Antares 531 wrote:
> Ben Goren wrote:
>> Antares 531 wrote:
>>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> Antares 531 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Cambrian Explosion occurred about 540 million years ago
>>>>> and lasted for about 10 - 20 million years, during which
>>>>> time all phyla that exist today came into being. I'm talking
>>>>> macro-evolution here, not micro-evolution.
>>>>
>>>> Please define macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Scientists
>>>> don't generally use those words, so I don't know exactly what
>>>> you are stating.
>>>
>>> Macro-evolution entails developing a new species or a variant
>>> of a species that can no longer cross-breed with the original
>>> members of the source species.
>>
>> According to this definition, your ``macro-evolution'' is
>> something that's even been demonstrated in high school biology
>> labs, right across the hallway from where they calculate
>> absolute zero or determine the proper titration for buffer
>> systems.
>
> Ben, thanks for the site links below. There is a lot of
> interesting material in those links, but using a modernized
> definition of "species" doesn't resolve the questions that led
> to this thread. According to the information in the second link
> you provided, below, we should identify Holstein and Guernsey
> cattle as separate species.
No, not at all. At least, not yet -- they're still quite
interfertile. Maybe after several thousand years of intense
breeding, such as what we've seen with dogs and are starting to
see with horses.
> Please explain in a bit more detail how macro-evolution has been
> demonstrated in your high school biology labs.
Not mine; my biology class wasn't that exciting. Off the top of my
head, I can't point you to a specific example of a high school
that does it, but any of the classic Drosophila experiments from
the 50s and 60s should be well within the reach of any high
school.
> Even if we go along with these definitions of species,
> this still doesn't answer the original set of questions. To
> reiterate;
Your questions are all straw men indicating you know nothing about
the subject past what you've read in religious tracts.
Complete answers would require an entire college career to
begin to answer. My very short answers below I'm sure you'll
find unsatisfactory, but they'll get you pointed in the right
direction.
> 1) Why was there such a burst of new life forms during the 10 -
> 20 million year long Cambrian Explosion, then no new phyla in
> the 520 - 530 million years since that time?
Because that represents a profound mischaracterization of what
really happened. The talk.origins Web site can explain the
Cambrian ``Explosion'' to you in much greater detail.
I will point out, though, that displacing a successful organism is
much less likely than becoming successful when no other organism
exists to displace. It's inevitable that there should be an
initial flurry of experimentation after which things settle down.
> 2) What explains the apparent congruency between the Biblical
> Genesis story and the available paleontologic/geologic
> information? In the beginning, God created....and when He had
> completed His creation he rested...stopped creating new phyla,
> etc.
The explanation is an archetypal example of salad-bar Biblical
study. You can find the exact same ``apparent congruncey'' in the
phone book, if you look hard enough.
The Bible is actually pathetically and profoundly worng when it
comes to paleontology and geology. The Flood is the perfect
example: everything it describes, at small and large scale, is
trivially provably worng.
The Genesis 1 initial creation story also gets things so horribly
worng that it's only by squinting very, very, very hard that you
can convince yourself that the general outline is sorta vaguely
similar. It's kinda like remarking on the similarity between a
snowflake and a pigeon dropping.
> 3) How did the eye develop in so many species, separately, and
> quite different, physiologically, even though the evolutionary
> process would have been very long and complex with no tangible
> benefits that would have promoted natural selection until this
> evolutionary process was nearly complete?
The evolution of the eye has been so well do***ented so for long
that, by asking that question, you display such a profound
ignorance of biology that I can't even imagine where to begin. I
suggest you start with the Wikipedia article on the subject and go
from there.
> 4) How did other complex organs such as the heart, kidneys,
> etc., evolve in so many different species, yet in such
> strikingly similar physical configurations?
The basic answer is the same as for the eye -- though, of course,
the details will vary.
> 5) Was all the DNA for these and many other animal traits
> pre-programmed into the predecessors of all the complex phyla
> that popped into existence during the Cambrian Explosion? If so,
> what pre-programmed this DNA?
This question demonstrates that you not only know nothing about
DNA, but that what you *think* you know about it is so far from
reality that, once again, I haven't a clue where to start. It's
like you think it's some sort of magic token that confers upon its
holder the super-property the magician infused it with when it was
made.
Might I suggest taking a freshman biology course at your nearest
secular university? That should at least get you pointed in the
right direction. I'd suggest a community college, but, in my
experience in topics I'm expert in, the quality of instruction is
hit-or-miss.
Barring that, Dawkins is far and above the best at explaining
evolutionary biology to the general public. His books and his BBC
programmes would all be excellent sources of learning.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.pronews.com
The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
|
