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

  • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    That's fine, but I'm trying to consider when brains and relatively complex cardiovascular systems may have first appeared.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    This is at present unknown, but most likely at sometime between 1000 million years ago and when the Fuxianhuia existed. There is no specific definable time frame limit of when the simpler animals that lead to Fuxianhuia existed and evolved. We know when photosynthesis began in the evolutionary process, and when fungus is known to exist, multicellular animals, and bilaterians existed.

    There are hundreds of millions of years for the evolution to take place.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-30-2019, 04:27 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


    • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      Well, that's because I disagree with your conclusion! I hold that "things that led to brains" would not be brains.
      It doesn't say "things that led to brains". It just says "things not like today's brains". There's a rather enormous difference between those two.

      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      If things that led to brains would be what we see in the Ediacaran, then the end of the Ediacaran would be the first chance for a brain.

      Source: Paulin

      Nervous systems appear to have evolved in the late Ediacaran period about 550 million years ago (Ma), at the same time that animals first started eating each other.

      Source

      © Copyright Original Source

      The paper you're quoting is an argument that this is the timing. Its author doesn't cite any data as a source for that date, which you'd realized if you actually read the paper and checked its references, instead of latching on to the first thing that you think supports your argument. In fact, the only things cited anywhere near that statement are:
      His own arguments that this is when it happened.
      A textbook on the Cambrian.

      Which brings us back to my point: nobody, most certainly not you, knows when brains evolved. It's fair to say that it was somewhere between the origins of bilaterians at about 585 Myear ago, and the Cambrian. But nobody knows exactly where and, because the global glaciations of the Ediacaran wiped about 2km of rocks off the surface of much of the planet, chances aren't great we're going to get an exact date.

      Your entire argument is based on there being too little time available, yet nobody on earth knows how much time was available. Do you see the conflict there?
      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
        It doesn't say "things that led to brains". It just says "things not like today's brains". There's a rather enormous difference between those two.
        No, the quote is "things that led to brains today."

        Its author doesn't cite any data as a source for that date, which you'd realized if you actually read the paper and checked its references, instead of latching on to the first thing that you think supports your argument. In fact, the only things cited anywhere near that statement are:
        His own arguments that this is when it happened.
        A textbook on the Cambrian.
        I'm not sure what would satisfy you then! You seem to be implying that the author doesn't know what he's talking about.

        It's fair to say that it was somewhere between the origins of bilaterians at about 585 Myear ago, and the Cambrian.
        Source: Paulin

        Evidence of carnivory appears in the fossil record starting at about 550Ma, and escalates slowly until the relatively sudden appearance of most modern animal phyla in the Cambrian explosion twenty million years later (Erwin and Valentine, 2013; Marshall, 2006). But carnivory is likely to have preceded any of these expensive innovations (Monk et al., 2015).

        Source

        © Copyright Original Source


        I take this to be further evidence of his claim that "Nervous systems appear to have evolved in the late Ediacaran period about 550 million years ago (Ma), at the same time that animals first started eating each other."

        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


        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          This is at present unknown, but most likely at sometime between 1000 million years ago and when the Fuxianhuia existed.
          Well, see my comments to TheLurch, I think we can narrow the timeframe considerably.

          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


          • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            No, the quote is "things that led to brains today."


            I'm not sure what would satisfy you then! You seem to be implying that the author doesn't know what he's talking about.



            Source: Paulin

            Evidence of carnivory appears in the fossil record starting at about 550Ma, and escalates slowly until the relatively sudden appearance of most modern animal phyla in the Cambrian explosion twenty million years later (Erwin and Valentine, 2013; Marshall, 2006). But carnivory is likely to have preceded any of these expensive innovations (Monk et al., 2015).

            Source

            © Copyright Original Source


            I take this to be further evidence of his claim that "Nervous systems appear to have evolved in the late Ediacaran period about 550 million years ago (Ma), at the same time that animals first started eating each other."

            Blessings,
            Lee
            Not as sudden in a time frame of millions of years. I do not see a problem except 'arguing from ignorance' based on a religious agenda that you have clearly and specifically stated.
            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


            • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              No, the quote is "things that led to brains today."
              Either way, it does not support a "no brains" contention.

              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              I'm not sure what would satisfy you then! You seem to be implying that the author doesn't know what he's talking about.
              No, i'm pointing out that he's advancing an argument, not stating widely agreed facts. His argument is that complex brains evolved in tandem with carnivory. As such, he makes the contention that the two appeared simultaneously in the fossil record, but is unable to cite a clear indication that this is the case, because we simply don't know precisely when either appeared.

              The next paper you're citing is the proposal that spiking neurons enabled carnivorous behavior. Again, it's interpreting a sparse fossil record in a way that supports its argument.

              Neither of these are wrong. Both are valid interpretations of limited physical evidence. But they're not the primary sources describing that physical evidence, and other interpretations are obviously possible - otherwise, these papers wouldn't need to be making these arguments.

              If you want to talk about what we know about the fossils record, you need to find papers that describe the actual fossils. Why you've wandered into this group of papers, which are focused on issues derived from that record, i'm not entirely sure.
              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                Well, see my comments to TheLurch, I think we can narrow the timeframe considerably.

                Blessings,
                Lee
                Not necessarily, the first embryos are found earlier possibly are similar to complex Cambrian organisms.

                Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_fossil


                Fossilized embryos of the 635- to 551-million year old Doushantuo Formation of southern China exhibit occasional asynchronous cell division, common in modern embryos, implying that sophisticated mechanisms for differential cell division timing and embryonic cell lineage differentiation evolved before 551 million years ago. However, embryos composed of hundreds to more than ~1000 cells still show no evidence of blastocoel formation or the organization of blastomeres into epithelia - epithelialization should be underway in modern embryos with >100 cells. Features preserved on Doushantuo embryos are compatible with metazoans (animals), but the absence of epithelialization is consistent only with a stem-metazoan affinity.[4] It is not until the Cambrian that embryos with demonstrable eumetazoan features occur; gastrulation and a pentaradial symmetry are expressed in some lower Cambrian fossils.

                © Copyright Original Source

                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


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  Not necessarily, the first embryos are found earlier possibly are similar to complex Cambrian organisms.

                  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_fossil


                  Fossilized embryos of the 635- to 551-million year old Doushantuo Formation of southern China exhibit occasional asynchronous cell division, common in modern embryos, implying that sophisticated mechanisms for differential cell division timing and embryonic cell lineage differentiation evolved before 551 million years ago. However, embryos composed of hundreds to more than ~1000 cells still show no evidence of blastocoel formation or the organization of blastomeres into epithelia - epithelialization should be underway in modern embryos with >100 cells. Features preserved on Doushantuo embryos are compatible with metazoans (animals), but the absence of epithelialization is consistent only with a stem-metazoan affinity.[4] It is not until the Cambrian that embryos with demonstrable eumetazoan features occur; gastrulation and a pentaradial symmetry are expressed in some lower Cambrian fossils.

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  I thought I would add here that all the fossil and other evidence shows a step by step evolution of life of increasing complexity and diversity. The above reference to the discovery of embryo fossils is very similar to those found in the early Cambrian, but simpler and lack more complex features of the later embryo fossils.
                  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


                  • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                    Either way, it does not support a "no brains" contention.
                    Well, I think it does provide an indication in that direction.

                    No, i'm pointing out that he's advancing an argument, not stating widely agreed facts.
                    He actually seems to be stating his conclusion, albeit cautiously.

                    His argument is that complex brains evolved in tandem with carnivory. As such, he makes the contention that the two appeared simultaneously in the fossil record, but is unable to cite a clear indication that this is the case, because we simply don't know precisely when either appeared.
                    Well, I'd need to look at the references to be able to tell how much they support his view.

                    But maybe here is a good place to stop discussing, since I've said about all I had to say here.

                    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


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Not necessarily, the first embryos are found earlier possibly are similar to complex Cambrian organisms.
                      But I don't think anyone is going to argue that animals similar to Cambrian organisms were present that long ago!

                      But this seems like a good stopping point, after 12 pages of discussing.

                      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


                      • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        But I don't think anyone is going to argue that animals similar to Cambrian organisms were present that long ago!

                        But this seems like a good stopping point, after 12 pages of discussing.

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        They did based on the embryo fossils referenced, as fossil of intermediates from less primitive forms and the more complex fossil embryos in the Cambrian.

                        The heats on that regardless of the claims of gaps within gaps within gaps ALL the evidence demonstrates an evolving increasing complexity of since the first signs of the simplist life have been discovered. The discoveries over time have just confirming the predictions of scientist since Charles Darwin in the progression of complexity in evolution.
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-01-2019, 03:27 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


                        • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          He actually seems to be stating his conclusion, albeit cautiously.
                          That's what "advancing an argument" is.

                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          Well, I'd need to look at the references to be able to tell how much they support his view.
                          Once again, i'd like to point out that the time to do this is BEFORE using something as supportive evidence. If you don't know whether something actually supports your argument or not, then pretending it does is highly likely to involve misleading everyone here.

                          Why would you want to increase the odds that you're going to be deceptive?

                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          But maybe here is a good place to stop discussing, since I've said about all I had to say here.
                          I'm curious. You seem to have a lot you want to say about your conclusions, but you seem pretty hesitant about listening to anything anyone else has to say. What are your goals by posting here?
                          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                            I'm curious. You seem to have a lot you want to say about your conclusions, but you seem pretty hesitant about listening to anything anyone else has to say. What are your goals by posting here?
                            I want to try out design arguments, so others' comments are welcome. I'm finding that the arguments hold up pretty well, so I'm encouraged. If listening to people means agreeing with them, then you will get the impression that I'm not listening! But glad to discuss here.

                            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


                            • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              I want to try out design arguments, so others' comments are welcome. I'm finding that the arguments hold up pretty well, so I'm encouraged. If listening to people means agreeing with them, then you will get the impression that I'm not listening! But glad to discuss here.

                              Blessings,
                              Lee
                              I'm concerned about the highlighted above. Considering TheLurch's responses in all your previous threads there is no reason to consider any 'Intelligent Design' is seriously potentially falsifiable. You may, as you have in previous threads, asserted the possibility of falsification, but there has been no basis in your arguments that 'Intelligent Design' is seriously potentially falsifiable.

                              Originally posted by TheLurch
                              I'm curious. You seem to have a lot you want to say about your conclusions, but you seem pretty hesitant about listening to anything anyone else has to say.
                              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


                              • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                                I want to try out design arguments, so others' comments are welcome. I'm finding that the arguments hold up pretty well, so I'm encouraged. If listening to people means agreeing with them, then you will get the impression that I'm not listening! But glad to discuss here.
                                I don't expect you to agree with me. I do expect you to pay attention to evidence and learn some biology if this is a topic that interests you. I've seen absolutely no evidence of the latter. In fact, i've seen no evidence that you've even looked at any of the scientific papers that you've presented as evidence, given that a number of them have directly contradicted your arguments.
                                "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
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X