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

  • #61
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    There isn't necessarily a conflict.



    Nothing makes H Sap Sap necessary. (given the time scales posited by evolutionary theory).
    You mean they didn't have to be H H Sapiens when they 'apppeared'? Adam and Eve could have been simpler creatures?

    Comment


    • #62
      In theory, there are varieties of H Sap that could have been the original peoples of the Genesis record.
      The most recent event of geological record that could provide the fundamentals of the Noah story was 700 000 years ago. That is within a fair estimate of H Sap times, but outside H Sap Sap (to the best of current knowledge.)
      Genesis does provide a brief account of possible genetic changes post Noah's ark; from a vegetarian to omnivorous diet.

      As I said, not necessarily ... that doesn't mean that I believe it - just that I'm keeping the books open.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        In theory, there are varieties of H Sap that could have been the original peoples of the Genesis record.
        The most recent event of geological record that could provide the fundamentals of the Noah story was 700 000 years ago. That is within a fair estimate of H Sap times, but outside H Sap Sap (to the best of current knowledge.)
        Actually the best estimate of an event that parallels the Genesis story of the flood is the catastrophic Sumerian flood of the Tigris Euphrates Valley between 4000 and 2000 BCE and the associated Sumerian cuneiform record.

        As far as the history of human ancestors the evidence indicates a more gradual rise of Homo sapiens or Homo sapiens sapiens?, direct documented fossils of H sap. goes back at least to the sub species Homo Sap Idaltu at about ~160,000 years ago. Evidence indicates that there was a large variation Homo subspecies around the world going back one to two million years, and the Neanderthals split off at least ~800,000 or more years ago. The evidence indicates that these variations of subspecies did interbred at different times, as with Neanderthals. IT accepted today that Homo sapiens sapiens evolved out of this to dominate the world.

        Genesis does provide a brief account of possible genetic changes post Noah's ark; from a vegetarian to omnivorous diet.
        The dominante evidence indicates that Homo sapiens and our relatives were by far dominantly omnivorous Stone Age tool makers going back to more than one to two million years.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-20-2019, 01:47 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


        • #64
          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
          Do we know that? Show me fossilized evidence of the structure of an Ediacaran brain. If you can't, please retract this claim.
          Well, they don't seem to have stomachs (at 18:40), so it would seem unlikely they have brains. In this link they also mention sensory systems which led to brains today (at 33:40), which would imply no brains.

          Indeed. It's three!

          Why didn't you look this up, rather than waiting for me to tell you, if it's central to your argument? Again, i have to ask, don't you care about getting things right?
          I think three ganglia is making a complex brain seem simple (for the detailed description, see above). Reference, please?

          Blessings,
          Lee
          Last edited by lee_merrill; 05-20-2019, 02:58 PM.
          "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


          • #65
            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
            Then why's he talking about prebiotic chemistry instead of the design of the cell?
            He does talk extensively about the design of the cell, see the opening post, with DNA assembly, carbohydrate assembly, and interactome.

            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


            • #66
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              He does talk extensively about the design of the cell, see the opening post, with DNA assembly, carbohydrate assembly, and interactome.

              Blessings,
              Lee
              Talk is cheap.
              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


              • #67
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Actually the best estimate of an event that parallels the Genesis story of the flood is the catastrophic Sumerian flood of the Tigris Euphrates Valley between 4000 and 2000 BCE and the associated Sumerian cuneiform record.

                As far as the history of human ancestors the evidence indicates a more gradual rise of Homo sapiens or Homo sapiens sapiens?, direct documented fossils of H sap. goes back at least to the sub species Homo Sap Idaltu at about ~160,000 years ago. Evidence indicates that there was a large variation Homo subspecies around the world going back one to two million years, and the Neanderthals split off at least ~800,000 or more years ago. The evidence indicates that these variations of subspecies did interbred at different times, as with Neanderthals. IT accepted today that Homo sapiens sapiens evolved out of this to dominate the world.



                The dominante evidence indicates that Homo sapiens and our relatives were by far dominantly omnivorous Stone Age tool makers going back to more than one to two million years.
                That was NOT a near extinction event.
                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                .
                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                Scripture before Tradition:
                but that won't prevent others from
                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  That was NOT a near extinction event.
                  The near extinction event you possibly refer to did not occur 700,000 years ago. It occurred ~70,000 years, ago. Yes it likely occurred due to the catastrophic Mount Toba event, and yes populations of animals including our humanoid ancestors dropped drastically with some extinctions, and yes the home sapien population of Africa was greatly decreased to a limited genetic population, but more recent genetic and paleontological fossil evidence indicates that populations of our relatives, including the Neanderthals that we inherited our genetics survived world wide and mixed with homo sapien ancestors that migrated out of Africa. Evidence also concludes the distinct homo sapiens existed in Africa at least 160,000 years ago and longer widely distributed across Africa, and the Middle East.

