Life From Dirt?

[YoursTrue]

In the first few picoseconds of the Big Bang, for reasons that are not understood, the universe expanded very rapidly in a process described as "exponential inflation". During this inflationary period, the diameter of the universe increased much faster than the speed of light.

altvw104

John G. Cramer Analog Column Alternate View 104 BOOMERanG and the Sound of the Big Bang

www.npl.washington.edu

Because you and maybe some scientists say so, that's why, ok. again, have a good day and bye for now.

 

[Little Dragon]

Because you and maybe some scientists say so, that's why, ok. again, have a good day and bye for now.

It might be wrong, but it is logically reducible, and if it is wrong, it is wrong because the data is wrong, not the method.

 

[shunyadragon]

Illiterate or not, Mr. Shunydragon, the fact is that no human knows how it all began or didn't begin with a substance burgeoning out to become plants and animals. Not even you.

Yes, you are illiterate, because you obviously do not understand the sources you cite, You perpetually take the position of justifying your ancient tribal agenda based on what you claim are the current limits of scientific knowledge. You fail to realize or refuse to acknowledge that 30 to 40 years ago science did not have enough information to make the hypothesis for LUCA, and they did not have the genetic, fossil, and geochemical knowledge we have today. This is how the proposal of hypotheses with prediction and falsification process takes place over time, and NOT determined by what science knows 'now.'

You like other fundamentalists stage your questions in a manner that you demand that science must know everything 'now'. If they do not know 'now' their hypotheses are false or unanswerable. Also, many of your questions and challenges like the one concerning Chromosome numbers are really ridiculous, because the explanation of variations in Chromosome numbers in the process of evolution has been known for many years, I learned the basics in genetic college courses over 50 years ago, Your only response was to repeat the ridiculous intentional ignorance over and over again ignoring the references provided that provided you with a detailed explanation.

"No human knows" is a classic 'arguing from ignorance' scapegoat avoiding what science 'knows' and how Methodological Naturalism falsifies hypotheses over time of discoveries and research.

 

[shunyadragon]

Because you and maybe some scientists say so, that's why, ok. again, have a good day and bye for now.

No, it is not the case that scientists just 'say so,' but this is the common theme of the fundamentalists lacking science to support their arguments.

Again your mind crack repeats 'bye for now' when you are unable to provide an intelligent response. The post you responded to provided a good reference. All you were capable of was an insult.

 

[shunyadragon]

Listen, I’ve gone over this several times w/ other posters, but you are new to this site, so I’ll explain it to you….

Have you yourself examined the pre-Cambrian or the Ediacaran biota?

I have as geologist and geochemist and continue to follow the research

The Lägerstatten in which the pre-Cambrian fossils are found, have preserved the organisms extremely well! Even features of the soft -bodied animals exhibit fine preservation!

And guess what? No obvious precursors have been discovered, where phylogeny is observed.

First, the above is false and you do not remotely understand how evolution takes place during extinction events and subsequent replacement of life with new complex forms is common throughout the history of life on earth. It is demonstrated that the Edicarian extinction event led to the extinction of almost all the larger more complex species, but not all. Some complex species have been demonstrated to survive. There is also abundant primitive species such as algae, fungi, lichens, basal opisthokonts, and stem or crown-group animals still existed that represent life that evolved to complex forms in the Edicarian. See bold.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pala.12393

Macro-organisms of the Ediacaran period (635–541 Ma) were large and morphologically complex, with some living in aphotic habitats, presenting the possibility that they were early animals. However, ‘bizarre’ Ediacaran morphologies and mouldic preservation have frustrated comparison to later taxa. Consequently, both the positions of Ediacaran biota in the tree of life and the origins of the Metazoa have remained disputed. Here we provide phylogenetic evidence to identify Ediacaran macro-biota as animals, based on 206 new fossils of Stromatoveris psygmoglena from the lower Cambrian Chengjiang Lagerstätte. Exceptionally preserved soft-tissue anatomy shows that Stromatoveris was a soft-bodied, radially symmetric animal with multiple, sub-branched petaloids and a differentiated holdfast. Photo-referenced morphological character analysis enables phylogenetic reconstruction of a monophyletic clade designated Petalonamae, that unites Stromatoveris with iconic Ediacaran genera (Rangea, Pteridinium, Ernietta, Swartpuntia, Arborea, Pambikalbae and Dickinsonia) and is placed as sister-group to the Eumetazoa. Therefore, based on phylogenetic bracketing within the Metazoa, the Ediacaran petalonamids are established as animals. From these findings, it follows that petalonamids remained an important component of Cambrian marine ecosystems and that the metazoan radiation can be dated to a minimum age of between 558 and 571 myr.

The extinction events in the history of life caused the extinction of most of the larger and more complex life are repeated throughout the history of life on earth documented by a change in the environment. This is followed by a resurgence of the evolution of larger, more diverse, and more complex life. Over time new discoveries and research provide more knowledge and documentation of how these events take place. We are likely in the process of an extinction event caused by humans similar to the extinction event that occurred at the end of the Permian.

Check the evidence for yourself.

Take care.

As referenced above. Your unethical strategy of misrepresenting science and scientists continues unabated. The following from a previous post in response to @YoursTrue and is relevant to your unethical tactics concerning science.

