, drop it. It does nothing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ... and then we were introduced to a Sponge ... that apparently hasn't evolved at all in over 600 million years ... so what was wrong with the Sponge ... that it never evolved ... was it simply a 'stick in the mud'???

    Myksyk
    Is this tongue in cheek, ...
    It is a genuine objection to both the 600 million years and to Evolution itself ... if some creature (and there are many of them) is supposed to have lived in the same environment along with other creatures for 600 million years and the other creatures have supposedly evolved into dramatically and fundamentally different creatures ... up to and including Man ... while creatures, like the Sponge, haven't changed one iota, then ...
    ... it sounds like neither the 600 million years nor the evolution of new CFSI is true!!!

    ... claiming that Sponges didn't change in 600 million years, while we evolved from a glorified rat in about 150 million years is certainly one of the greatest cases of 'special pleading' that I have ever seen!!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    while creatures, like the sponge, haven't changed one iota then ...

    Wow, seriously? :eek: You might as well have said, "If evolution is true why
    are there still monkeys around AS WELL AS humans? Checkmate atheists!".
    First we'll point out the lies in your response. Did you even bother to
    find out if sponge's have changed "one iota"???
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge#Evolutionary_history :rolleyes:
    Tell us were you lying, or is wikipedia lying about the evolutionary
    history in this article?
    Second, if you'd even say something like this it just shows how messed
    up your understanding of evolution is. I mean, I understand why you
    don't understand this, just as your proof neglects the environment,
    so too does your understanding of evolution in general neglect the
    environment. If the environment and the living conditions of a
    sponge favours a certain sponge then it has no reason to evolve ffs,
    any genetic changes bad for the sponge will eventually kill them off,
    but there's plenty of room for variation within this. Wow...
    This is not a genuine objection to anyhting, it's a genuine example of how
    badly educated you are on the subject you claim to have a mathematical
    proof refuting ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wow, seriously? :eek: You might as well have said, "If evolution is true why are there still monkeys around AS WELL AS humans? Checkmate atheists!".
    ... that is a very good question, as well!!!:eek:
    ... however, the Evolutionists 'hide their blushes' of embarassment on this question, by citing the excuse that modern Monkeys are as different from their supposed common ancestor Ape, as Humans are ...
    ... but this excuse doesn't work with Sponges ... they haven't changed supposedly for 600 million years ... when Humans were supposedly evolving from something that looked like a 'slimeball' ... within the same pond, at least initially ... and over the same supposed period of time !!!!
    ... so why all this 'stasis' with the Sponge ... and rampant prolific new CFSI production by other organisms to produce a Human within the same initial environment???
    ... the whole thing is a 'specious nonesense' ... just like John May says it is ... and 'special pleading' of the highest degree!!!
    First we'll point out the lies in your response.
    ... why do you assume that other people lie ... is it because you are a liar yourself??

    Did you even bother to
    find out if sponge's have changed "one iota"???
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge#Evolutionary_history :rolleyes:
    Where does it say anything about the supposedly 600 million year old Sponges evolving into anything except other Sponges?

    Tell us were you lying, or is wikipedia lying about the evolutionary history in this article?
    ... neither myself nor Wikipedia are lying ... because we are both saying that Sponges haven't changed since they were first formed ... please answer your question about lying ... yourself!!!
    Second, if you'd even say something like this it just shows how messed
    up your understanding of evolution is. I mean, I understand why you
    don't understand this, just as your proof neglects the environment,
    so too does your understanding of evolution in general neglect the
    environment. If the environment and the living conditions of a
    sponge favours a certain sponge then it has no reason to evolve ffs
    ,
    any genetic changes bad for the sponge will eventually kill them off,
    but there's plenty of room for variation within this. Wow...
    This is not a genuine objection to anyhting, it's a genuine example of how
    badly educated you are on the subject you claim to have a mathematical
    proof refuting ;)
    ... there is no reason ... and no mechanism by which a Sponge (or indeed any other Created Kind) can evolve into anything other than another member of that particular Kind.

    The environment can only select the phenotype of a particular CFSI presented to it ... and what my maths is devastatingly proving is that a non-intelligently directed process, like mutagenesis, is incapable of producing the new CFSI for just one small biomolecule, let alone the thousands of closely co-ordinated and highly specific biomolecules that are required in even one so-called 'simple living cell' ... so there is nothing new (other than the pre-existing genetic diversity infused at Creation) to present to the environment for it to select.

