It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Which came first dinosaur or the egg

page: 11
5
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

The first information wouldn't come from the first brain that's wrong. It would come from the first dna that had the information of which a brain can be derived

Also a brain evolving for 3 million years wouldn't be evolution. it would be micro-evolution, Which would be mutation.
edit on 30-8-2016 by ssenerawa because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: Barcs

Also a brain evolving for 3 million years wouldn't be evolution. it would be micro-evolution, Which would be mutation.


except that brains have been evolving for several hundred million years and nervous systems have been evolving for at least 1 Bn years going back to early triploblastic organisms. So ignoring the false micro/macro paradigm, over 1 Bn years of primitive nervous systems evolving into the extraordinarily complex brains we see in a wide spectrum of taxon today is hardly the simplistic mutation you try to portray it as. Just look at the differences between some of the most primitive nervous systems known from the fossil record that can be compared to living organisms, Cnidaria ( Jellyfish, sea anemone, coral and sponges are all Cnidaria and their fossils are identical to living specimens). They range from no nervous system in sponges to very simple nervous systems in jellyfish. Over hundreds of millions of years, organisms went from having either no nervous system or extremely simplistic nervous systems to the more familiar Central Nervous System we see in modern organisms, including all mammals.

Furthermore, the differences in organizational structure of Hominid brains of the last 3.2 MA between A. Afarensis( Lucy is an A. Afarensis) to H. Erectus, H. Heidelbergensis, Neanderthal and H. Sapiens Sapiens is much more complex than just an increase in cranial capacity. HSS and H. Neanderthalensis both share an immediate precursor in H. Heidelbergensis with a divergence of roughly 500 KA and the organizational structure of their brains is markedly different with a massively increased visual cortex in HN compared to HSS. This isn't just a minor mutation that can be chalked up as "just microevolution" and to claim such is beyond willful ignorance and borders on depraved indifference and an unwillingness to engage in the most basic due diligence.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

except that brains have been evolving for several hundred million years and nervous systems have been evolving for at least 1 Bn years going back to early triploblastic organisms. So ignoring the false micro/macro paradigm, over 1 Bn years of primitive nervous systems evolving into the extraordinarily complex brains we see in a wide spectrum of taxon today is hardly the simplistic mutation you try to portray it as. Just look at the differences between some of the most primitive nervous systems known from the fossil record that can be compared to living organisms, Cnidaria ( Jellyfish, sea anemone, coral and sponges are all Cnidaria and their fossils are identical to living specimens). They range from no nervous system in sponges to very simple nervous systems in jellyfish. Over hundreds of millions of years, organisms went from having either no nervous system or extremely simplistic nervous systems to the more familiar Central Nervous System we see in modern organisms, including all mammals.


Source? What empirical evidence supports this?



Furthermore, the differences in organizational structure of Hominid brains of the last 3.2 MA between A. Afarensis( Lucy is an A. Afarensis) to H. Erectus, H. Heidelbergensis, Neanderthal and H. Sapiens Sapiens is much more complex than just an increase in cranial capacity. HSS and H. Neanderthalensis both share an immediate precursor in H. Heidelbergensis with a divergence of roughly 500 KA and the organizational structure of their brains is markedly different with a massively increased visual cortex in HN compared to HSS. This isn't just a minor mutation that can be chalked up as "just microevolution" and to claim such is beyond willful ignorance and borders on depraved indifference and an unwillingness to engage in the most basic due diligence.


The following is data regarding contemporary humans (HSS as you call it):

"Figures for the average brain size of modern humans tend to vary between sources, but a typical value is 1350 or 1400 cc (cubic centimetres). The following figures should convey a feel for the normal range of variation in human skulls. Burenhult (1993) states that the 90% of humans fit in the range 1040-1595 cc, and that the extreme range is 900-2000 cc. S.J. Gould, in "The Mismeasure of Man", reviewed a 19th century study by Morton of 600 skulls which ranged from 950 to 1870 cc.... "

So with a possible range of 900-2000 cranial capacity for contemporary humans, how can we ever distinguish species by cranial capacity if the variability among contemporary humans is so large? It is very possible that these "other species" are actually homo sapiens exhibiting the commonly seen variability in morphology within our species.

Surely you would agree that the following 3 skulls are all of the same species: 3 morphologically different human skulls

edit on 31-8-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Source? What empirical evidence supports this?


If only you held your literal reading of scripture to the same standards...



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   
You guys continue to abuse terminology to force this view of design on others. Sorry, if DNA is code, then please give me the software commands that control it. Where are they? What language is the code written in? What are the basic commands of that programming language? You can't answer because we have not discovered anything like that yet. You say it's there and requires a coder, but there is no evidence that it was originally coded. Please show me the ability to copy DNA code to a storage device so it can be manipulated and then copied back. That would be actual evidence that it is software, rather than a physical structure within the cell.