                  I believe it is a huge stretch to associate this with the Biblical record of human origins, or a Biblical flood.
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-21-2019, 07:44 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


                  • #69
                    I may have the time frame wrong, but Toba isn't the event I was thinking of. As you said - Toba doesn't account for the Biblical record of Noah. I regard the story of Noah as unlikely in the extreme - If anything matches* that event, it certainly was not less than 200 000 years ago, though less than 300 000 might be an outside possibility.

                    * insofar as the bare essentials are concerned.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Well, they don't seem to have stomachs (at 18:40), so it would seem unlikely they have brains.
                      Why do you say that? Or, rather, what biological principal do you base that conclusion on?

                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      In this link they also mention sensory systems which led to brains today (at 33:40), which would imply no brains.
                      Not clear whether she means "brains like today's" or what; it's especially ambiguous given that she just said that the foraging behavior indicated that "things are getting smarter" throughout the Ediacaran. Hard to get smarter without a brain.

                      So i'd rate that video as ambiguous on the topic.

                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      I think three ganglia is making a complex brain seem simple (for the detailed description, see above). Reference, please?
                      I am to an extent, but that's avoiding the point.

                      The point is that YOU DON'T KNOW. This is your argument, you've been pushing it for weeks, and you haven't bothered to do even the most minimal bit of research to support it.

                      Why do you always make other people do the work for you? Why can't you be bothered to put in the effort to support your own arguments?



                      In any case, a short discourse on the insect central nervous system (CNS) for those who care.

                      Insects have a ventral nerve cord as opposed to the dorsal one in us vertebrates (the axis seems to have flipped in the hemichordates, which have a diffuse, cordless nervous system). There's typically a dense cluster of nerves in each segment—a ganglion—so the CNS (though not the brain) has multiple ganglia.

                      You can see a nice diagram of the insect brain here:

                      (A less pretty version that shows the same thing.)

                      What you'll see is that the brain's structure is dominated by input processing centers, paired left and right side. These include inputs from the compound eyes and antenna labelled there; there's also something unlabelled called the "mushroom body" - it's the thing just above where the eyes feed in, and it handles smell/taste input (the two senses are often hard to distinguish in insects). Everything below the esophageal connective or so is not part of the brain proper, but elaboration of the nerve cord.

                      Outside of sensory input, you have basically three key structures (the source of my "three ganglia" oversimplification). One's a central body that seems to have a general coordinating function - the sort of "brain" proper - and two that act as intermediaries between the brain and the nerve cord. They're shown as left and right in this diagram, but it's usually not quite that neat, as the less pretty diagram shows.

                      What's the take home of this in terms of evolutionary complexity? That most of the brain structures you'll see in insects are the product of having sensory input to deal with (that's also clear from reading one of the abstracts that a Lee linked too). We know compound eyes were around by the time of the Cambrian, and so it's completely predictable that Cambrian arthropods would have a pair of lobes for handling their input. Same with antenna. And those processing centers are the key structures that have been identified in these fossils based on the carbon imprints they left behind.

                      If you're interested in brain complexity that's not dictated by the body (and its sensory organs), well, the insect's a lousy place to look. The actual brain proper is pretty small and doesn't have the same kind of elaborate, compartmentalized structure that vertebrate brains have. And the fossils described in the papers Lee has linked don't seem to be able to resolve anything about it, merely that it's there.



                      TL; DR: complexity in the insect CNS is driven by the presence of sensory organs, and Cambrian arthropods had a full suite of sensory organs. Lee's demand for a low-complexity CNS seems to imply that he expects these sensory organs should exist without the ability to process their input (?).

                      Prediction: Lee will now shift the goalposts to arguing that the earliest arthropods shouldn't have a full suite of sensory organs.
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                        Why do you say that? Or, rather, what biological principal do you base that conclusion on?


                        Not clear whether she means "brains like today's" or what; it's especially ambiguous given that she just said that the foraging behavior indicated that "things are getting smarter" throughout the Ediacaran. Hard to get smarter without a brain.

                        So i'd rate that video as ambiguous on the topic.


                        I am to an extent, but that's avoiding the point.

                        The point is that YOU DON'T KNOW. This is your argument, you've been pushing it for weeks, and you haven't bothered to do even the most minimal bit of research to support it.

                        Why do you always make other people do the work for you? Why can't you be bothered to put in the effort to support your own arguments?



                        In any case, a short discourse on the insect central nervous system (CNS) for those who care.

                        Insects have a ventral nerve cord as opposed to the dorsal one in us vertebrates (the axis seems to have flipped in the hemichordates, which have a diffuse, cordless nervous system). There's typically a dense cluster of nerves in each segment—a ganglion—so the CNS (though not the brain) has multiple ganglia.

