Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 06/04/2017 at 8:21 AM, hasanhh said:

The socio-economic environment is not equivalent to the natural/"wild state" environment.

 

I understood that the reason why homo sapiens triumphed over the neanderthals in western Europe was because of our better ability to work in social groups. For example, 

https://www.seeker.com/neanderthals-lacked-social-skills-1767294231.html

So if social factors can determine species survival/success it's no big stretch to say that the belief systems which can drive social behaviour will, as well.

Edited by Haji 2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another  relevant story:

Quote

By taking DNA samples from 79 different plover populations, some monogamous and others polygamous, a team of scientists from the UK, US, Germany, Sweden and Madagascar was able to show that promiscuity slowed down the genetic divergence within species.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/promiscuity-species-evolution-sex-study-wading-birds-plovers-bath-university-a7678636.html

Something that has always intrigued me is that social and ethnic differences almost seem guaranteed to deliver conflict.

And this would question the notion of a just God. But if that diversity were necessary in order to help the species survive in a changing environment, it makes much more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 7:58 AM, Haji 2003 said:

I understood that the reason why homo sapiens triumphed over the neanderthals in western Europe was because of our better ability to work in social groups. For example, 

https://www.seeker.com/neanderthals-lacked-social-skills-1767294231.html

So if social factors can determine species survival/success it's no big stretch to say that the belief systems which can drive social behaviour will, as well.

Why not an inability to resist a virus or bacteria to explain their disappearance --except for genetic traces.?????

On ‎4‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 2:32 AM, Haji 2003 said:

Another  relevant story:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/promiscuity-species-evolution-sex-study-wading-birds-plovers-bath-university-a7678636.html

 a]     .Something that has always intrigued me is that social and ethnic differences almost seem guaranteed to deliver conflict.

 b]     .And this would question the notion of a just God. But if that diversity were necessary in order to help the species survive in a changing environment, it makes much more sense.

a] lslamicaIIy, the "original sin" was making a comparison. Sura 7:12.

b] ln Animal Sciences this is called "hybrid vigor". Which is why you marry someone whose family health history 'balances' your own.  Example: prone to stomach cancer + prone to stomach cancer --> child will most likely develop stomach cancer. Same with diabetes and all.

Comment: Even with the development of monogenetic editing to eliminate many genetic diseases and malformities, this "balancing" still remains valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Haji 2003  l was looking for the recent thread and came back to this one.

Hope this interesting stuff is not too late.

http://mikerendell.com/robert-bakewell-died-1st-october-1795-the-pioneer-of-selective-breeding/ 

Note: it was Darwin that changed the term from selective breeding to artificial breeding --in the readings l found.

This is cool: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_30  

Edited by hasanhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2017 at 7:58 AM, Haji 2003 said:

So if social factors can determine species survival/success it's no big stretch to say that the belief systems which can drive social behaviour will, as well.

This sounds reasonable to me. There's more to the story of what drives natural selection and fitness, and its often too indirect and twisted to untangle scientifically, and to decipher clear connections. People will disagree, dispute, deny, or obfuscate whatever the results become most likely. 

This will be played in the political, as opposed to scientific arena. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hasanhh said:

@Haji 2003  l was looking for the recent thread and came back to this one.

Hope this interesting stuff is not too late.

http://mikerendell.com/robert-bakewell-died-1st-october-1795-the-pioneer-of-selective-breeding/ 

Note: it was Darwin that changed the term from selective breeding to artificial breeding --in the readings l found.

This is cool: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_30  

I think the selective breeding story goes back way further than the article suggests. The reputation of Arab horses didn't arise by accident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp.. I have often put thought into Darwin's "theory" and most of the times it made no sense to me. Let me try to explain concisely. Here are some questions:

- So, the human ancestor was once some organism like a baby toad, essentially a non mammal. Let pause the picture here for a moment. It learned to lay eggs, or evolved to lay eggs, at some point through the evolution spanning thousands or hundreds of years or maybe decades (whatever). Before it evolved to lay eggs how did it reproduce? And how long did it take for it to evolve to lay eggs and how did it reproduce during this time?

- During that same era, while it was evolving to lay eggs, why did it decide to split into a male and a female?? Or was it a asexual animal? Did it split into a male and a female then or not? Like it could lay eggs on its own without input from a partner?

- Anyway, later on when it was becoming a mammal or before "evolving" into a monkey like thing and while it was essentially still a reptilian that laid eggs for reproduction, what happened and over how long a period of time? Assuming the creatures were reptilian and had males and females, Like, did it suddenly grow a penis and female genitalia when it transformed into mammals? Because if not, then how did it reproduce while it was in a state of entropy? Were there monkeys in that stage who laid eggs, instead?

- Last but not least, why the heck the plants kingdom never evolved and when and where did it branch off from the animal kingdom? All those jazzy computer generated darwinist propaganda videos never show plants, why? Why did the plant stop evolving after becoming a plant? Where are their fossils and why they are not included? I'll write this much that the reason plant fossils are swept under the rug is that they are just like the plants of today. Go figure. Google this plants part and you will find whole scientific groups boggling over this phenomenon. Scientists with proper pHDs and whatnot (so ppl like iCambrain can not deny them). These groups have moved on and do not believe in Darwinism rather now they blame Aliens for seeding life on earth (a change in direction closer to the truth when compared with darwinism's abiogenesis and natural selection garbage imo).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Darth Vader

These are good questions.  So, complex life, this is just how I summarize it but...

 

You have early life that goes back billions of years. Like, microbial mats, stromatolites. But the more complex life, or at least what we are aware of, came about around 600 or so million years ago.

ediacaran, trilobites and that good stuff - 500

fish 500

Amphibians 400

reptiles 300

Mammals - 200

Birds - 100 (though they and mammals branched from reptiles).

So, questions about egg evolution (pre shell) is a pre reptile times question.  Pre egg itself would be, probably pre cambrian or even pre ediacaran question. So I just want to point out that a question about proto eggs from pre ediacaran times, shouldnt hold weight that could make or break an opinion over the following 500 million years of fossil evidence. Just as a question of knowing when life first appeared on earth, doesnt hold weight on whether or not living things (post the beginning of life) evolve. Hope that makes sense. Having questions about the very first forms of life, life that are essentially pre fossil record, should not take away from the clarity in evolution, post fossil record.

Anyway...

Reproduction even in some very basic life forms is sexual and evidence (as proclaimed by people who study ancient alga) for sexual reproduction goes back, way back to the proterozoic. Which is really really really...really old. Like so old that our minds have trouble doing the math.

http://paleobiol.geoscienceworld.org/content/26/3/386

Sexual reproduction (as im sure everyone has heard if they have read up on it) is genetically beneficial in bringing diversity to a species along with a good number of other beneficial values.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

 

ah hold that thought...gotta go will pickup later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuing....this is good stuff.  Things ive honestly never been too bothered to ponder.

Anyway...

Regarding eggs, eggs are pre amphibian. They are pre fish and pre cambrian. They pre date fossils. Hard eggs came about in reptilian times (plenty of fossils). Softer egg fossils (which are rare but have been found) go back to cambrian times and beyond. Again, way way back in time (pre cambrian).  Some propose the idea that soft eggs, would be derived from soft cells (what is an egg but a combination of cells? Not to downplay the complex beauty of an egg, but it is a combination of cells).  Just as hard shelled animals come about from soft bodied animals that excrete compounds from their skin, perhaps soft eggs started out as soft non eggs that excreted material that protected the cell.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jez.b.21417/abstract;jsessionid=B9DEC671A92173807BAB490EB3B1C080.f04t03

Im not an egg person though, I suppose egg people would know better. Again though, just as a discussion of sex, we are talking about evolution of functions that are so ancient, that clarity on the exact nature of how they came about, can be tougher to understand than the following 500 million years in which bones and shells (that are more likely to fossilize) came about.  And again, having questions about pre cambrian life (really ancient soft bodied animals in rock so old that its been churned and melted and recycled and reformed in the earth), should not be conflated with a lack of knowledge of post cambrian evolution which is much more clear with use of fossils, and rock that often hasnt been recycled as pre cambrian rock has.