    Anybody who looked at the David Attenborough documentary on the Origins of Life on Friday night last on BBC 2 at 9 pm, should note that he didn't explain the detail of how life could possibly have been materialistically produced (Abiogenesis) ... nor how the additional CFSI required to produce complex multicellular organisms came about (Materialistic Evolution) ... instead, he simply moved straight to the fossil record ... and he used the phrase (a number of times) that different life forms just 'appeared' ... in the blink of an evolutionary eye ... and he also said that the exact process by which this occurred was a 'mystery'!!!
    ... it isn't actually any 'mystery' ... as the 'best fit' explantion for such a phenomenon is direct instantaneous Creation.
    David also showed the fossilised remains of soft-bodied creatures and even the tracks they made before they died on the sea-floor ... and the 'best fit' explantion for such phenomena is instant inundation and cementation of the ocean floor by the Tectonic Processes of Noah's Flood.
    Certainly, the supposed gradual laying down of rock sediment over millions of years that 'Old Earthers' claim as proof for millions of years is not supported by the fact that these creatures would decompose in hours and completely disappear in days ... and their perfect preservation is therefore indicative of an instantaneous process ... and not one occurring over millions of years!!!!


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 3,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭Myksyk


    J C wrote: »
    It is a genuine objection to both the 600 million years and to Evolution itself ... if some creature (and there are many of them) is supposed to have lived in the same environment along with other creatures for 600 million years and the other creatures have supposedly evolved into dramatically and fundamentally different creatures ... up to and including Man ... while creatures, like the Sponge, haven't changed one iota, then ...
    ... it sounds like neither the 600 million years nor the evolution of new CFSI is true!!!

    ... claiming that Sponges didn't change in 600 million years, while we evolved from a glorified rat in about 150 million years is certainly one of the greatest cases of 'special pleading' that I have ever seen!!!

    Ok. Genuinely ignorant it is so.

    Ps only some of us have moved from the "glorified rat" stage.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Myksyk wrote: »
    Ok. Genuinely ignorant it is so.
    ... can we take that as an admission on your part then?
    Myksyk wrote: »
    Ps only some of us have moved from the "glorified rat" stage.
    ... I sometimes wonder ... if any of you have moved beyond this stage????:eek::)


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 3,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭Myksyk


    J C wrote: »
    ... can we take that as an admission on your part then?)

    You're a perfect example of how the evolved complexity of the human brain can be utterly, egregiously wasted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Myksyk wrote: »
    Ok. Genuinely ignorant it is so.
    Not just genuinely, willfully.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zillah wrote: »
    You make me feel ill, and sad.
    Have you read the horrendous response of yours??? :confused:
    What was 'horrendous' about it ... I merely pointed out that, just like I have already provided mathematical proof for my position ... that you guys should take your own advice, and do the same, before you (or your 'fellow travellers') go forcibly indoctrinating children with your unfounded Materialism/Evolutionism!!!

    ... and BTW, when I was an Evolutionist, I too felt 'sick and sad' many times ... when I thought that I was only a temporary product of physical matter, assembled by physical forces through a process of 'blind pitiless indifference' ... on the way to eternal anhiallation ... and without an eternal spirit and an equally eternal destiny ... or a God who loved me so much that He literally died to Save me!!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Myksyk wrote: »
    You're a perfect example of how the evolved complexity of the human brain can be utterly, egregiously wasted.
    That sounds like 'sour grapes' to me!!!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by Myksyk
    Ok. Genuinely ignorant it is so.


    J C
    ... can we take that as an admission on your part then?


    MrPudding
    Not just genuinely, willfully.

    MrP
    ... OK ... so you are genuinely ... wilfully ... ignorant!!!

