the other evolutionary explosion

[IndigoChild5559]

So then the genealogy is not accurate also, is that your take on it?

By genealogy do you mean the order in which the animals were created? Well, to start with, you have to ask which genealogy, because Genesis two gives a completely different one than Genesis one. In Genesis two, Man is created first, and THEN all the plants.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Meantime, land animals and sea animals are a bit different, wouldn't you say? Since you know more about evolution than I do (names & order and all), I guess sea animals that stay underwater their whole lives, had to eat food that was in the ocean. You can discount Genesis all you want, please do say if science determined that sea animals came before land rovers. Thanks.

Oh yes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Meantime, land animals and sea animals are a bit different, wouldn't you say?

Some more then others.

Since you know more about evolution than I do (names & order and all), I guess sea animals that stay underwater their whole lives, had to eat food that was in the ocean.

There's sea animals today that stay underwater their whole lives who are quite happy eating food that comes from land, and vice versa.

Not sure what you think this proves.

You can discount Genesis all you want, please do say if science determined that sea animals came before land rovers. Thanks.

yes, sea life came first.

 

[YoursTrue]

By genealogy do you mean the order in which the animals were created? Well, to start with, you have to ask which genealogy, because Genesis two gives a completely different one than Genesis one. In Genesis two, Man is created first, and THEN all the plants.

Let me rephrase, as the saying goes. Do you believe anything that Moses wrote? And if yes or no, how about the history of mankind, citing names, from Adam on until the movement into the Promised Land?

 

[Valjean]

If I understand you correctly, are you saying that marine animals like fish existed before plants on the earth with animals that ate plants on the earth (like cows and sheep)? Sea animals such as fish generally do not eat grasses and wheat, right?

"Animal" is ambiguous. Different taxonomic systems use different criteria. Are Protozoa animals?
"Plants?" "Vegetation?" Also ambiguous.

Life existed in the sea long before it ever spread to land. What taxonomic groups would that include? Plants? -- I don't think so, early on.
Photosynthesis and plants were a subsequent development. Q: Were chloroplasts animals, before they were incorporated into phytoplankton and, later, plants.

I doubt that. Can you prove it beyond conjecture?

You know better than to use "prove," in a scientific context, Yours True. You're baiting us.

Re: Gnostic's post, yes, there is abundant evidence.

 

[Audie]

"Animal" is ambiguous. Different taxonomic systems use different criteria. Are Protozoa animals?
"Plants?" "Vegetation?" Also ambiguous.

Life existed in the sea long before it ever spread to land. What taxonomic groups would that include? Plants? -- I don't think so, early on.
Photosynthesis and plants, were a subsequent development.

You know better than to use "prove," in a scientific context, Yours True. You're baiting us.
.

Possible that he don't know no better.

 

[YoursTrue]

By genealogy do you mean the order in which the animals were created? Well, to start with, you have to ask which genealogy, because Genesis two gives a completely different one than Genesis one. In Genesis two, Man is created first, and THEN all the plants.

Hi. Could you please give me the verses you are talking about?

 

[YoursTrue]

"Animal" is ambiguous. Different taxonomic systems use different criteria. Are Protozoa animals?
"Plants?" "Vegetation?" Also ambiguous.

Life existed in the sea long before it ever spread to land. What taxonomic groups would that include? Plants? -- I don't think so, early on.
Photosynthesis and plants were a subsequent development. Q: Were chloroplasts animals, before they were incorporated into phytoplankton and, later, plants.

You know better than to use "prove," in a scientific context, Yours True. You're baiting us.

Re: Gnostic's post, yes, there is abundant evidence.

I just want to know. I mean, it just seems to me that there is little reconciliation. For instance, many people claim to follow a religion based on the Bible, and then start playing the field when it comes to creation. Remember -- I am not a biology student, but I did well on tests because (1) I believed at the time what I was being taught about evolution, and (2) I was a good student -- in other words, studied enough to believe (not question) and remember the information.

