Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Early head and heart

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Early head and heart

    Source: Reasons to Believe


    Paleontologists didn't expect to discover Fuxianhuia fossils with modern neural and cardiovascular systems in the early Cambrian. Researchers believe that this creature was one of the first arthropods. If so, then according to an evolutionary model, Fuxianhuia should display primitive systems, not the advanced ones of modern-day arthropods. Thus, the appearance of organisms with complex neural and cardiovascular systems further exacerbates the challenges facing the evolutionary paradigm, which requires much more time for the gradual emergence of animal phyla.

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source


    Papers referenced are here and here.

    Source: Nature

    The early origin of sophisticated brains provides a probable driver for versatile visual behaviours, a view that accords with compound eyes from the early Cambrian that were, in size and resolution, equal to those of modern insects and malacostracans.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  • #2
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Source: Reasons to Believe


    Paleontologists didn't expect to discover Fuxianhuia fossils with modern neural and cardiovascular systems in the early Cambrian. Researchers believe that this creature was one of the first arthropods. If so, then according to an evolutionary model, Fuxianhuia should display primitive systems, not the advanced ones of modern-day arthropods. Thus, the appearance of organisms with complex neural and cardiovascular systems further exacerbates the challenges facing the evolutionary paradigm, which requires much more time for the gradual emergence of animal phyla.

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source


    Papers referenced are here and here.

    Source: Nature

    The early origin of sophisticated brains provides a probable driver for versatile visual behaviours, a view that accords with compound eyes from the early Cambrian that were, in size and resolution, equal to those of modern insects and malacostracans.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Blessings,
    Lee
    Bold above, simply no. The Fuxianhuia evolved from earlier simply animals.

    My advise, stop making a fool of yourself looking fo rabbit fossils in Cambrian rocks. Your sources are bogus and not science.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #3
      Source: Science

      The arthropod Fuxianhuia from the Chengjiang fauna displays primitive aspects of cephalic segmentation and trunk limb morphology that indicate a basal position within Euarthropoda.

      Source

      © Copyright Original Source



      So which simpler animals did you mean?

      Blessings,
      Lee
      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        Source: Science

        The arthropod Fuxianhuia from the Chengjiang fauna displays primitive aspects of cephalic segmentation and trunk limb morphology that indicate a basal position within Euarthropoda.

        Source

        © Copyright Original Source



        So which simpler animals did you mean?

        Blessings,
        Lee
        Are you attempting the fallacy of an 'argument from ignorance.' The old missing link fallacy. New discoveries just simply add more information in the evolution of animals in the Cambrian. There are numerous simpler animals older than the Fuxianhuia.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-10-2019, 10:02 PM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          Source: Reasons to Believe


          Paleontologists didn't expect to discover Fuxianhuia fossils with modern neural and cardiovascular systems in the early Cambrian. Researchers believe that this creature was one of the first arthropods. If so, then according to an evolutionary model, Fuxianhuia should display primitive systems, not the advanced ones of modern-day arthropods. Thus, the appearance of organisms with complex neural and cardiovascular systems further exacerbates the challenges facing the evolutionary paradigm, which requires much more time for the gradual emergence of animal phyla.

          Source

          © Copyright Original Source


          Papers referenced are here and here.

          Source: Nature

          The early origin of sophisticated brains provides a probable driver for versatile visual behaviours, a view that accords with compound eyes from the early Cambrian that were, in size and resolution, equal to those of modern insects and malacostracans.

          © Copyright Original Source



          Blessings,
          Lee
          Just basing your argument on the selective reference of new discoveries that in and of themselves adds information to the theory of evolution without context of the overall knowledge of the fossil evidence of the Cambrian and PreCambrian is fundamentally unethical in science.

          It is obvious, and not meaningful, that science does not expect new discoveries.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-11-2019, 09:14 AM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            Source: Reasons to Believe

            Researchers believe that this creature was one of the first arthropods. If so, then according to an evolutionary model, Fuxianhuia should display primitive systems, not the advanced ones of modern-day arthropods.
            Source

            © Copyright Original Source

            Sooooo, no real surprise given the source, but that's false. As the papers themselves make clear, we have almost no other soft tissues preserving those details from arthropods or any other animals. Thus, we don't even know what was "primitive" at the time. (Primitive is a terrible term, given that there's no objective standard for advanced, hence the quotes.)

            Were these common features at the time, but has only been maintained in arthropods? Does the arthropod lineage actually predate this species? Did all contemporary members of arthropoda share these features? Did the origin of these features define the arthropod lineage, and thus should be expected in this organism?

            We don't know because we simply don't have the data, as the papers themselves make clear.
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
              Thus, we don't even know what was "primitive" at the time. (Primitive is a terrible term, given that there's no objective standard for advanced, hence the quotes.)
              Well, primitive, as opposed to modern brains and cardiovascular systems.

              Were these common features at the time, but has only been maintained in arthropods?
              Don't know that this matters, though, what would be of interest here is why such modern systems appear so early.

              Does the arthropod lineage actually predate this species?
              I believe the considered opinion of the scientists is no, see the quote above from Science.

              Did all contemporary members of arthropoda share these features?
              That would be interesting either way, but again, the early appearance of a modern brain and cardiovascular system in this Cambrian creature is not what we would expect in the fossil record.

              Did the origin of these features define the arthropod lineage, and thus should be expected in this organism?
              I'm not sure what you're getting at here, though.

              Blessings,
              Lee
              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Are you attempting the fallacy of an 'argument from ignorance.' The old missing link fallacy. New discoveries just simply add more information in the evolution of animals in the Cambrian.
                No, it's the present link that's the problem, the early appearance of a modern brain and cardiovascular system.