    ... now stop 'beating yourself up' ... and join the real world ... and become a Creationist!!!!:eek:


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 3,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭Myksyk


    After a consideration of all his posts, the Jury is in on JC (aka JC!!!!???).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3 pjfbncyl


    Hi everyone, OOO, Me = Newbie please be gentle, the first time can be so ... messy however, heres my forum intro

    tfg2.gif

    Heres my fav joke to warm you up :

    This is specious
    Proton and an Electron go into a bar. The Proton says : "You sure I won't be charged for this?" The Electron replies "Im Positive" (rotflmao smiley) Personally Im into Fullerenes OMG is this advertising? Will the other carbon molecules get up tight? Its not specious either so its off topic ! Newbie Newbie Sorry, Heres a your Fullerene lesson then (Other carbon Molecules are available)

    bucktballani.gif is this too long? i got told off for using smilies in a forum so im a bit scared


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Myksyk wrote: »
    After a consideration of all his posts, the Jury is in on JC (aka JC!!!!???).
    OK ... JC (i.e. John Cleese) is the person accusing 'Manuel' of 'being a waste of space' ... that much I 'get' ...

    So, are you saying that this clip summarises this thread ... and that I (J C) am effectively calling the Evolutionist 'Manuels' on it ... a 'waste of space'???

    Please stop 'beating yourselves up' ... I believe that most Evolutionists are actually very intelligent people.

    I would also say that you are all much loved children of God in need of His Salvation but too proud to ask for it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    pjfbncyl wrote: »
    Hi everyone, OOO, Me = Newbie please be gentle, the first time can be so ... messy however, heres my forum intro

    tfg2.gif

    Heres my fav joke to warm you up :

    This is specious
    Proton and an Electron go into a bar. The Proton says : "You sure I won't be charged for this?" The Electron replies "Im Positive" (rotflmao smiley) Personally Im into Fullerenes OMG is this advertising? Will the other carbon molecules get up tight? Its not specious either so its off topic ! Newbie Newbie Sorry, Heres a your Fullerene lesson then (Other carbon Molecules are available)

    bucktballani.gif is this too long? i got told off for using smilies in a forum so im a bit scared
    ... so, in summary, are you saying that Evolution is just some kind of big joke???

    BTW ... I like your joke about the electron and the proton in the bar ... although, on mature reflection ... it sounds too elementary to me!!!:D


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 3,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭Myksyk


    J C wrote: »
    OK ... JC (i.e. John Cleese) is the person accusing 'Manuel' of 'being a waste of space' ... that much I 'get' ...

    Nah, I'm Fawlty ... just not as Faulty as you.

    BTW, deliberate comedy isn't your strong point J ... so

    ... back to the real if unintentional comedy of JC's worldview.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Myksyk wrote: »
    Nah, I'm Fawlty ...
    You said it, honey !!!:D
    ... and the solution ... is to do like I did ... and go and get Saved by Jesus Christ!!!


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 3,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭Myksyk


    J C wrote: »
    You said it, honey !!!:D
    ... and the solution ... is to do like I did ... and go and get Saved by Jesus Christ!!!

    Like I said.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Myksyk wrote: »
    Like I said.
    ... ????


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3 pjfbncyl


    As such we would presume a beginning middle and end. However we can chuck in Paraconsistent Logic into the mix "paraconsistent logic accommodates inconsistency in a sensible manner that treats inconsistent information as informative.2 ref: http://ecq.paraconsistency.com/At the moment only the philosophers have got their heads around it. Evolution is a process? Or little pirouettes in The Eternal Dance? You see I can accomodate both and find both USEFUL. Something may be specious but Im not going to let that stop it being informative. Which brings us round here and now discussing speciosity! :pac: doesn't this emoticon move? It said pac man I thought it would eat my words, people usually make me do that...


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 3,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭Myksyk


    J C wrote: »
    ... ????

    Sigh.

    Like I said ... Comedy. Not your strong suit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    pjfbncyl wrote: »
    As such we would presume a beginning middle and end. However we can chuck in Paraconsistent Logic into the mix "paraconsistent logic accommodates inconsistency in a sensible manner that treats inconsistent information as informative.2 ref: http://ecq.paraconsistency.com/At the moment only the philosophers have got their heads around it. Evolution is a process? Or little pirouettes in The Eternal Dance? You see I can accomodate both and find both USEFUL. Something may be specious but Im not going to let that stop it being informative. Which brings us round here and now discussing speciosity! :pac: doesn't this emoticon move? It said pac man I thought it would eat my words, people usually make me do that...
    Are you an Evolutionist?
    ... but, even if you are not ... you could still write for them ... the above paragraph would be a very good start ... by the time anybody has gotten to the end of it ... their mind should be so sufficiently confused, that they will accept that anything is possible ... including Evolution!!!:D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3 pjfbncyl


    No one follows links reads an argument. They just dismiss Carl Vogel of Trinity, ten years of research by Stanford University, the awesome work of incorporating Buddhist Dialectic into philosophy "Oh look man write difficult sentence, ooo me have to think, o me have to click on link" ooo


    sotonomy.gifMY Brain Hurts!