 

[YoursTrue]

"Animal" is ambiguous. Different taxonomic systems use different criteria. Are Protozoa animals?
"Plants?" "Vegetation?" Also ambiguous.

Life existed in the sea long before it ever spread to land. What taxonomic groups would that include? Plants? -- I don't think so, early on.
Photosynthesis and plants were a subsequent development. Q: Were chloroplasts animals, before they were incorporated into phytoplankton and, later, plants.

You know better than to use "prove," in a scientific context, Yours True. You're baiting us.

Re: Gnostic's post, yes, there is abundant evidence.

Yes, you know that's an interesting point regarding 'animal,' plant, protozoa, etc. Then there are the fly-eating plants. Fascinating. Anyway, regardless of time tables, we weren't there, which is one reason why I like Newton's statement that he knows gravity by happenstance.
Oh, yes, and P.S. it seems rather clear to many (?) most (?) that humans are/were the latest in the development. After water, after fishes, after lions, chimps, etc. And plants.

 

[Audie]

Yes, you know that's an interesting point regarding 'animal,' plant, protozoa, etc. Then there are the fly-eating plants. Fascinating. Anyway, regardless of time tables, we weren't there, which is one reason why I like Newton's statement that he knows gravity by happenstance.
Oh, yes, and P.S. it seems rather clear to many (?) most (?) that humans are/were the latest in the development. After water, after fishes, after lions, chimps, etc. And plants.

Only creationists think humans are the most recent species.

 

[YoursTrue]

Only creationists think humans are the most recent species.

They aren't?

 

[YoursTrue]

"Animal" is ambiguous. Different taxonomic systems use different criteria. Are Protozoa animals?
"Plants?" "Vegetation?" Also ambiguous.

Life existed in the sea long before it ever spread to land. What taxonomic groups would that include? Plants? -- I don't think so, early on.
Photosynthesis and plants were a subsequent development. Q: Were chloroplasts animals, before they were incorporated into phytoplankton and, later, plants.

You know better than to use "prove," in a scientific context, Yours True. You're baiting us.

.

I thought about that, Valjean (using the word 'prove') because anyway, I guess if I get off this chair, that's proof that I got off the chair.

 

[rational experiences]

It is a recent proposed designation hypothetically about 33 million years before the Ediacaran extinction and the Resulting Cambrian explosion there was the Avalon explosion, which resulting in the appearance and diversification of more complex multicellular animals and plants.

Yet those bodies in their forms are not telling any story about comparisons.

To claim intelligence the self doing the explanations comparing is claiming intelligence by comparisons. Human.

Who is really saying seems like dramatic causes changed form all of a sudden as an intelligent realisation.

Which would also claim as a scientist don't cause massive energy changes. To state I am intelligently in science advised.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Let me rephrase, as the saying goes. Do you believe anything that Moses wrote? And if yes or no, how about the history of mankind, citing names, from Adam on until the movement into the Promised Land?

Yes. I believe in the 613 laws that God gave to Israel.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hi. Could you please give me the verses you are talking about?

יא וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, תַּדְשֵׁא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע, עֵץ פְּרִי עֹשֶׂה פְּרִי לְמִינוֹ, אֲשֶׁר זַרְעוֹ-בוֹ עַל-הָאָרֶץ; וַיְהִי-כֵן. 11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so.
יב וַתּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע, לְמִינֵהוּ, וְעֵץ עֹשֶׂה-פְּרִי אֲשֶׁר זַרְעוֹ-בוֹ, לְמִינֵהוּ; וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים, כִּי-טוֹב. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
יג וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם שְׁלִישִׁי. {פ} 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

The third day was before even the sun and the moon. Far before the creation of man on the sixth day.

now for Genesis 2

ה וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה, טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ, וְכָל-עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה, טֶרֶם יִצְמָח: כִּי לֹא הִמְטִיר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, עַל-הָאָרֶץ, וְאָדָם אַיִן, לַעֲבֹד אֶת-הָאֲדָמָה. 5 No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground;
ו וְאֵד, יַעֲלֶה מִן-הָאָרֶץ, וְהִשְׁקָה, אֶת-כָּל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה. 6 but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
ז וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם, עָפָר מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו, נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים; וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה. 7 Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[Audie]

They aren't?

Out of about 9 million species of animals
human beings just happen to be the newest?

Only a creationist would think that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I thought about that, Valjean (using the word 'prove') because anyway, I guess if I get off this chair, that's proof that I got off the chair.

It would be evidence that you were seated and now are not. I have no idea if a chair even exists where you are. Given that humans sit in chairs, often have them handy and often use them when using the internet, I would accept your evidence that you got off a chair. Unless better evidence were offered that might lead to a revised conclusion.

For that matter, you may not mean you are seated, but are on the chair in some other way. You did not specify.

 

[shunyadragon]

Out of about 9 million species of animals
human beings just happen to be the newest?

Only a creationist would think that.

Humans are not the newest.

 

[shunyadragon]

I thought about that, Valjean (using the word 'prove') because anyway, I guess if I get off this chair, that's proof that I got off the chair.

Odd, getting off the chair is proof of getting off the chair? This is not a question of a 'proof.'

 

[Yazata]

Before the Cambrian explosion there was another period of explosive evolution, and for the life of me, I can't remember what it is called. Plants grew in fractals, and animal life often had three point and five point radial symmetry. Can anyone here help me with this?

It seems to me that there have been a number of major transformative evolutionary events in the history of life. How many there are is perhaps a function of how major we take 'major' to be. Appearance of new biochemical/anatomical features and big branchings in the lineages.

The original origin of life would almost certainly qualify. The original LUCA (last universal common ancestor) line's differentiation into bacteria and archaea. Then the tremendous elaboration of metabolic pathways including the appearance of photosynthesis. A real biggie perhaps 2 bllion years subsequent to the origin of prokaryotic (bacteria and archaea) life would have to be the appearance of eukaryotes. In most cases it's difficult to know how sudden or gradual most of these changes were. And so far, these were all single celled microorganisms. (Bacteria, archaea and protozoa.)

This period in which all life on Earth was microorganisms lasted from close (nobody knows how close) to 4 billion years ago to maybe 600 million years ago. About the only multicellularity that we see are simple chains and undifferentiated colonies of cells, biofilms and things like that.

Then in the Ediacaran period the first very cryptic fossil evidence of organized multicellular organisms start to appear. A few of these might have been ancestors of some of the worms (there are many worm phyla), some were likely ancestors of the more elaborate algae like kelp, but most of them resemble nothing that exists today. One of the places where these very early multicellular fossils are particularly abundant is the Avalon peninsula of newfoundland.

Ediacaran biota - Wikipedia

Avalon explosion - Wikipedia

Here's one of the better preserved examples. It isn't clear what kind of phylogenetic affinities it has or even whether it was a plant or an animal. This might have been when the plant and animal lineages diverged. The Ediacaran biota is an active area of research.

Avalon explosion - Wikipedia

Then came the so-called Cambrian explosion in which pretty much all of the animal lineages that we see today like the arthropods, molluscs and chordates all abruptly appear in the fossil record. The Cambrian is the period in which most of the basic animal body plans that we still see today seem to have originated. My guess is that it was the result in elaborations in early larval/fetal development and in the molecular genetics that controls it.

Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

There are many theories as to what drives these kind of evolutionary events. Pretty much all of the theories are still controversial. One theory notes that the appearance of the Ediacaran biota comes "shortly" (in geological terms) after the last of the so-called "snowball Earth" episodes in which the frozen polar icecaps covered the whole planet and extended to the equator. (This itself is controversial.) Life at this time was single celled and presumably survived under the ice. The melting of the ice and the return of more temperate conditions may or may not have been associated with the appearance of organized multicellular organisms. It's all an active area of research.