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"
Options
Comments
-
koth wrote:Here's a picture of a small protein-protein interaction network for the human genome. It includes 1,700 proteins. Pretty complicated, isn't it? Note how many grey points denote proteins that are known to do something, but we don't know exactly what yet.
... and of course you still believe that such complex and highly specific inter-actions all occurred by accident ... and without any intelligent input!!!joseph brand wrote: »That picture made my head sore. It's just TOO much.
Fascinating post, even though it caused my brain to curl into the fetal position and suck it's thumb.
0 -
-
-
-
thanks JC, This is the thing which places you above all atheistCreationists bless their opponents.
No need to curse anybody ... and I certainly wouldn't curse a Divinely Protected Christian ... as the curse will return onto the curser.
... JC tell me more about when you were evolutionist, what makes you to become a creationist. What was the thing which forced you to leave evolution. The evolutionists are now at that stage where you were years before. 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
thanks JC, This is the thing which places you above all atheist... JC tell me more about when you were evolutionist, what makes you to become a creationist. What was the thing which forced you to leave evolution. The evolutionists are now at that stage where you were years before.
Hey dead one - Did you know that Muhammad was a paedophile?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Could I ask for evidence for how we all evolved from a worm.
Sure. No problem.
You seem to think, JC, that this hasn't already been posted by multiple posters on multiple occasions but since you insist on responding with this mindless reference to W2M evolution I'm going to deal with it because it's getting on my f*cking nerves.
The article that koth posted refers to a recent discovery of a specimen of one of the earliest chordate species, Pikaia gracilens. P. gracilens is thought to date to approx. 530 mya. As a primitive chordate it developed a notocord, a proto-spinal cord running the length of it's body which it retained throughout it's life (as opposed to other species who only retained a notocord for a short period). It was first discovered and described in 1911. This is a picture of the little fella as recovered from the Burgess Shale:
and how he would have looked in his Sunday best:
Now, chordates are a subgroup of deuterostomia (to which we belong, obviously), a group characterised by the anal end of the digestive tract opening before the mouth during development. Chordata is distinct from the other branches of deuterostomia, namely echinodermata and hemichordata because of the development of a persistent spinal cord for at least some portion of its life.
Now that I have explained who P. gracilens is and how it fits within chordata and chordata within deuterostomia, now we can see how the ongoing divergence of features leads us from chordata through a gradual filtering process to reach homo sapiens.
Chordata is split between tunicata (previously known as urochordata), hemichordata and craniata. The differentiation is the degree to which the notocord is retained throughout the life of the organism. Craniata, the subset of chordata whose brain is enclosed inside a skull is the one of interest to us.
Craniata is then divided between vertebrata and myxini or hagfish. Here we see the increasing development of calcified tissue being realised through the introduction of a vertebral column, a bony support structure for the spinal cord.
Vertebrata continues the development of calcified tissue and is split into many subgroups: Conodonta, Cephalaspidomorphi, Hyperoartia, Pteraspidomorphi and finally and most importantly, Gnathostomata. This is important since it marks the first appearance of David Coulthard the jawbone. Gnathostomata first appears in the Ordovician period approx. 450 mya and as a group includes 99% of all the vertebrates alive today.
The next major difference we see emerging is between cartilagenous and calcified skeletons. Here, gnathostomata splits between placodermi, chondrichthyes and teleostomi. Teleostomi, the group to which we belong, is distinguished by the development of a bony skeleton and an operculum (the structure in a fish which covers the gills).
Next we move on to the divisions in teleostomi between acanthodii and osteichthyes. Osteichthyes are differentiated from acanthodii by their increasing development of a bony skeleton including cranium, pelvic girdle and dermal bones while acanthodii retained a skeleton comprised of a bony infrastrucutre supported by cartilage. Also osteichthyes lacked the placoid scales seen in acanthodii.
From here osteichthyes splits between acinopterygii and sarcopterygii. The key difference here is the diverging fin development between the ray-finned fishes (acinopterygii) and the lobe-finned fishes (sarcopterygii). The ray-finned fishes can be seen in modern fish like the herring or bluefin tuna. The lobe-finned fishes show the start of the development of proto-limbs and lungs which would lead to the development of all four-limbed creatures (including us).