                        You can see a nice diagram of the insect brain here:

                        (A less pretty version that shows the same thing.)

                        What you'll see is that the brain's structure is dominated by input processing centers, paired left and right side. These include inputs from the compound eyes and antenna labelled there; there's also something unlabelled called the "mushroom body" - it's the thing just above where the eyes feed in, and it handles smell/taste input (the two senses are often hard to distinguish in insects). Everything below the esophageal connective or so is not part of the brain proper, but elaboration of the nerve cord.

                        Outside of sensory input, you have basically three key structures (the source of my "three ganglia" oversimplification). One's a central body that seems to have a general coordinating function - the sort of "brain" proper - and two that act as intermediaries between the brain and the nerve cord. They're shown as left and right in this diagram, but it's usually not quite that neat, as the less pretty diagram shows.

                        What's the take home of this in terms of evolutionary complexity? That most of the brain structures you'll see in insects are the product of having sensory input to deal with (that's also clear from reading one of the abstracts that a Lee linked too). We know compound eyes were around by the time of the Cambrian, and so it's completely predictable that Cambrian arthropods would have a pair of lobes for handling their input. Same with antenna. And those processing centers are the key structures that have been identified in these fossils based on the carbon imprints they left behind.

                        If you're interested in brain complexity that's not dictated by the body (and its sensory organs), well, the insect's a lousy place to look. The actual brain proper is pretty small and doesn't have the same kind of elaborate, compartmentalized structure that vertebrate brains have. And the fossils described in the papers Lee has linked don't seem to be able to resolve anything about it, merely that it's there.



                        TL; DR: complexity in the insect CNS is driven by the presence of sensory organs, and Cambrian arthropods had a full suite of sensory organs. Lee's demand for a low-complexity CNS seems to imply that he expects these sensory organs should exist without the ability to process their input (?).

                        Prediction: Lee will now shift the goalposts to arguing that the earliest arthropods shouldn't have a full suite of sensory organs.
                        A lot of work on this, which Dory will sidestep or ignore.
                        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


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                          Why do you say that? Or, rather, what biological principal do you base that conclusion on?
                          Well, it does seem that an animal without a stomach would be a primitive animal, which would therefore not have much of a brain.

                          The point is that YOU DON'T KNOW. This is your argument, you've been pushing it for weeks, and you haven't bothered to do even the most minimal bit of research to support it.
                          I've posted and reposted a description of Fuxianhuia's brain:

                          Source: Ma et. al.

                          The protocerebrum of Fuxianhuia is supplied by optic lobes evidencing traces of three nested optic centres serving forward-viewing eyes. Nerves from uniramous antennae define the deutocerebrum, and a stout pair of more caudal nerves indicates a contiguous tritocerebral component. Fuxianhuia shares a tripartite pre-stomodeal brain and nested optic neuropils with extant Malacostraca and Insecta, demonstrating that these characters were present in some of the earliest derived arthropods.

                          Source

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          In any case, a short discourse on the insect central nervous system (CNS) for those who care.
                          That is complex! And I hear they've trained wasps to discern the difference between colors and more.

                          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


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            I've posted and reposted a description of Fuxianhuia's brain.
                            And how much of it did you understand when you posted it?
                            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              A lot of work on this, which Dory will sidestep or ignore.
                              It was less work than you might think, given i did my thesis on fruit flies and worked on neural development for a while.
                              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                Isn't Tour the guy who once erroneously declared that "there is not a scientist living today that understands macroevolution" (a proclamation made after talking to a handful of his chemist colleagues and not with a single biologist)?
                                My mistake. Tours never said that "no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution." Instead that was the deliberately erroneous spin that the boys at Uncommon Descent came up with and has been now widely attributed to him by numerous evolution deniers who mindlessly and unquestioning parrot it.

                                What Tours actually said was that he does not understand macroevolution and that the few synthetic chemists that he asked about it did not seem to understand it either. Of course that hardly means that "no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution" by any stretch and it is incredibly dishonest to pretend otherwise.

                                Moreover Tours should have been asking biologists, zoologists or maybe geneticists rather than synthetic chemists. It's no different than asking geologists for an explanation on quantum physics. You are simply asking the wrong experts[1].

                                Further, it appears that Tours was not even asking them about macroevolution in the first place but rather about the origin of life ("How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA?").

                                If that is indeed the case and he really is that confused about the matter then is it really a surprise that he says that many of those fellow synthetic chemists who he asked "just stare at me" and don't respond? I doubt that it is, as he concludes, "because they can't sincerely do it" but rather because they're trying to decide if he is serious or merely joking.





                                1. Someone speaking about something outside of their field of expertise has no more authoritative view on the matter than a plumber pontificating on the cardiopulmonary system.

                                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

                                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
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X