                There are numerous simpler animals older than the Fuxianhuia.
                But this doesn't prove descent.

                Blessings,
                Lee
                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  No, it's the present link that's the problem, the early appearance of a modern brain and cardiovascular system.

                  But this doesn't prove descent.
                  There is no 'proof' in science. It is a given in all your threads that you reject evolution and common descent. You are still looking for rabbit fossils in Cambrian rocks, and blatantly misrepresenting science at every opportunity. This is your favorite the 'arguing from ignorance' expecting 'missing links' with every new discovery. This beyond bogus science.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    There is no 'proof' in science. It is a given in all your threads that you reject evolution and common descent. You are still looking for rabbit fossils in Cambrian rocks, and blatantly misrepresenting science at every opportunity. This is your favorite the 'arguing from ignorance' expecting 'missing links' with every new discovery. This beyond bogus science.
                    And let's not forget how when a so-called "missing link" is discovered what the all too typical reaction is



                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      You really, really need to learn some biology before you start talking evolution. Because the things you say just don't make sense.

                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Well, primitive, as opposed to modern brains and cardiovascular systems.


                      Don't know that this matters, though, what would be of interest here is why such modern systems appear so early.
                      is a cartilaginous or bony skeleton primitive or modern? Sophisticated, highly evolved versions of both exist in modern organisms, so you can't say. Insects have apparently taken the general structure of a nervous system that was present in the Cambrian and, through hundreds of millions of years of evolution, refined and specialized it for a dizzying variety of lifestyles. Is any version of this - either fossil or existent - "modern" or "primitive"? These terms just don't make sense for the discussion you want to have.

                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      That would be interesting either way, but again, the early appearance of a modern brain and cardiovascular system in this Cambrian creature is not what we would expect in the fossil record.
                      Neither the personal expectations of you, nor those of the scientists doing the work, is a measurable scientific quantity that can be used to test a hypothesis. If the expectations were based on something more scientific, then we can talk about the implications of this finding. Instead, we have the equivalent of "i wouldn't have expected old stuff to look roughly similar to current stuff".

                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      I'm not sure what you're getting at here, though.
                      Let me give you a concrete example. Birds have unidirectional air flow through their lungs, which helps them manage their astonishing metabolism. For many years, that was thought to have evolved under the selective pressure of flight. Then, some bright spark decided to actually look at birds' relatives, and found that the rather sluggish ambush predator the alligator also has one-way air flow through its lungs. Birds undoubtedly got it from their ancestors. Thus, the trait was present everywhere on the dinosaur family tree when birds first evolved - they couldn't not have that feature.
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                        Insects have apparently taken the general structure of a nervous system that was present in the Cambrian and, through hundreds of millions of years of evolution, refined and specialized it for a dizzying variety of lifestyles. Is any version of this - either fossil or existent - "modern" or "primitive"? These terms just don't make sense for the discussion you want to have.
                        Well, they say:

                        Source: Science

                        The arthropod Fuxianhuia from the Chengjiang fauna displays primitive aspects of cephalic segmentation and trunk limb morphology that indicate a basal position within Euarthropoda.

                        Source

                        © Copyright Original Source


                        So yes, it does make sense to talk in such terms.

                        Let me give you a concrete example. Birds have unidirectional air flow through their lungs, which helps them manage their astonishing metabolism. For many years, that was thought to have evolved under the selective pressure of flight. Then, some bright spark decided to actually look at birds' relatives, and found that the rather sluggish ambush predator the alligator also has one-way air flow through its lungs. Birds undoubtedly got it from their ancestors. Thus, the trait was present everywhere on the dinosaur family tree when birds first evolved - they couldn't not have that feature.
                        So if this was the case with arthropods, that only exacerbates the problem!

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          Well, they say:

                          Source: Science

                          The arthropod Fuxianhuia from the Chengjiang fauna displays primitive aspects of cephalic segmentation and trunk limb morphology that indicate a basal position within Euarthropoda.

                          Source

                          © Copyright Original Source


                          So yes, it does make sense to talk in such terms.


                          So if this was the case with arthropods, that only exacerbates the problem!

                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          No the only problem is yours, 'arguing from ignorance.' These fossil finds only add more information for the evolution of life, and you will always find gaps within gaps within gaps to continue your perpetual motion argument to justify your religious agenda.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Perhaps I'm getting the wrong impression here — I'm only a layman, and not well versed in the intricacies of debating — but merrill's doing the Gish gallop with all these threads, correct? 'Cause they seem essentially the same, recycling the same argument(s) refuted numerous times already.
                            Last edited by Duragizer; 05-12-2019, 08:33 PM.
                            "When the Western world accepted Christianity, Caesar conquered; and the received text of Western theology was edited by his lawyers…. The brief Galilean vision of humility flickered throughout the ages, uncertainly…. But the deeper idolatry, of the fashioning of God in the image of the Egyptian, Persian, and Roman imperial rulers, was retained. The Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar."

                            — Alfred North Whitehead

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Duragizer View Post
                              Perhaps I'm getting the wrong impression here — I'm only a layman, and not well versed in the intricacies of debating — but merrill's doing the Gish gallop with all these threads, correct? 'Cause they seem essentially the same, recycling the same argument(s) refuted numerous times already.
                              True, primarily 'arguing from ignorance,' and selectively misrepresenting references to justify an 'Intelligent Design' agenda.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                              48 responses
                              135 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                              16 responses
                              74 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                              6 responses
                              47 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X