Did monkeys lay eggs? well reptiles have sexual organs, sexual organs would predate mammals. The oldest live bearing mammals predate monkeys by some 50 million years. And there are records of some reptiles even that gave live birth. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viviparity#Evolution

https://www.livescience.com/43344-ichthyosaur-fossil-live-birth-found.html

I think the question about when the absolute first (or some sort of hybrid) child bearing organism came about, versus an organism that simply birthed an egg, is still to be discovered. And i dont think this transition would necessarily correlate to the reptile to mammal succession either. Bones may be preserved to show a reptile to mammal transition.  But how often are pregnant fossilized organisms found? And if some mammals lay eggs and some reptiles give live birth, where did the two swap? So yea, maybe yet to be determined.

For the last one, plants didnt branch off from animals. Plants, like algae, go back over a billion years. It is interesting though to note that the earliest animals, filter feeders from the ediacaran, really did look like plants. Some of the most ancient animals, certain types of echinoderms, interesting enough, look like animals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charnia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_pen

Things like cnidarians, sponges and corals.  These are animals, but theyre so primtive, and some do look like plants. There are plants today that almost appear more animal like than animals of the precambrian.

But you know, in regards to why plants havent changed like animals have. Evolution isnt a ladder. It is a diversification in which organisms find niches in their respective environments. An organism doesnt necessarily go from simple to complex to super complex. It just goes where it thrives (in theory). So if a plant species thrives in its current form (which plants do thrive in their current form), then there is little drive to change to something exceedingly more complex because they are already dominant in their environment. Same goes with some of those animals like alligators and crocodiles that, while they have changed a little bit, are largely similar to crocodiles from millions of years ago.  Theyre just so dominant in their environment (king predators before we showed up), that they dont have environmental stresses that would lead to change.

But there is still plant evolution understood in the fossil succession.  There was evolution to land (ancient mosses and liverworts of the silurian and ordovician), flowering plant evolution, vascular plant evolution (cooksonia and the evolution of roots from rhizomes), evolution of leaves, evolution of spores, evolution of wooden stalks (plants didnt always have wooden stalks like trees).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooksonia

" Cooksonia includes the oldest known plant to have a stem with vascular tissue and is thus a transitional form between the primitive non-vascular bryophytes and the vascular plants.[5] "

There are a lot of plant nerds out there with their plant transitionals, People just like talking about animals more because they have big teeth and can be used to make cool movies where they fight eachother.  Trees dont really fight, they just kind of sit there so few people care about their history.

Also, plants are tricky in comparison to animals because sometimes you cant tell what leaves came from what trees, or what seeds came from what plant.  Just the way it is, but you can still track changes over time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess to summarize my thoughts.  Each of your more ambiguous questions is related to, soft bodied or super super ancient evolution (youre talking about proterozoic evolution). And these are great thoughts and questions. But i dont think that having questions about certain specific details related to precambrian soft bodied ancient ediacaran, holds much weight over the next 600 million years of more clear evidence.

But its cool too because, it is the people who ask these questions, in combination with those who have the tools for exploration, that are the ones finding fossils. It starts with the questions. Then, who carries the torch the next step?

Questions of precambrian evolution are difficult though, because as I said before, youre dealing with soft bodied organisms and often metamorphosed rock. I know a guy who just recently found a soft bodied animal of the cambrian.  It really is such a rare find, but when you do, you truly are on the cutting edge of discovery, so more power to you if you do (unless youre in certain localities like the burgess shale, then theyre more abundant).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 6:03 AM, Haji 2003 said:

I think the selective breeding story goes back way further than the article suggests. The reputation of Arab horses didn't arise by accident.

Same with dogs. Maybe chickens.