The next major development is the transition that is now (i.e. 345 mya) occurring as previously aquatic creatures move on to land. Of interest to us here is an offshoot of sarcopterygii called stegocephalia where the lobed fins of sarcopterygii have begun to develop digits on the end of the fins along with further development of the limbs themselves and an increased development of lungs at the expense of gills. Another subset of stegocephalia is tetrapoda, four-limbed land-based air-breathing creatures with a fully adapted quadripedal skeleton.
Tetrapoda is one of the most important developments after gnathostomata since it is one of the most easily recognisable supergroups to which we belong and includes most of the animals that are familiar with. However, before we move on, I want to include a cladogram so we have a visual representation of what we've covered so far.
The most pronounced divergence within tetrapoda occurs in the split between amphibia and amniota. Here the difference between the groups is developmental rather than morphological as we have seen previously, specifically in the emergence of the amnion or placenta to protect the young in the now (300 mya) rapidly changing environment.
As we move on through the development of amniota we return to morphological differences as a means to distinguish between the groups. In particular, the primary split in amniota between synapsida and sauropsida. The key feature here is the temporal fenestrae or, more correctly, the number of temporal fenestrae (the openings in the skull). Synapsids have just one pair of fenestrae while sauropsids are split between anapsids (e.g. turtles) which have none and diapsids (e.g. crocodiles, lizards, snakes) which have two. This is also where we part company with, among other groups, birds and dinosaurs.
As we move from synapsids towards our next major milestone, mammalia, the distinguishing characteristics between sister groups tend to be the result of ever increasing refinements of key features such as the brain and the skeleton as well as other changes related to diet and environment.
Synapsids split into eupelycosauria and caseasauria. Eupelycosauria then splits into edaphosauridae and sphenacodontia with sphenacodontia further splitting into sphenacodontidae and therapsida. The main change within this set of divergences is related to the development of dentition and associated changes in the skeleton and musculature.
Therapsids represent another important milestone on the road to mammals and eventually humans. Many of the characteristics that we tend to think of as unique to mammals originated here. These include body-wide hair follicles, lactation and new posture orientations.
Continuing with the development of skeleton and dentition refinements we can see that therapsida splits between eutherapsida and biarmosuchia. Eutherapsida then splits between neotherapsida and dinocephalia. Neotherapsida splits into theriodontia and anomodontia. Then, theriodontia diverges between eutheriodontia and gorgonopsia. It is interesting to note that each fork in the road can lead to an entirely different lineage being traced as we saw earlier in the split between amphibia and amniota, although here, each of the alternate branches biarmosuchia, dinocephalia, anomodontia and gorgonopsia are all extinct with no modern examples.
Following on from eutheriodontia we can see it splits between cynodontia and therocephalia. Cynodontia is another minor milestone since it sees the development of canine teeth among the improving dentiary features. This is especially important for tucking into a nice rib-eye. Cynodontia then splits into dviniidae, procynosuchidae and epicynodontia. Epicynodontia then splits between thrinaxodon and eucynodontia. Eucynodontia then splits into cynognathus and probainognathia. Then around 170 mya we see the emergence of mammaliaformes the progenitor of modern mammals as probainognathia diverges between tritheledontidae, chiniquodontidae and mammaliaformes.
Before we move on to the last leg of the journey from mammals to humans here's another cladogram so no-one loses their place.
The first major divergence following the emergence of mammals is that between monotremata and theriiformes (theria). It is here where we part company with modern mammals such as the platypus and echidna. The difference here is that monotremes give birth to their young as eggs while theria give birth to live young. Theria is then further divided between metatheria (marsupials) and eutheria (placentals).
Eutheria then splits between epitheria and xenartha with one of the key distinguishing features being the development of external testicles (in males obviously). Here we part company with armadillos, sloths and anteaters.
The next important division is between euarchontoglires and laurasiatheria. This is one of the first examples of a split based on genetic evidence and as a result, here, we part company with giraffes, shrews, hedgehogs, pangolins, whales and bats.
Next euarchontoglires, around 90 mya split into glires and euarchonta. Euarchonta ("true ancestors") is then split between primatomorpha, dermoptera and scandentia. Here we lose treeshrews and colugos and we see an increasing development toward the kind of creature that we would begin to recognise as our distant ancestor.
