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

  • #46
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, the problem is that where primitive brains might be expected, we see complex (relative to brachiopod) brains instead. And are you arguing that substantial brain and cardiovascular development could have occurred in the Ediacaran?

    Blessings,
    Lee
    The present fossil record is, of course, incomplete. Yes the scientists eventually expect to find more primitive fossils that are older, and yes, in the history of paleontology that is what they have found. They do not prejudge there finds before they are found, but nonetheless you are prejudging by an unethical 'arguing from ignorance,' what scientists can and cannot find.

    The simpler forms could have evolved earlier in the Cambrian or the Ediacaran. there are millions of years for this to happen.
    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


    • #47
      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      Well, the problem is that where primitive brains might be expected, we see complex (relative to brachiopod) brains instead. And are you arguing that substantial brain and cardiovascular development could have occurred in the Ediacaran?
      Why not? You already agreed that segmented body plans are complex, and there's plenty of those in the Ediacaran.

      Incidentally, since you don't know how complex the branchiopod central nervous system is, i'll clue you in: two ganglia near the esophagus. That's it. So "more complex than a branchiopod's" is not exactly a huge hurdle for a CNS to clear.

      Once again, given it was clear that this was central to your argument, i'd have assumed you'd look it up by now. But, once again, you're demonstrating that you don't care about biology, especially when said biology doesn't support your argument.
      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        So I started a thread to discuss the state of origin-of-life research.
        And, in that other thread, you've just claimed that it has nothing to do with evidence for intelligent design. So, non-sequitur?
        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          No, I'm an Old Earth Creationist.
          So you think humans evolved, even though Adam and Eve actually existed? You believe they were fully Homo sapiens sapiens when they were born? And that they came from simpler ancestors?

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Seeker View Post
            So you think humans evolved, even though Adam and Eve actually existed?
            There isn't necessarily a conflict.

            You believe they were fully Homo sapiens sapiens when they were born? And that they came from simpler ancestors?
            Nothing makes H Sap Sap necessary. (given the time scales posited by evolutionary theory).
            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


            • #51
              James Tour's view towards abiogenesis and evolution is basically fundamentalist Christian belief, and is a very poor starting point for a scientific discussion on the origins of life.

              Source: https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/


              Based upon my faith in the biblical text, I do believe (yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. As for many of the details and the time-spans, I personally become less clear. Some may ask, What’s “less clear” about the text that reads, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth”? That is a fair question, and I wish I had an answer that would satisfy them. But I do not because I remain less clear. So, in addition to my chemically based scientific resistance to a macroevolutionary proposal, I am also theologically reticent to embrace it. As a lover of the biblical text, I cannot allegorize the Book of Genesis that far, lest, as Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof said, “If I try and bend that far, I’ll break!” God seems to have set nature as a clue, not a solution, to keep us yearning for him. And if some day we do understand the mechanisms for these macroevolutionary changes, and also the processes that led to the origin of first life, it will not lessen God. As with all discoveries, like when the genetic code in the double-stranded DNA was discovered, they will serve to underscore the magnanimity of God.

              © Copyright Original Source



              The interesting point for discussion without the ambiguous; 'arguing from ignorance,' Gaps within gaps within gaps, and the misuse of randomness and probability, is given the evidence at hand; Is there an alternate hypothesis that fits the evidence and comes up with a different conclusion concerning the 'origin of life'?
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-19-2019, 10:20 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


              • #52
                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)?

                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


                • #53
                  Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  Why not? You already agreed that segmented body plans are complex, and there's plenty of those in the Ediacaran.
                  But not plenty of relatively complex brains.

                  Incidentally, since you don't know how complex the branchiopod central nervous system is, i'll clue you in: two ganglia near the esophagus. That's it. So "more complex than a branchiopod's" is not exactly a huge hurdle for a CNS to clear.

                  Once again, given it was clear that this was central to your argument, i'd have assumed you'd look it up by now. But, once again, you're demonstrating that you don't care about biology, especially when said biology doesn't support your argument.
                  Well, here is the description of the Fuxianhuia 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


                  Sounds a good deal more sophisticated than two ganglia!

                  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


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                    And, in that other thread, you've just claimed that it has nothing to do with evidence for intelligent design. So, non-sequitur?
                    No, I just repeated that James Tour is not an ID proponent. The evidence I believe is there, in the design of the cell.

                    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


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Seeker View Post
                      So you think humans evolved, even though Adam and Eve actually existed? You believe they were fully Homo sapiens sapiens when they were born? And that they came from simpler ancestors?
                      I believe in the special creation of Adam and Eve, from dust in the ground, as Homo sapiens sapiens. See for example, "Who Was Adam?" for a discussion of human origins along these lines.

                      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


                      • #56
                        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)?
                        Yep. Numerous evolutionary biologists offered to explain the topic to Tour but he begged off every one. The most famous offer came from Dr. Nick Matzke of the NCSE who offered to fly to Houston and buy Tour lunch while he explained macroevolution with the one condition the event be recorded so what was said wouldn't be misrepresented by the DI. Tour refused that offer too. Tour knows he's just grandstanding, science knows he's just grandstanding, but Tour doesn't want the general public to know what a Liar For Jesus he is.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          But not plenty of relatively complex brains.


                          Well, here is the description of the Fuxianhuia 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


                          Sounds a good deal more sophisticated than two ganglia!

                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          So what?!?! You have failed to explain the problem except to claim an 'argument from ignorance.'
                          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


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            No, I just repeated that James Tour is not an ID proponent. The evidence I believe is there, in the design of the cell.

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            There is no evidence that the cell is designed.
                            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


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              But not plenty of relatively complex brains.!
                              Do we know that? Show me fossilized evidence of the structure of an Ediacaran brain. If you can't, please retract this claim.

                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              Sounds a good deal more sophisticated than two ganglia!
                              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?
                              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                                No, I just repeated that James Tour is not an ID proponent. The evidence I believe is there, in the design of the cell.
                                Then why's he talking about prebiotic chemistry instead of the design of the cell?

                                Could it be that your second post is actually not relevant to what you claim it is?
                                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                                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