U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-12-2011, 11:21 AM
 
3,579 posts, read 2,649,042 times
Reputation: 3293

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiel View Post
Explain to me the orgin of Brachiopods.
Brachiopod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since 1991 Nielsen has proposed a hypothesis about the development of brachiopods, adapted in 2003 by Cohen and colleagues as a hypothesis about the earliest evolution of brachiopods. This "brachiopod fold" hypothesis suggests that brachiopods evolved from an ancestor similar to Halkieria,[14] a slug-like animal with "chain mail" on its back and a shell at the front and rear end.[32] The hypothesis proposes that the first brachiopod converted its shells into a pair of valves by folding the rear part of its body under its front.[14]
However, fossils from 2007 onwards have supported a new interpretation of the Early-Cambrian tommotiids and a new hypothesis that brachiopods evolved from tommotiids. The "armor mail" of tommotiids was well-known but not in a assembled form, and it was generally assumed that tommotiids were slug-like animals similar to Halkieria, except that tommotiids' armor was made of organophosphatic compounds while that of Halkieria was made of calcite. However fossils of a new tommotiid, Eccentrotheca, showed an assembled mail coat that formed a tube, which would indicate a sessile animal rather than a creeping slug-like one. Eccentrotheca's organophosphatic tube resembled that of phoronids,[33] sessile animals that feed by lophophores and are regarded either very close relatives or a sub-group of brachiopods.[34] Paterimitra, another mostly assembled fossil found in 2008 and described in 2009, had two symmetrical plates at the bottom, like brachiopod valves but not fully enclosing the animal's body.[35]

 
Old 09-12-2011, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,123,324 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiel View Post
Explain to me the orgin of Brachiopods.
That question has only been answered recently with the advent of genetic sequencing.

They share a common ancestor with the rest of the protostomes, along with the molluscs, annelids and arthropods.
 
Old 09-12-2011, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Warren, Michigan
5,298 posts, read 3,904,912 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
Erm, the lower 2/3 of the Earth's crust is almost explosively volcanic and metamorphic in nature. So why the hell would you expect there to be fossil evidence in it?

I have a challenge for you, one that I have presented to religious folk on the internet for going on five years now. I am a geologist with 23 years of experience. The only way you are going to understand geology is to get out in the field and examine the rocks themselves. This is why geologists spend MANY years in school and in the field before they can even get a job in the field. So my challenge to you is to join me in a field trip where I can explain how geology works, how fossils demonstrate the theory of evolution, and why the Earth is VERY VERY old. I am fairly harmless, so this is not something that should concern you as far as your wellbeing is concerned. My only requirement is that you have to come to my neck of the woods so I can take you to the outcrops, and you have to pay for the gas because I am disabled at the present time, and on a fixed income. I live in the Louisville area, so any time you want to actually learn something about geology and/or paleontology, all you have to do is say the word, and then show up.

I have people in Louisville, I'll take you up on that next time I vist them. I am not a geologist, and I disagree that the only way to understand it is to get out on the field. I can get on the internet or get in a book and gain some understanding of it. But I agree that theres nothing like being in the field with a professional.

There is no gradual evolution of the fossil record. If everything developed from the same primordal soup, certainly there would be some very basic creatures that would have existed between the soup and the creatures we are familiar with. Why aren't there any? Explain to me the connection between unicellular organisms and all other life forms?

And by the way, I too believe the earth is old, perhaps upwards of 4.5 billion years old.
 
Old 09-12-2011, 11:28 AM
 
4,480 posts, read 4,222,930 times
Reputation: 3986
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
As explained to you in my earlier post, and in Historiandude's post, science is not about proof.

If you want evidence from paleontology, you need to examine the fossil evidence itself. And that requires a deep understanding of vertebrate and invertebrate anatomy and physiology, knowledge of sedimentary petrology, mineralology, structural geology, and geologic survey methods, including how to construct a geologic column, etc, etc, etc. Then you have to go into the field, find the fossils, describe them in detail, and then compare and contrast them with other fossils that have been found by other researchers. This takes a lot of hard work by a lot of people over a significant amount of time.