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    pjfbncyl wrote: »
    As such we would presume a beginning middle and end. However we can chuck in Paraconsistent Logic into the mix "paraconsistent logic accommodates inconsistency in a sensible manner that treats inconsistent information as informative.2 ref: http://ecq.paraconsistency.com/At the moment only the philosophers have got their heads around it. Evolution is a process? Or little pirouettes in The Eternal Dance? You see I can accomodate both and find both USEFUL. Something may be specious but Im not going to let that stop it being informative. Which brings us round here and now discussing speciosity! :pac: doesn't this emoticon move? It said pac man I thought it would eat my words, people usually make me do that...
    pjfbncyl wrote: »
    MY Brain Hurts!
    ... why am I not surprised?:)


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    J C wrote: »
    ... why am I not surprised?:)

    Because your brain always hurts?


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 3,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭Myksyk


    J C wrote: »
    ... why am I not surprised?:)

    Because you're used to hurting other's brains?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    that they will accept that anything is possible

    Careful, you got yourself in knots when discussing what is or isn't possible

    Remember these questions, care to actually answer them:
    J C wrote: »
    ... the mathematical proof is that materialistic processes alone are incapable of producing life ... and a massive input of intelligence was required.

    So the intelligence that produced life on Earth (the only life we have ever observed) could not be material in nature, it had to be supernatural?

    That directly contradicts what you just said here
    It possibly could be a material intelligent being

    So when you said that were you lying or merely mistaken?

    Or was it when you said you had PROVE it could not have been material were you lying or mistaken then?
    J C wrote: »
    Who/what that intelligence was/is is not capable of being scientifically established at present.

    Yet you can say it was not material?

    When you said it could be material were you lying or merely mistaken?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Me wrote:
    "If evolution is true why are there still monkeys around AS WELL AS humans? Checkmate atheists!".
    J C wrote: »
    ... that is a very good question, as well!!!:eek:
    ... however, the Evolutionists 'hide their blushes' of embarassment on this question, by citing the excuse that modern Monkeys are as different from their supposed common ancestor Ape, as Humans are ...

    It's funny how you call serious evidence "blushes of embarrassment".
    Do you know how much evidence there is supporting this conclusion?
    You know that thing you like, genetics? It explains the evolutionary
    lineage of a common ancestor.
    Are you an objective person? :pac:
    J C wrote: »
    ... but this excuse doesn't work with Sponges ... they haven't changed supposedly for 600 million years ... when Humans were supposedly evolving from something that looked like a 'slimeball' ... within the same pond, at least initially ... and over the same supposed period of time !!!!
    ... so why all this 'stasis' with the Sponge ... and rampant prolific new CFSI production by other organisms to produce a Human within the same initial environment???

    This is a good question, I don't know the answer to this. I did a bit of
    research and found some interesting reasons why sponges would not
    evolve as rapidly.
    Sponges may technically be immortal because in undisturbed natural
    surroundings they never die. The only natural death threat sponges face
    is total dehydration and drying or being froze solid.

    Macerate a sponge into tiny pieces and most of those pieces will
    regenerate a whole new sponge. In fact, if you force a sponge through
    a fine silk mesh and break it up into individual single cells, each of those
    individual cells has the potential to regenerate an entire sponge.
    (Imagine the mess you would have if you tried that with a chunk of
    human flesh, let alone an entire human body.) Sponges just keep on
    keeping on.


    http://www.suite101.com/content/the-characteristics-of-phylum-porifera-a151750
    :eek:
    J C wrote: »
    ... so why all this 'stasis' with the Sponge

    I think you've got your answer right there.
    J C wrote: »
    ... the whole thing is a 'specious nonesense' ... just like John May says it is ... and 'special pleading' of the highest degree!!!

    I see what you did there
    J C wrote: »
    ... why do you assume that other people lie ... is it because you are a liar yourself??