Yes, you are illiterate, because you obviously do not understand the sources you cite, You perpetually take the position of justifying your ancient tribal agenda based on what you claim are the current limits of scientific knowledge. You fail to realize or refuse to acknowledge that 30 to 40 years ago science did not have enough information to make the hypothesis for LUCA, and they did not have the fossil and geochemical knowledge we have today. This is how the proposal of hypotheses with prediction and falsification process takes place.

You like other fundamentalists stage your questions in a manner that science must know everything 'now'..If they do not know 'now' their hypotheses are false or unanswerable. Also, many of your questions and challenges like the one concerning Chromosome numbers are really ridiculous, because the explanation of variations in Chromosome numbers in the process of evolution has been known for many years, I learned the basics in genetic college courses over 50 years ago, Your only response was to repeat the ridiculous intentional ignorance over and over again ignoring the references provided that provided you with a detailed explanation.

This applies in spades to your challenge concerning the relationship between Edcarian life and Cambrian life. Your over-the-top claim of what must be obvious is an example of an unethical argument approach as to what the present knowledge of science has determined, loaded with your unethical arguing from ignorance

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually, he wrote more extensively on religious subjects, than on any other topic.
And he did “study the Bible daily.”
(I can find the link, but i doubt you’d appreciate it.)

He would’ve found the contradictions. (That is what this particular conversation with gnostic was about, btw.)

Or, like so many other theists who really want their beliefs to be true, he made stuff up to explain it away.

He studied alchemy like crazy also. He would've also found that it was bs, if he did it without bias.

 

[YoursTrue]

"In the first few picoseconds of the Big Bang, for reasons that are not understood, the universe expanded very rapidly in a process described as "exponential inflation". During this inflationary period, the diameter of the universe increased much faster than the speed of light."

altvw104

John G. Cramer Analog Column Alternate View 104 BOOMERanG and the Sound of the Big Bang

www.npl.washington.edu

like anyone really knows...again...have a good day.

 

[YoursTrue]

It might be wrong, but it is logically reducible, and if it is wrong, it is wrong because the data is wrong, not the method.

now that makes me laugh inside, thanks.

 

[ChristineM]

like anyone really knows...

Actually it is known from 10e-43 of a second following the bb. That is trillions of times less time than the fastest clock tick of the fastest computer.

Prior to 10e-43 one can only hazard a guess because it is getting to close to infinity and calculations begin to break down.

Here ya go.
Timeline of the early universe - Wikipedia

 

[shunyadragon]

like anyone really knows...again...have a good day.

Changing the topic to the origin of the universe is a wandering diversion and not related to the topic "Life from dirt,"

You have some posts to respond to that directly relate to the subject of the thread.

 

[Little Dragon]

now that makes me laugh inside, thanks.

Cool.

 

[Little Dragon]

like anyone really knows...again...have a good day.

I suspect the word "theory" is somewhat an alien concept for you.
A scientific theory is not absolute fact, it is a model of reality, supported by testable falsifiable, evidence.
Why do you demand absolute certainty? That is irrational.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually it is known from 10e-43 of a second following the bb. That is trillions of times less time than the fastest clock tick of the fastest computer.

Prior to 10e-43 one can only hazard a guess because it is getting to close to infinity and calculations begin to break down.

Here ya go.
Timeline of the early universe - Wikipedia

It is known? I don't think so. It is supposed, not known.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually it is known from 10e-43 of a second following the bb. That is trillions of times less time than the fastest clock tick of the fastest computer.

Prior to 10e-43 one can only hazard a guess because it is getting to close to infinity and calculations begin to break down.

Here ya go.
Timeline of the early universe - Wikipedia

You're feeding the topic bait and switch monster.

 

[YoursTrue]

You're feeding the topic bait and switch monster.

It is not known. Period. It is guessed at. In broad sequences.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is not known. Period. It is guessed at. In broad sequences.

Changing the topic to the origin of the universe is a wandering diversion and not related to the topic "Life from dirt,"

You have some posts to respond to that directly relate to the subject of the thread.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Absolute nonsense. Prove it. Show a scientific paper that supports this view. Show this evidence.

Also, take care too.

Oh brother.
Why don’t you google it?
Remember, I said “obvious” precursors, like jellyfish are not obvious precursors to trilobites.

Since trilobites are found to be one of the most prolific organisms in the Cambrian, we’ll go with that: show me an obvious ancestor to trilobites.

You won’t find any tri-lobed creatures prior to them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh brother.
Why don’t you google it?
Remember, I said “obvious” precursors, like jellyfish are not obvious precursors to trilobites.

Since trilobites are found to be one of the most prolific organisms in the Cambrian, we’ll go with that: show me an obvious ancestor to trilobites.

You won’t find any tri-lobed creatures prior to them.

Why do you think that this argument helps you?

 

[ChristineM]

It is known? I don't think so. It is supposed, not known.

Study a bit of cosmology rather than just guessing to suit your ego

 

[ChristineM]

It is not known. Period. It is guessed at. In broad sequences.

Yes it is, period. It is extrapolated and calculated from known existing phenomenon.