And what we find when we do this is that there is a lot of fossil evidence that substantiates the theory of evolution. Is it complete? No, not at all. But that is the natural of fossilization. Not all flora and fauna get preserved because fossil preservation is the exception, not the rule.

As an example, I give you the evolutionary history of brachiopods, a lineage of animals that still exist doday but was once the dominant reef-forming lifeform on the planet.

Evolutionary history of brachiopods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiel View Post
Explain to me the orgin of Brachiopods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiel View Post
Okay, lets forego the mountian, I'll be satisfied with just an anthill of proof for evolution.

Lets have it!

Why bother? You won't make a reasonable argument against the evidence presented. In the long run attitudes like yours will doom religion. One day mankind will look back on Christianity, Islam and the ilk the way we now look at the Greek and Roman pantheons. All religions are doomed to one day become mythology. That day can't come fast enough!
 
Old 09-12-2011, 11:29 AM
 
Location: Warren, Michigan
5,298 posts, read 3,904,912 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
Brachiopod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since 1991 Nielsen has proposed a hypothesis about the development of brachiopods, adapted in 2003 by Cohen and colleagues as a hypothesis about the earliest evolution of brachiopods. This "brachiopod fold" hypothesis suggests that brachiopods evolved from an ancestor similar to Halkieria,[14] a slug-like animal with "chain mail" on its back and a shell at the front and rear end.[32] The hypothesis proposes that the first brachiopod converted its shells into a pair of valves by folding the rear part of its body under its front.[14]
However, fossils from 2007 onwards have supported a new interpretation of the Early-Cambrian tommotiids and a new hypothesis that brachiopods evolved from tommotiids. The "armor mail" of tommotiids was well-known but not in a assembled form, and it was generally assumed that tommotiids were slug-like animals similar to Halkieria, except that tommotiids' armor was made of organophosphatic compounds while that of Halkieria was made of calcite. However fossils of a new tommotiid, Eccentrotheca, showed an assembled mail coat that formed a tube, which would indicate a sessile animal rather than a creeping slug-like one. Eccentrotheca's organophosphatic tube resembled that of phoronids,[33] sessile animals that feed by lophophores and are regarded either very close relatives or a sub-group of brachiopods.[34] Paterimitra, another mostly assembled fossil found in 2008 and described in 2009, had two symmetrical plates at the bottom, like brachiopod valves but not fully enclosing the animal's body.[35]

This is Hypothesis, or might I say an educated quess. Explain to me the difference between this and my proofs of God.
 
Old 09-12-2011, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Warren, Michigan
5,298 posts, read 3,904,912 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikebnllnb View Post
Why bother? You won't make a reasonable argument against the evidence presented. In the long run attitudes like yours will doom religion. One day mankind will look back on Christianity, Islam and the ilk the way we now look the Greek and Roman pantheons. All religions are doomed to one day become mythology. That day can't come fast enough!

Religion was doomed long before you or I were born.

Lets have the proof of your evolution. When was the last time anyone in your family evolved? Your father, his father, his gradfather, his great grandfather, and all those before him were exactly alike. There was no change in them way back then, and has been none now.
 
Old 09-12-2011, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,123,324 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiel View Post
There is no gradual evolution of the fossil record. If everything developed from the same primordal soup, certainly there would be some very basic creatures that would have existed between the soup and the creatures we are familiar with. Why aren't there any? Explain to me the connection between unicellular organisms and all other life forms?
You mean... like sponges?

http://www.learningcommunity202.org/PEHS/departments/science/tmurphy/animals_fourth/Sponges/assets/sponge.jpg (broken link)
 
Old 09-12-2011, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,123,324 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiel View Post
This is Hypothesis, or might I say an educated quess. Explain to me the difference between this and my proofs of God.
Evidence.
 
Old 09-12-2011, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Warren, Michigan
5,298 posts, read 3,904,912 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Evidence.

I gave you the evidence, Atheist are proof of God.
 
Old 09-12-2011, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Warren, Michigan
5,298 posts, read 3,904,912 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
You mean... like sponges?

Are you kidding me. Are you suggesting that a sponge is a connection between unicellular organisims and all other lifeforms?

Man please, please lets continue to be serious.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top