    I lied, where? Could you quote it, I mean we wouldn't want to pull
    out that word slander would we? :p
    J C wrote: »
    Where does it say anything about the supposedly 600 million year old Sponges evolving into anything except other Sponges?

    J C, use elementary logic. Seriously, if a sponge evolved into a monkey
    we wouldn't have sponges we'd have monkeys. We still have sponges
    because they didn't die off. In fact, if you read the passage you're
    dismissing we find out that sponges evolved gradually. Do we know
    the origin of sponges?
    Sponges Apparently Arose From Choanocyte Ancestors



    DNA analysis indicates that the sponge’s immediate evolutionary
    predecessors are the protistan choanoflagellates, a group biologists long
    suspected could have been the nearest thing to animals (metazoa)
    without actually being animals.
    These single-celled creatures with whip-like flagella bear an amazing
    resemblance to the choanocyte cells of present day sponges. In one
    species, a particular molecule previously found in only multicellular animals
    was discovered leading scientists to conclude that the choanoflagellates
    appear to contain the “genetic tool kit” (i.e. genes for inter-cell adhesion,
    signaling, and differentiation) from which the first animals were made.
    Establishing the Family Tree of Sponges

    Traditionally sponges were considered to be a monophyletic group. That is,
    all sponges descended from a common ancestor that was itself a sponge.

    Furthermore, it was believed that ancestral sponges gave rise to the
    eumetazoa.
    However, when molecular and DNA analysis revealed that choanoflagellates
    are the nearest evolutionary relatives to all animals, the traditional view of
    the origin of sponges was shown to be incorrect.

    Currently most zoologists believe that choanoflagellates gave rise to
    sponges and that some sponges gave rise to the eumetazoa
    http://www.suite101.com/content/the-origin-of-sponges-a147147

    edit: Meant to ask you this, how does your brilliance explain the origin of
    sponges? How does it disprove the stuff written above?

    J C wrote: »
    ... neither myself nor Wikipedia are lying ... because we are both saying that Sponges haven't changed since they were first formed ... please answer your question about lying ... yourself!!!

    Hmm,
    J C wrote: »
    if some creature (and there are many of them) is supposed to have lived in the same environment along with other creatures for 600 million years and the other creatures have supposedly evolved into dramatically and fundamentally different creatures ... up to and including Man ... while creatures, like the Sponge, haven't changed one iota, then ...
    ... it sounds like neither the 600 million years nor the evolution of new CFSI is true!!!

    I see how you're trying to save face. I like the trickery, it's almost
    working. Unfortunately that wikipedia article
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge#Evolutionary_history
    you spoke about actually doesn't say sponges haven't changed one iota.
    Silica spicules like those of demosponges have been reported from Nevada
    in rocks dated around 750 million years ago.[33] Well-preserved fossil
    sponges from about 580 million years ago in the Ediacaran period have
    been found in the Doushantuo Formation. These fossils, which include
    spicules, pinacocytes, porocytes, archeocytes, sclerocytes and the
    internal cavity, have been classified as demosponges. Fossils of glass
    sponges have been found from around 540 million years ago in rocks in
    Australia, China and Mongolia.[34] Calcium carbonate spicules of
    calcareous sponges have been found in Early Cambrian rocks from
    about 530 to 523 million years ago in Australia. Other probable
    demosponges have been found in the Early Cambrian Chengjiang fauna,
    from 525 to 520 million years ago.[35] Freshwater sponges appear to be
    much younger, as the earliest known fossils date from the Mid-Eocene
    period about 48 to 40 million years ago.[34] Although about 90% of
    modern sponges are demosponges, fossilized remains of this type are
    less common than those of other types because their skeletons are
    composed of relatively soft spongin that does not fossilize well.[36]

    Archaeocyathids, which some classify as a type of coralline sponge, are
    common in the Cambrian period from about 530 million years ago, but
    apparently died out by the end of the Cambrian
    490 million years ago
    Are you seriously going to argue there is not one iota of difference
    between calcareous sponges & demosponges???

    450px-Clathrina_clathrus_Scarpone_055.jpg

    800px-Acarnus_erithacus.jpg

    No, not one iota of difference between these two organisms :rolleyes:

    Were you lying? Even a little? :pac:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement