Archaeologica.org

For example: During the first two billion years, earth was only inhabited by anaerobic bacteria, for which oxygen is a poison. These bacteria lived in water, and some of them learned to use the hydrogen contained in the H2O molecule while expelling the oxygen. This opened up new and more efficient metabolic pathways and the gradual enrichment of the atmosphere with oxygen allowed the appearence of a new knd of cell, capable of using oxygen and with a nucleus for packing together its DNA. These nucleated cells were about 30 times bigger than bacterial cells and of this transition, biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan said:

So Ish, you quote a group of experts, fine, here's another group.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... himps.html

"The biological transition between bacteria and nucleated cells .... is so sudden, it can be effectively be explained by gradual changes over time."

For all I know a comet or meteorite could have deposited a new microbe on earth which grew into everything living today. I don't think it matters one way or the other. If it weren't for fundies screeching about their god the process of evolution would not be on anyone's front burner aside from the occasional biologist.

This is a parochial and political dispute. It has nothing to do with science, per se. People who are afraid to see their fairy tales vanish are counter-attacking and using ignorance as their weapon. It must be opposed.

MIN:......
Whose fairy tales???
I agree that it may be a religion based argument.
But it is religion on both sides.
Neither side has “proof” and thus both sides require “faith.”
Do the math on your comet passing by scenario.
Then tell me that doesn’t require faith.

What math problem KB?

It's not my "comet" kb. I said "for all I know".

Nonetheless, I don't buy the talking snake version.

Minimalist wrote:It's not my "comet" kb. I said "for all I know".

Nonetheless, I don't buy the talking snake version.

Considering the mathematical probability of any scenario, creator God, alien intervention, infected comet, evolution from primordial mud: the fact we are here is a "miracle" in any case.

All -

More fuel for the analytical fire ...........

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24297066/

Now, it is interesting that a multi-ton highly carnivorous dinosaur

Would have, genetically, an original alliance with

Birds rather than reptiles.

So much for morphological, linear, sequential similarity.

Yessssss?



hoka hey



john

Oddly, the first person to agree with that would be Richard Dawkins, Monk.

john wrote:Now, it is interesting that a multi-ton highly carnivorous dinosaur Would have, genetically, an original alliance with Birds rather than reptiles.

Since I have come to realize this, I can not look at birds in the same way as I used to. I love to observe their behaviours, hunting techniques, mating rituals, territorialism, social behaviour, etc. and extrapolate to dinosaurs. Certainly puts thunder lizard in a new light.

Forum Monk wrote:Considering the mathematical probability of any scenario, creator God, alien intervention, infected comet, evolution from primordial mud: the fact we are here is a "miracle" in any case.

Absolutely! For want of a better word anyway.
But NOT a 'miracle' worked by a 'miracle worker'.

In fact, the whole infallibility schtick is the greatest crock in plain sight of course... just look at that creation! It's chock full of failures and doomed concepts. Ironically, it evolves because of its fallibility, its abberations. Not despite it/them.

So when all is said and done we can't get away from the fact that abberations, not the norm, are the way forward...!

We oughta cherish abberations.
(Instead of lynching them...).

...will somebody please get me off my hobby horse?

Guys ,

I think we ought to be be capable of discussing this without having to sink into the creationism versus Darwinism argument. It's because we (I mean people generally) cannot get out of that dichotomy that we are incapable of thinking about and thus discovering any other options.

As I said earlier, we daren't find a hole in Darwinism lest the fundies rush in to plug the gap.

The fact that there isn't another ready-made theory to slip into like a comfortable pair of slippers to replace Darwin's theory shouldn't deter us from being critical of it.

Say one of us was driving a battered old deathtrap with the doors falling off, the suspension gone and four flat tyres, and I came along and said,

"Isn't it about time you got a new car. You'll never get that one through its next MOT."

Would it then be reasonable for you to reply,

"Well how can you say that when you don't have another one to replace it with, and anyway, it's better than that broken down old jalopey that we had to hand crank before. Besides, what do you know? You're not a mechanic."

It's because we (I mean people generally) cannot get out of that dichotomy that we are incapable of thinking about and thus discovering any other options.

I actually agree with that Ish. If the mechanics of evolution are totally WRONG it does nothing to sustain creationism which remains superstition whether or not natural selection is right, wrong or only part of the answer.
Creationists operate under the misapprehension that all they have to do is poke a few holes in evolution and their pet theory becomes the fall back position. But there is not a shred of evidence to sustain creationism.

Great! So you agree that we can buy a new car!

What shall we get? A Rolls? A Mazerati? I quite fancy the new Jaguar!

Seriously, we need to think outside the box (or boxes, Min ) and I think the way to go is revolutions, contradictions and possibly even RS's abberations if he would care to explain what he meant by that.

Along these lines, I guess you've all seen the discussion about gracialisation going on in the Rock Art thread. Again, the change not attributed to biological evolution but cultural changes (for changes read revolution).

For example, according the historic and archaeological evidence it seems that homo sapiens just suddenly appeared. By 'suddenly' I don't mean in a space of minutes, hours, days weeks or even years. But over the time span we're looking at, a couple of centuries is 'suddenly'.

It was so 'sudden' that Neanderthal man had not had time to become exinct and for a short while (well, a few thousand years) they lived alongside one another in France - apparently, quite amicably.

So this scenario does not speak to me of homo sapiens evolving from Neanderthal man.

So this scenario does not speak to me of homo sapiens evolving from Neanderthal man.

Don't buy the Jag just yet because I don't think anyone ever said that.

Minimalist wrote:

"The biological transition between bacteria and nucleated cells .... is so sudden, it can be effectively be explained by gradual changes over time."

Min, remember I'd had a few drinks last night? There a typo in my quote from Margulis et al that completely changes the sense of the point I was trying to make. It should have read, (my bolding)

"The biological transition between bacteria and nucleated cells .... is so sudden, it cannot be effectively be explained by gradual changes over time."

This supports my point about revolution.

Sorry for the confusion.