The term, selective breeding", came from Blakewell as l understood my reading. lf l am in error please correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Darth Vader said:

- Last but not least, why the heck the plants kingdom never evolved

Surely if people can breed plants for specific characteristics, it means that they are susceptible to evolution? But just not to the same extent as animals.

 

5 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Same with dogs. Maybe chickens.

The term, selective breeding", came from Blakewell as l understood my reading. lf l am in error please correct.

 
 

I would not be surprised if it did.

But that would only be the case for the English language. If the Arabs and previous groups were doing this, they may well have had terms for it as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Surely if people can breed plants for specific characteristics, it means that they are susceptible to evolution? But just not to the same extent

I googled and found an interesting scientific paper. It said that the reason plant fossils are not included in the show is that the millions of years old fossils of all plant species found are exactly the same as they exist today! So a millions year old rose fossil is exactly the same as the rose (non-GMO rose) that exists today in my garden.

Now this is no small matter if we think about it further. Plants and Animals and fungi and virii and whatever is considered alive all ultimately share one common ancestor, according to Darwinism. How did plants manage to escape the magic wand of natural selection? Or, is there a mysterious force guiding natural selection? How come its laws don't change. Like why doesn't some other specie start evolving now instead of us great apes? Say, could it be that the sharks have been secretly evolving since the past million years and will eventually take over the planet? Nope.

On that same page, why don't the laws of physics change by random chance? They always remain constant and that is why scientists were able to experiment and figured out scientific equations like F=ma. What created these countless laws and when? Will F=ma become F=ma/2 due to randomness? And how many million yeas will that take, for the randomness to kick in? Why don't the atoms in the universe all implode due to randomness and absence of any governing authority?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darth Vader said:

I googled and found an interesting scientific paper. It said that the reason plant fossils are not included in the show is that the millions of years old fossils of all plant species found are exactly the same as they exist today! So a millions year old rose fossil is exactly the same as the rose (non-GMO rose) that exists today in my garden.

 

This just isnt true. You cannot find any rose, or any flower for that matter,  prior to say...the jurassic. I noted cooksonia as an early and primitive plant with vascular tissue.  Nothing like cooksonia lives today.

There is indeed a succession of plants through time. Plants did not always have leaves. They did not always have stalks, or flowers, bark or deep running roots, or tracheids etc.

These are features that progressively appeared in plants over hundreds of millions of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darth Vader said:

How did plants manage to escape the magic wand of natural selection? Or, is there a mysterious force guiding natural selection? How come its laws don't change.

 

And this was already answered in my prior post. Evolution isnt a ladder.  Things do not evolve necessarily from simple, to complex, to more complex, to even further complex stages.

Speciation occurs in large part, in conjunction with environmental stresses. When a species becomes dominant in its environment (which plants are heavily dominant), their morphology may settle over a long period of time.  And I gave comparison to animals like alligators and crocodiles. Animals that have become so well adapted and successful, that morphologically, changes are relatively slow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A major problem for Neo-Darwinism is the completelack of evidence for plant evolution in the fossil re-cord. As a whole, the fossil evidence of prehistoricplants is actually very good, yet no convincing tran-sitional forms have been discovered in the abundantplant fossil record.

The basic groups for which Darwinists must
demonstrate the existence of transitional forms include:
24
Kingdom Protoctista
Subkingdom: Phycobionta - Algae
Division: Chrysophyta - Golden-brown Algae
Division: Pyrrophyta - Dinoflagellates
Division: Euglenophyta - Euglenoids
Division: Chlorophyta - Green Algae
Division: Phaeophyta - Brown Algae
Division: Rhodophyta - Red Algae
Kingdom Fungi and Lichens
Division: Zygomycota - Coenocytic True Fungi
Division: Eumycota - Noncoenocytic True Fungi
Class: Basidomycetes - Club Fungi
Class: Deuteromycetes - Imperfect Fungi
Plant Kingdom
Division: Hepaticophyta - Liverworts
Division: Anthocerotophyta - Hornworts
Division: Bryophyta - Mosses
Division: Psilotophyta - Whisk Ferns
Division: Lycophyta - Club Mosses and Quillworts
Division:
Sphenophyta - Horsetails and Scouring
Rushes
Division: Pterophyta - Ferns
Division: Pinophyta
Class: Pinatae - The Conifers
Division: Magnoliophyta - Flowering Plants
Division: Monocots
Class: Poaceae - Grasses
Class: Liliaceae - Lily Family
Class: Orchidaceae - Orchid Family
Division: Dicots
Class: Ranunculaceae - Buttercup Family
Class: Lauraceae - Laurel Family
Class: Papaveraceae - Poppy Family
Class: Brassicaceae - Mustard Family
Class: Rosaceae - Rose Family
Class: Fabaceae - Legume Family
Class: Euphorbiaceae - Spurge Family
Class: Cactaceae - Cactus Family
Class: Lamiaceae - Mint Family
Class: Solanaceae - Nightshade Family
Class: Apiaceae - Carrot Family
Class: Cucurbitaceae - Pumpkin Family
Class: Asteraceae - Sunflower Fam
 
----------------
 
The conclusion by Corner of the University of
Cambridge department of Botany, made almost 40 years
ago, is still the most accurate summary of the evidence for
plant evolution:
‘Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the
theory of evolution—from biology, biogeography
and paleontology, but I still think that, to the unpreju-
diced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special
creation. ... The evolutionist must be prepared with
an answer, but I think that most [attempts to answer]
would break down before an inquisition.’
83
The reason for such a statement has to do with the
fact that the fossil record consistently shows
‘ ... persistence of type with imperceptible
change and, from time to time, the sudden influx
of new types, correlative with favorable stable
geological conditions, are among the outstanding
features of the history of evolution as shown by
paleontology.

 

--------

 

The evidence that contradicts Darwinism has forced
reliance on the ‘convergent evolution’ theory in order to
explain the lack of fossil record. As noted, though, this
theory actually requires
more
transitional forms, and
more
fossils, and thus, rather than solving the problem,
actually highlights the lack of a fossil record.

 

-------

 

 

Edited by Darth Vader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flag for @iCambrian in particular, plus all others.

l do not conceptualize botany adequately, so l did some searching. l found this interesting piece:

http://users.clas.ufl.edu/azimmer/pdf/Zimmerman10%20Enzyme%20SoilBiol_22_Shukla_Ch.15.pdf

OM. organo-mineral, influence on enzymes and polymerese reactions, which penetrate cell walls an act as inhibitors (and sometimes accelerators?).

So, soil mineralization has an effect on replication, and thereby plant selection.

North America has selenium deficient soils. Other areas have elevated salt content, heavy metals and sulfur. Each of these factor into plant evolutionary development.

Then there are the influences of altitude and temperatures on cell walls a enzyme activities.

My Q is -from what l understand to be different from the general viewpoints- that the above surface part of a plant is the root-support-system; while the fruit, such as apple or pear, is a product not the objective of the plant's growth. An inverted view.

Any A.A.A. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jerry_Bergman

"Gerald R. "Jerry" Bergman is a young earth creationist affiliated with the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a signatory to Creation Ministries International's list of scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation. He has a doctorate in human biology from Columbia Pacific University, a nonaccredited correspondence school that was ordered to cease operations in California in 1999 by the Marin County Superior Court.[2] Bergman is a prolific writer with, according to Answers in Genesis, over 600 articles (none in peer-refereed scientific journals, of course,[3] but quite a few for Answers Research Journal) and 20 books to his name. "

Looks like a young earth creationist. Muslims, I think should steer far far away from the side of young earthers.  Let Christians deal with this kind of mess as it is a worldview developed, unfortunately by a messed up interpretation of Christian scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

Looks like a young earth creationist. Muslims, I think should steer far far away from the side of young earthers.  Let Christians deal with this kind of mess as it is a worldview developed, unfortunately by a messed up interpretation of Christian scripture.

On the contrary, all he has done is gather the various scientists' comments in his article I linked, and therefore it doesn't loose any scientific credibility.

Edited by Darth Vader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Darth Vader said:

On the contrary, all he has done is gather the various scientists' comments in his article I linked, and therefore it doesn't loose any scientific credibility.

Sources 2 through 15 are from another young earth creationist. 15-30 include pro evolution sources. Ie what youre reading are more or less quote mines. Filtered through the mind and regurgitated in words of a young earth creationist.

People are indeed critical of evolution and the fossil record. But we should not mistake critique for abandonment or rejection of the theory of evolution.

A lot of the sources really are just comments that he takes, then applies his own opinion to.  For example...

"

Parallel evolution is often mentioned in rela tion to desert plants; that is, quite unrelated species may evolve to fill the various available niches in
the desert, arriving at similar growth forms. According to the structure of the flowers, the cacti of North America and the Euphorbia
of Africa are quite unrelated, although their succulent appearances are
strikingly similar.’

"

 

Pardon the formatting, but this quote really doesnt have anything to do with anything.  But the author with his own perspective goes on to give his opinion of the quote.

 

So what you have are a mix of young earth creationist sources, young earth creationist opinions, then a handful of pro evolution scientists who are critical of concepts in science (which is good and common), and their words are taken out of context to give the impression that they are abandoning the theory of evolution.

On the contrary, sources in that document are clearly pro evolution and appear to have greater credentials than the author himself.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Source 79

"n the basis of a megaflora, ecological associa
-
tions may erroneously be considered as evolutionary
stages. For instance the Rhyniaceae , upon which
most of our information about the structure of the
lower Devonian plants is based, owe the simplicity
of their structure in part to the peculiar environment
to which they are adapted. Though primitive in features, they probably represent relic forms in a plant
world composed of varied and more highly organized
forms whose complexity we only are beginning to foresee
’ [emphasis in last sentence mine]
 
Pardon the formatting.  But again we see, a quote that really doesnt have anything to do with anything.  But the other follows up with his own commentary and opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Source 61

"

We still lack any precise information concern
-
ing the presumed aquatic ancestors from which land

 

Photo by Edmond
evolved, and the search for evidence
of these precursors and of probable transi-
tional stages continues. ... Further fossil
evidence is needed to test these ideas and
to determine whether the transition was
sudden or gradual.’

"

Again, pro evolution source, nothing abnormal here, just discussion about how evolution of plants occurred.

The author twists it and gives his own opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Source 55

Yet other researchers conclude that they evolved from
algae and land ferns, with some arguing that it is more
likely that bryophytes evolved directly from algae.

 

Ok, so people are discussing the evolutionary origins of certain types of plants.  Nothing out of the ordinary here.  The author again applies his opinion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So to summarize what im trying to point out here...yes there are scientific figures quoted in the article.  But the quotes, first off, many of them are from young earthers or are from non scientific sources. Many others are from pro evolution sources, and are more or less quote mined or taken out of context. 

People need to understand, these young earthers often are crazy. I dont know who all here has listened to Ken Ham talk about people riding dinosaurs and about tigers eating bamboo sticks on noahs ark.  And there are people who do gather some credentials, but are still logically, and intellectually bankrupted by young earth philosophical views. Really intelligent people take great strides, invoking time dilation and crazy catastrophic thermodynamics, and wild pseudoscience theories to promote their views.  And quote mining, or taking commentary out of context, is very common.

Beyond that,

Scientists are naturally critical, by the nature of how science operates.  Your goal, every day is make the biggest and best new discovery, and often, that means getting dirty and criticizing other peoples work, and bolstering your own.

But this critique is not to be conflated with rejection of modern science.

I know paleontologists right now, who are arguing over the fossil succession, heck i suppose im doing it too.  This fossil actually belongs here, no there, this is its respective environment, no its not. These animals lived with this plant, no. This is this body part, no that one. etc.

But you cant take that internal debate, and turn it into "well they just dont know what theyre talking about and theyre abandoning the theory of evolution all together", because thats just not how it is. but thats what the young earther in the article is trying to do.

When I get a little more time, ill keep going through these sources.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and one more thing. Huran Yahya is also a nut bag. Ill have to elaborate another time.

Source 45

Since many more plant fossils have been discovered
since 1954, the fossil record now could be described as
‘rich’ and ‘very abundant’

 

Source 46

"

We have no means of knowing
whether this transition occurred once or many times
or whether it came about from fresh or salt water.

"

Again, nothing abnormal here, just commentary. Only when filtered through a young earth perspective is it considered an issue if there are questions relating to evolution via fresh or salt water.

Again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Source number 1

HAPTER IV 
THE EARLY VASCULAR PLANTS 

One of the decisive events in the evolutionary history of the plant 
kingdom was the appearance of the vascular system. This development 
probably took place soon after plants commenced sustained life upon 
land either during the early part of the Paleozoic era or possibly as long 
ago as the latter part of the pre-Cambrian. The problem of when 
vascular plants first emerged from the great flux of aquatic or semi- 
aquatic vegetation of the primeval world is increased not solely by the 
fragile construction of these ancient organisms but also by the extensive 
metamorphism to which the rocks of these early times were subjected 
and which obliterated almost the last traces of any kind of life ever con- 
tained in them. MetaTnorphism has most severely effected the pre- 
Cambrian rocks. Those of the Cambrian, Ordovician, and Silurian are 
less metamorphosed, but being principally in marine formations, the 
organic remains they contain are mostly invertebrates and algae. Only 
recently have we possessed explicit information on any pre-Dcvonian 
vascular plants, and nowhere have they been found in quantity. How- 
ever, the ultimate discovery of land plants in the Silurian had long been 
anticipated, because the degree of development exhibited by some early 
Devonian types could be explained only by assuming that they were the 
products of a long evolutionary sequence. 

The time and place of the origin of vascular plants, and the manner 
in which they developed, are some of the basic problems of evolutionary 
science upon which paleontological investigations have thrown no 
direct light. Theorists have speculated at great length upon these 
matters but perforce without the support of much evidence from the 
fossil record, which does not Jbegin until land plants began to be per- 
manently preserved. A theory that has found wide acceptance and is 
not contradicted by any facts revealed by the fossil record is that the 
vascular system developed among certain highly plastic marine thall- 
ophytes which grew along the shores probably at about the upper limits 
of the tide levels. At places where the shore line receded because of 
land uplift, these plants became stranded in temporary pools, which 
were isolated from the main body of water. As a result of this gradual 
cha.nge from an aquatic to a more terrestrial environment most of the 

62 



THE EARLY VASCULAR PLANTS 63 

stranded species became extinct, but a few of the more adaptable ones 
gradually became transformed to permanent life on land. The first 
bodily modification was probably the transformation of holdfast organs 
either into rhizomelike structures bearing rhizoids or into roots, and this 
was accompanied or closely followed by the development of cutinized 
surface layers that retarded water loss. Then, with the increase of the 
size of the plant body certain tissues became specialized for the conduction 
of food and water. This last development not only made further 
increase in size possible, but increased the life span of the plant by 
rendering it more capable of coping with environmental fluctuations. 
The spore-producing organs were elevated to the highest extremities 
where the widest possible dispersal \vas assured, but since water was still 
necessary for fertilization the spores germinated and produced game- 
tophytes close to the surface of the ground. In this way alteration of 
generations with independent gametophytes and sporophytes was 
established at an early date. 

 

Anti evolution or written by someone abandoning the theory? No, not at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Off-hand l'd say two of your options are: 1] Take him to small-claims court and use the courts 'judgment cap' (e.g. $2500 in some states) and claim this portion is past due if he owes more than $2500.  Then go-for-the-rest later (if necessary  ) 2] Write him off your taxes as a "bad debt" and send a report to a credit reporting agency. Also, if he put the money into a business, then go to the BBB and see if their complaint dep't can help.
    • hi in my opinion the main problem between sunni &shia is about their claiming of supremacy to  each other for shias their Imams are martyred and according to  below verses when we call them they answer us and all of them 100% beneficial to us but sunni leaders were ordinary people & sunnis bro&sis dont call them as martyrs  so whats their benefit for them as you see in  verse 12  And of the people is he who worships Allah on an edge. If he is touched by good, he is reassured by it; but if he is struck by trial, he turns on his face [to the other direction]. He has lost [this] world and the Hereafter. That is what is the manifest loss. (11) He invokes instead of Allah that which neither harms him nor benefits him. That is what is the extreme error. (12) He invokes one whose harm is closer than his benefit - how wretched the protector and how wretched the associate. (13)Indeed, Allah will admit those who believe and do righteous deeds to gardens beneath which rivers flow. Indeed, Allah does what He intends. (14) Whoever should think that Allah will not support [Prophet Muhammad] in this world and the Hereafter - let him extend a rope to the ceiling, then cut off [his breath], and let him see: will his effort remove that which enrages [him]? (15) Al-Hajj◄  333  ►Juz 17 http://tanzil.net/#22:11
    • First few minutes of this DeutscheWelle program. What is the solution for Autonomous Vehicles meeting obstacles that are not in its programming? tag w/ networking, satellites, system learning, human guidance integration, ... http://www.dw.com/en/tomorrow-today-the-science-magazine/av-41331201 
    • Salam Sister. Its very very heart breaking to listen to your situation. But remember, Bibi Fatima was also abused (May Allah curse the oppressors), Imam Hussain was also abused, So was Bibi Sakina but remember that they were satisfied with what God wished for them. They knew God as He should be known. Allah speaks in Quran 6:59 - "And with Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them except Him. And He knows what is on the land and in the sea. Not a leaf falls but that He knows it. And no grain is there within the darknesses of the earth and no moist or dry [thing] but that it is [written] in a clear record." So remember this that whatever is happening with you Allah is a Witness over all of these. And people will be questioned the moment they enter their grave. But we are the nation of RasoolAllah. The bringer of Mercy of Allah. No matter how much painful incident happens with you, keep on forgiving. Ask from Allah the forgiveness of your parents as well Right Guidance.  Also, this is a trial for you. Do you know Allah tries only His "Best" Servants. You should be happy just like Imam Hussain for he was happy to be tried by Allah. His trial was the greatest and no trial matched his trial. And what a love story you told that despite you doing wrong to yourself (that is attempt to die), instead you were guided by the Rahma of Allah through His book. Not everybody is bestowed with such love of Allah. Know this, He is the giver of Death and Life. If He saved you and Guided you then He has a plan for you. Just believe in Him. Maybe He has a very luminous plan for you ahead.  This is the time when you should build a stronger bond with Him.  He has called you towards His love. And please don't do harm to yourself. Nothing is yours. Everything Belongs to Him. If you do harm yourself, you actually try to harm His Property. Seek Repentance, He is Sariyal Ridha, He accepts it very easily and very Quickly. May Allah bestow His Mercy and Love on you Sister all your life and May He keeps you steadfast on your religion and the love of Ahlulbayt. No pain is more than the pain of Ahlulbayt specially that of Aba Abdillah. Whenever a tragedy befalls you, remember the pain and tragedy Aba Abdillah has to go through, Bibi Zaynab and Bibi Sakina went through.. 6 month old Hazrat Ali Asghar went through.. And they all just saw the "Beauty of Allah", "Death being sweeter than honey when it was bestowed on them by Allah". Just be patient as Imam Ali was and know that Allah's plan surpasses our highest aspirations. Allah never leaves His servants hopeless. he is always with you. He created you to show His love to you. His love comes in different ways. It has come to you in the form of Guidance through Quran. A call of love. Answer it.
    • Alaikum Salaam Brothers And Sisters, I'm Wanting To Become A Shia Muslim, And Was Wondering If Anyone Could Refer Me To Some Really Good Shia Ideology, Beliefs And Practices? I Thought It More Prudent To Ask Some Experienced Shia Muslims On Some Good Book Titles In English? I Appreciate Any And All Assistance Given! Shukraan Jazilan, And Jazak Allah!!
×