1) How could a DNA mutation lead to an increase in neural tissue involving neurons and their required support cells?
2) How could this same mutation also orchestrate the organization of these hypothetical new neurons and support cells during embryonic development?
3) How, also, could this same mutation increase cranial capacity to allow for the increase in brain size?


1. Evolution
2. Evolution
3. Evolution

I know you blindly deny it, but these games are getting old. Preach your religion somewhere else.

edit on 8 31 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: Barcs

The first information wouldn't come from the first brain that's wrong. It would come from the first dna that had the information of which a brain can be derived

Also a brain evolving for 3 million years wouldn't be evolution. it would be micro-evolution, Which would be mutation.


Again, if an incredibly complex brain can evolve from a simple neural network (or a human from a single celled organism), why couldn't a simple RNA molecule evolve into complex DNA over time? Remember for 2 billion years life was all single celled organisms. That's 2 billion years to improve the functionality of RNA/DNA.

Please stop falsely portraying micro and macro evolution as separate processes. There is only evolution. Micro and macro are just a description of how much time has passed and the result of more accumulated changes. Are you seriously trying to suggest that "macro" evolution is not driven by genetic mutations and natural selection? I'd love to see something to corroborate this claim. To say that something is not evolution but micro evolution instead is laughably absurd, sorry.

All I'm saying is that the claim of an intentional designer for DNA is not scientific fact and you guys HATE that. I'm not arguing that it's wrong, I'm arguing that it is not the only possible explanation. Why not be open to all possibilities? Why can't RNA world hypothesis have merit? What about DNA self assembly experiments and the likes? I get that it's emotionally pleasing to think you were purposely designed, but that's not enough to make it true.

People just romanticize information theory these days, that's pretty much it. It's like how Deepak Chopra romanticizes quantum mechanics. None of it is based in reality. It's based on what you want to be true.



edit on 8 31 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

except that brains have been evolving for several hundred million years and nervous systems have been evolving for at least 1 Bn years going back to early triploblastic organisms. So ignoring the false micro/macro paradigm, over 1 Bn years of primitive nervous systems evolving into the extraordinarily complex brains we see in a wide spectrum of taxon today is hardly the simplistic mutation you try to portray it as. Just look at the differences between some of the most primitive nervous systems known from the fossil record that can be compared to living organisms, Cnidaria ( Jellyfish, sea anemone, coral and sponges are all Cnidaria and their fossils are identical to living specimens). They range from no nervous system in sponges to very simple nervous systems in jellyfish. Over hundreds of millions of years, organisms went from having either no nervous system or extremely simplistic nervous systems to the more familiar Central Nervous System we see in modern organisms, including all mammals.


Source? What empirical evidence supports this?



What? I can't just go on a tirade and then when asked for citations just say "It's Bio 101" as you did recently in another thread? Though in this case it was from a 400 level course, Evolution of the Nervous System in Invertebrates.



The following is data regarding contemporary humans (HSS as you call it):



Homo Sapiens Sapiens is how Biologists refer to the humans who walk the earth today, it's not some special code I invented for my own use.


So with a possible range of 900-2000 cranial capacity for contemporary humans, how can we ever distinguish species by cranial capacity if the variability among contemporary humans is so large? It is very possible that these "other species" are actually homo sapiens exhibiting the commonly seen variability in morphology within our species.


Since I quite clearly referenced

differences in organizational structure of Hominid brains of the last 3.2 MA
and nowhere did I reference anything about cranial capacity being the determining factor when identifying various hominids, your agenda and lack of knowledge in this area is frightfully apparent. For the record, cranial capacity isn't the only determining factor. Knowledge gained from endocranial casts regarding the organizational structure of the brain in question as well as morphological features of the crania also play large roles.



Surely you would agree that the following 3 skulls are all of the same species: 3 morphologically different human skulls


As someone with an actual degree in Anthropology and a specific emphasis on Paleo-Anthropology who progressed beyond Bio 101, I don't agree with anything based on someone else's 2D pictures. If I haven't seen at least a cast of the crania, I'm not normally going to offer an opinion beyond generalities.

Would YOU agree the 3 crania in your photos are of the same species? Why or why not? You seem to be an expert in the subject matter so please, enlighten us mere savants. I'd love to see you give a technical rundown on the minutiae.
edit on 31-8-2016 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

They haven't been "evolving". They've been mutating.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: peter vlar

They haven't been "evolving". They've been mutating.


I don't drive a car, I drive an automobile!



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Ok more evolution stuff which I've already read, but you stated the first "information" came from the first brain.

I stated it came from the first "DNA" with the information of which a brain can be derived.

Can you possibly refute that statement with a simple yes or no and/or a one sentence answer. Thanks



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

So if living organisms could not maintain homeostasis would it adapt and/or evolve or would it go extinct?

If living organisms attained a mutation would it gradually pass along to the offspring and/or their offspring more or less over generations?



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Micro and macro or very different as are evolution and mutation. One depends on external factors and the other depends on internal factors and genes responsible for the structure of an animal.


This is the arguement for evolution. And let me know if it's 100% correct in your honest opinion.

"In other words, beaks changed as the birds developed different tastes for fruits, seeds, or insects picked from the ground or cacti. Long, pointed beaks made some of them more fit for picking seeds out of cactus fruits. Shorter, stouter beaks served best for eating seeds found on the ground."

news.harvard.edu...



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ssenerawa

Information is a very broad term, it really depends how you define it. Virtually anything can contain information. The problem is we can't get genetic information from the vast majority of fossils because the tissue is not preserved. So we can not tell the exact evolutionary path of RNA to DNA. We don't know whether genetic code came before the first brain, although logically that makes sense. Either way it doesn't prove anything about a design, which was the point.


So if living organisms could not maintain homeostasis would it adapt and/or evolve or would it go extinct?


That is a loaded question there. Are you talking about all living organisms? If all of them could not, they would go extinct, but obviously this is not the case because life has not gone extinct and some life can maintain it even in the most extreme conditions.


If living organisms attained a mutation would it gradually pass along to the offspring and/or their offspring more or less over generations?


That would depend if the mutation was beneficial, neutral, or detrimental. Sometimes they are beneficial. Sometimes they are harmful. Sometimes they are beneficial for aeons until the environment changes and then become harmful. The mutations are a crapshoot, but the environment is not.

edit on 8 31 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa
Micro and macro or very different as are evolution and mutation. One depends on external factors and the other depends on internal factors and genes responsible for the structure of an animal.


evolution.berkeley.edu...


Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change


So no, they aren't any different. One shows long term change, the other shows short term change.

Mutation is part of evolution, so I don't really understand the argument that something mutated but didn't evolve. Are you saying that natural selection was not a factor in the case of the human brain (or the brain as a whole)?


This is the arguement for evolution. And let me know if it's 100% correct in your honest opinion.

"In other words, beaks changed as the birds developed different tastes for fruits, seeds, or insects picked from the ground or cacti. Long, pointed beaks made some of them more fit for picking seeds out of cactus fruits. Shorter, stouter beaks served best for eating seeds found on the ground."

news.harvard.edu...


I don't agree and that's not the argument for evolution, that's a small part of it as observed by Darwin. The beaks technically changed before those things, but natural selection weeded out the ones that didn't have them (making certain traits more favorable) when organisms struggled to get food during tough environmental changes. Also don't forget, the theory of evolution has come a long way since the days of Darwin. What does this have to do with design, though?
edit on 8 31 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

What? I can't just go on a tirade and then when asked for citations just say "It's Bio 101" as you did recently in another thread? Though in this case it was from a 400 level course, Evolution of the Nervous System in Invertebrates.


What is the empirical evidence. You speak as if you know the truth, so tell me what evidence is there that these are separate species and that there was millions of years between their existences. Don't take this as sarcasm, I am genuinely interested.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

The fact that you can't answer the information question without dancing, indirectly proves my point.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   


Which came first dinosaur or the egg


The dinosaur came first ... both male and female with all the needed equipment for pro creation

If it was the other way round and the egg came first ... there would be no Mommy or Dad Dinosaur to look after junior



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: peter vlar

They haven't been "evolving". They've been mutating.


And mutations are one of the mechanisms of biological evolution. Therefore if something has mutated across every single taxonomic rank, for hundreds of millions of years, then these things have evolved.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: Barcs

The fact that you can't answer the information question without dancing, indirectly proves my point.


What about the fact that you ignored the majority of my post, including where I asked you to define the word "information"?

If the answer is unknown, I can give you an opinion, but can't state with any certainty when the first "information" originated. I mentioned the brain because the majority of information is learned and created using it. Until you give me a clear definition of information, I can't really do much but speculate.


edit on 8 31 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: Barcs

The fact that you can't answer the information question without dancing, indirectly proves my point.


What about the fact that you ignored the majority of my post, including where I asked you to define the word "information"?

If the answer is unknown, I can give you an opinion, but can't state with any certainty when the first "information" originated. I mentioned the brain because the majority of information is learned and created using it. Until you give me a clear definition of information, I can't really do much but speculate.

Information in the same context as when you used it to prove your point prior


edit on 31-8-2016 by ssenerawa because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join