Finally around 85 mya we see the split in primatomorpha between primates and the now extinct pleisadapiformes. Given the considerable volume that has been posted about primates on thread recently I think I'll leave it there. Finally one last cladogram (from the Ancestor's tale) to recap the relationships between modern mammals.
So you can see JC, that we can trace our lineage from worms to man and we have a mountain of evidence from fossils, genetics and a multitude of other fields to support it.
The great thing about this is that we can use this lineage to build up an increasing set of characteristics which we can use to define a particular term. For example, we can describe craniates as a metazoic, nucleic, bilaterally symmetrical deuterostome coelamate with a spinal chord and a brain encased in a skull. As we move down through time towards the present we keep adding features so that by the time we get to primates we have a more precise and robust definition. We can define primates as:
"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebrial cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle."
You can even get have it on a t-shirt if you want.
My apologies to anyone who thinks this explanation is a little light on detail, well, because it is. Tracing over 500 mya of our ancestry is no small task and any description must be necessarily summary in detail. I have included as many wiki links as I could find so that anyone interested in finding out more (obviously not JC) can do some further reading. I would also recommend the Tree of Life Project as an excellent taxonomic resource.
[/FONT]0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Hey dlofnep, I forgive your ignorance. You've already damaged evolution too much with your ignorance and arrogance. But Did you know that a book was written by Michael H. Hart, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons, Michael H. Hart placed the paedophile, Muhammad at First. Was Michael H Hart too paedophile... The second person was paedophile, Isaac Newton... I mean he was lesser paedophile than Muhammad. He placed paedophile, Confucius at fifth and the rapist/paedophile Eistein was at number Ten... Do you know history more than Micheal H. Hart.... Let us see, How will you reaveal more of your ignorance.Hey dead one - Did you know that Muhammad was a paedophile? 0 -
Hey dlofnep, I forgive your ignorance. You've already damaged evolution too much with your ignorance and arrogance. But Did you know that a book was written by Michael H. Hart, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons, Michael H. Hart placed the paedophile, Muhammad at First. Was Michael H Hart too paedophile... The second person was paedophile, Isaac Newton... I mean he was lesser paedophile than Muhammad. He placed paedophile, Confucius at fifth and the rapist/paedophile Eistein was at number Ten... Do you know history more than Micheal H. Hart.... Let us see, How will you reaveal more of your ignorance.
So Michael H Harte been a paedo makes it ok that Muhammed was one?!
Last time i heard Michael H Harte was not a prophet for 1 of the worlds largest Religions/cults, nor was isaac Newton etc, i see no need to even try confirm that they where as it's irrelevant.Rush Boxing club and Rush Martial Arts head coach.
0 -
-
I was challenged to provide the evidence for Evolution (from our supposed single-celled common ancestor to us) ... and try as I might ... I couldn't find any evidence. Everyone I talked to cited many examples of variations within species (like the Grey-Brown-White Moths) ... but nothing that would support the enormous transitions involved in any putative evolution from Microbes to Men.thanks JC, This is the thing which places you above all atheist... JC tell me more about when you were evolutionist, what makes you to become a creationist. What was the thing which forced you to leave evolution. The evolutionists are now at that stage where you were years before.
I was so wedded to the validity of Evolution that I went into denial ... and told myself that the evidence must exist ... and some day I would find it.
All my Evolutionist friends assured me that the evidence must exist because 'we are here ... and we had to evolve from something small and simple'.
Then somebody pointed out to me that it could equally be that we are here as a result of the appliance of intelligence ... by a creative act by God. I initally rejected this as I was a Theistic Evolutionist at the time ... but the more I examined the evidence the more I found that rapid Creation was in line with the evidence ... and evolution (of any type) wasn't.
One of the reasons that I am very patient with the agression of the Evolutionists on this thread is that I was like them once ... cock sure that Evolution was a fact ... and everything else was just 'hot air' ... it took me a long time to realise that the reverse is actually the situation.
I must say, however, that I was never personally insulting to Creationists when I was an Evolutionist ... I listened to them with a mixture of respect and pity ... because I thought that I knew it all ... and Creation had long since been disproven.
... but how wrong I was!!!:)0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement