Originally posted by tabibito
View Post
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
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
-
In theory, there are varieties of H Sap that could have been the original peoples of the Genesis record.
The most recent event of geological record that could provide the fundamentals of the Noah story was 700 000 years ago. That is within a fair estimate of H Sap times, but outside H Sap Sap (to the best of current knowledge.)
Genesis does provide a brief account of possible genetic changes post Noah's ark; from a vegetarian to omnivorous diet.
As I said, not necessarily ... that doesn't mean that I believe it - just that I'm keeping the books open.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostIn theory, there are varieties of H Sap that could have been the original peoples of the Genesis record.
The most recent event of geological record that could provide the fundamentals of the Noah story was 700 000 years ago. That is within a fair estimate of H Sap times, but outside H Sap Sap (to the best of current knowledge.)
As far as the history of human ancestors the evidence indicates a more gradual rise of Homo sapiens or Homo sapiens sapiens?, direct documented fossils of H sap. goes back at least to the sub species Homo Sap Idaltu at about ~160,000 years ago. Evidence indicates that there was a large variation Homo subspecies around the world going back one to two million years, and the Neanderthals split off at least ~800,000 or more years ago. The evidence indicates that these variations of subspecies did interbred at different times, as with Neanderthals. IT accepted today that Homo sapiens sapiens evolved out of this to dominate the world.
Genesis does provide a brief account of possible genetic changes post Noah's ark; from a vegetarian to omnivorous diet.Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-20-2019, 01:47 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostDo we know that? Show me fossilized evidence of the structure of an Ediacaran brain. If you can't, please retract this claim.
Indeed. It's three!
Why didn't you look this up, rather than waiting for me to tell you, if it's central to your argument? Again, i have to ask, don't you care about getting things right?
Blessings,
LeeLast edited by lee_merrill; 05-20-2019, 02:58 PM."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 TheLurch View PostThen why's he talking about prebiotic chemistry instead of the design of the cell?
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 PostActually the best estimate of an event that parallels the Genesis story of the flood is the catastrophic Sumerian flood of the Tigris Euphrates Valley between 4000 and 2000 BCE and the associated Sumerian cuneiform record.
As far as the history of human ancestors the evidence indicates a more gradual rise of Homo sapiens or Homo sapiens sapiens?, direct documented fossils of H sap. goes back at least to the sub species Homo Sap Idaltu at about ~160,000 years ago. Evidence indicates that there was a large variation Homo subspecies around the world going back one to two million years, and the Neanderthals split off at least ~800,000 or more years ago. The evidence indicates that these variations of subspecies did interbred at different times, as with Neanderthals. IT accepted today that Homo sapiens sapiens evolved out of this to dominate the world.
The dominante evidence indicates that Homo sapiens and our relatives were by far dominantly omnivorous Stone Age tool makers going back to more than one to two million years.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostThat was NOT a near extinction event.
I believe it is a huge stretch to associate this with the Biblical record of human origins, or a Biblical flood.Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-21-2019, 07:44 AM.
Comment
-
I may have the time frame wrong, but Toba isn't the event I was thinking of. As you said - Toba doesn't account for the Biblical record of Noah. I regard the story of Noah as unlikely in the extreme - If anything matches* that event, it certainly was not less than 200 000 years ago, though less than 300 000 might be an outside possibility.
* insofar as the bare essentials are concerned.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWell, they don't seem to have stomachs (at 18:40), so it would seem unlikely they have brains.
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostIn this link they also mention sensory systems which led to brains today (at 33:40), which would imply no brains.
So i'd rate that video as ambiguous on the topic.
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostI think three ganglia is making a complex brain seem simple (for the detailed description, see above). Reference, please?
The point is that YOU DON'T KNOWa nice diagram of the insect brain here:
(A less pretty version that shows the same thing.)
What you'll see is that the brain's structure is dominated by input processing centers, paired left and right side. These include inputs from the compound eyes and antenna labelled there; there's also something unlabelled called the "mushroom body" - it's the thing just above where the eyes feed in, and it handles smell/taste input (the two senses are often hard to distinguish in insects). Everything below the esophageal connective or so is not part of the brain proper, but elaboration of the nerve cord.
Outside of sensory input, you have basically three key structures (the source of my "three ganglia" oversimplification). One's a central body that seems to have a general coordinating function - the sort of "brain" proper - and two that act as intermediaries between the brain and the nerve cord. They're shown as left and right in this diagram, but it's usually not quite that neat, as the less pretty diagram shows.
What's the take home of this in terms of evolutionary complexity? That most of the brain structures you'll see in insects are the product of having sensory input to deal with (that's also clear from reading one of the abstracts that a Lee linked too). We know compound eyes were around by the time of the Cambrian, and so it's completely predictable that Cambrian arthropods would have a pair of lobes for handling their input. Same with antenna. And those processing centers are the key structures that have been identified in these fossils based on the carbon imprints they left behind.
If you're interested in brain complexity that's not dictated by the body (and its sensory organs), well, the insect's a lousy place to look. The actual brain proper is pretty small and doesn't have the same kind of elaborate, compartmentalized structure that vertebrate brains have. And the fossils described in the papers Lee has linked don't seem to be able to resolve anything about it, merely that it's there.
TL; DR: complexity in the insect CNS is driven by the presence of sensory organs, and Cambrian arthropods had a full suite of sensory organs. Lee's demand for a low-complexity CNS seems to imply that he expects these sensory organs should exist without the ability to process their input (?).
Prediction: Lee will now shift the goalposts to arguing that the earliest arthropods shouldn't have a full suite of sensory organs."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostWhy do you say that? Or, rather, what biological principal do you base that conclusion on?
Not clear whether she means "brains like today's" or what; it's especially ambiguous given that she just said that the foraging behavior indicated that "things are getting smarter" throughout the Ediacaran. Hard to get smarter without a brain.
So i'd rate that video as ambiguous on the topic.
I am to an extent, but that's avoiding the point.
The point is that YOU DON'T KNOW. This is your argument, you've been pushing it for weeks, and you haven't bothered to do even the most minimal bit of research to support it.
Why do you always make other people do the work for you? Why can't you be bothered to put in the effort to support your own arguments?
In any case, a short discourse on the insect central nervous system (CNS) for those who care.
Insects have a ventral nerve cord as opposed to the dorsal one in us vertebrates (the axis seems to have flipped in the hemichordates, which have a diffuse, cordless nervous system). There's typically a dense cluster of nerves in each segment—a ganglion—so the CNS (though not the brain) has multiple ganglia.
You can see a nice diagram of the insect brain here:
(A less pretty version that shows the same thing.)
What you'll see is that the brain's structure is dominated by input processing centers, paired left and right side. These include inputs from the compound eyes and antenna labelled there; there's also something unlabelled called the "mushroom body" - it's the thing just above where the eyes feed in, and it handles smell/taste input (the two senses are often hard to distinguish in insects). Everything below the esophageal connective or so is not part of the brain proper, but elaboration of the nerve cord.
Outside of sensory input, you have basically three key structures (the source of my "three ganglia" oversimplification). One's a central body that seems to have a general coordinating function - the sort of "brain" proper - and two that act as intermediaries between the brain and the nerve cord. They're shown as left and right in this diagram, but it's usually not quite that neat, as the less pretty diagram shows.
What's the take home of this in terms of evolutionary complexity? That most of the brain structures you'll see in insects are the product of having sensory input to deal with (that's also clear from reading one of the abstracts that a Lee linked too). We know compound eyes were around by the time of the Cambrian, and so it's completely predictable that Cambrian arthropods would have a pair of lobes for handling their input. Same with antenna. And those processing centers are the key structures that have been identified in these fossils based on the carbon imprints they left behind.
If you're interested in brain complexity that's not dictated by the body (and its sensory organs), well, the insect's a lousy place to look. The actual brain proper is pretty small and doesn't have the same kind of elaborate, compartmentalized structure that vertebrate brains have. And the fossils described in the papers Lee has linked don't seem to be able to resolve anything about it, merely that it's there.
TL; DR: complexity in the insect CNS is driven by the presence of sensory organs, and Cambrian arthropods had a full suite of sensory organs. Lee's demand for a low-complexity CNS seems to imply that he expects these sensory organs should exist without the ability to process their input (?).
Prediction: Lee will now shift the goalposts to arguing that the earliest arthropods shouldn't have a full suite of sensory organs.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostWhy do you say that? Or, rather, what biological principal do you base that conclusion on?
The point is that YOU DON'T KNOW. This is your argument, you've been pushing it for weeks, and you haven't bothered to do even the most minimal bit of research to support it.
In any case, a short discourse on the insect central nervous system (CNS) for those who care.
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 PostA lot of work on this, which Dory will sidestep or ignore."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostIsn't Tour the guy who once erroneously declared that "there is not a scientist living today that understands macroevolution" (a proclamation made after talking to a handful of his chemist colleagues and not with a single biologist)?
What Tours actually said was that he does not understand macroevolution and that the few synthetic chemists that he asked about it did not seem to understand it either. Of course that hardly means that "no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution" by any stretch and it is incredibly dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Moreover Tours should have been asking biologists, zoologists or maybe geneticists rather than synthetic chemists. It's no different than asking geologists for an explanation on quantum physics. You are simply asking the wrong experts[1].
Further, it appears that Tours was not even asking them about macroevolution in the first place but rather about the origin of life ("How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA?").
If that is indeed the case and he really is that confused about the matter then is it really a surprise that he says that many of those fellow synthetic chemists who he asked "just stare at me" and don't respond? I doubt that it is, as he concludes, "because they can't sincerely do it" but rather because they're trying to decide if he is serious or merely joking.
1. Someone speaking about something outside of their field of expertise has no more authoritative view on the matter than a plumber pontificating on the cardiopulmonary system.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 05-28-2024, 01:19 PM
|
18 responses
100 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-30-2024, 05:13 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 12:33 PM
|
9 responses
91 views
2 likes
|
Last Post 05-27-2024, 05:48 AM |
Comment