Evolution

[jeffbobs]

now the way scientists say it goes is that plants came first then they made enough oxygen for animal to live but where did the animal come in? because for this to work they would of had to evolve from a plant, and how the hell can that happen, i mean i dont have a clue about any animal/plants or heard of any. so how do ya think it happened??

[Pseudomorph]

I once saw an interesting BBC show that went to explain how ancient hydrae, which behave(d) as both a plant and an animal, were the common ancestor of all animal life, once they started moving. In a sentence, we all came down from jellyfish.

[marduk]

A plant is a collection of cells

an animal is a collection of cells

its only the way they are connected that make a difference

Its cell evolution that made all the rest possible

the connections for plants is simpler and more likely to occur than the one for animals.

Its that simple

Micro cellular evolution

fascinating subject

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Atlantis Rises]

We are descended from plants? Then we am I eating so much of my brethren in salads? I don't think so. We are most likely descended from water creatures who grew, didn't breath oxygen, and then crawlled onto land, developed lungs, and mutanted.

Edited August 7, 2005 by Atlantis Rises

[aquatus1]

When we start talking about the common ancestor of plants and animals, we aren't even talking about something we would recognize as a living creature anymore. It just goes way too far back.

[Atlantis Rises]

So, are you referring to something that can breath cardon dioxide and live in a harsh, volcanic environment?

[jeffbobs]

We are descended from plants?  Then we am I eating so much of my brethren in salads?  I don't think so.  We are most likely descended from water creatures who grew, didn't breath oxygen, and then crawlled onto land, developed lungs, and mutanted.

777579[/snapback]

yes and the first thing underwater was a plant. do you not get the frist thing on this earth was plants? we didnt just apear we had to evolve from something and the only thing that lived on this earth was plants....because nothing else couold live on the earth cos they needed oxygen.

[Atlantis Rises]

I plant just didn't appear. We evolved from eminzes and single cell organisms, which later grew. But you're coming across as if a plant just appear and it was the grand-daddy of all life. It wa a result of other things.

"Who's your daddy?"

[jeffbobs]

I plant just didn't appear.  We evolved from eminzes and single cell organisms, which later grew.  But you're coming across as if a plant just appear and it was the grand-daddy of all life.  It wa a result of other things.

"Who's your daddy?"

777597[/snapback]

well wasnt it the grand daddy of things? what else was there except microscopic things.

ya i get what you mean, sorry wasnt thinking much when i did this post.....well considering this, there is no proof of darwins evolution theories so you reckon this is how all animals e.g (mamals, fishys) and the rest evolved

[Atlantis Rises]

This has the stamp of Darwin all over it. What're u talking bout?

[jeffbobs]

This has the stamp of Darwin all over it.  What're u talking bout?

777659[/snapback]

darwin says that say like a retile comes along....it turns into something else it evolves yes? that is evolution(this is the quick version btw) and he says that this is how amphibions and fish and retiles and mamals came along aswell. but there is no evidence, there are fossiles of fish and reptiles but none of any thing with both qualities e.g sharp claws and teeth, and gills.

now if this is the case them in guessing different single cell organisms evolved into the different animals, this is not what darwin predicted, this is what i am saying now.

just to make it even more simple for you here we go......

darwin: animals evolved into different animals e.g mammals and reptiles

me: different single celled organisms turned into different animals e.g 1 turned into a amphibion 1 into a fishy

NOT 1 animal turns into something completly different with completly different things abut them.

is that easier for ya?

[marduk]

yes

but its totally wrong

go and research foetal development a little Jeff and you'll see what i mean

[aquatus1]

I agree Jeff, you are making a few assumptions that aren't quite what data indicates.

For starters, there are fossils of creatures with both land and sea features, but that is actually irrelevant in reagrds to evidence for evolution. The fossil record is not where the support of modern evolutionary theory lies.

As far far as your theories go, there is no reason why both could not have occured, without violating Darwinian theory in the slightest.

[jeffbobs]

yes

but its totally wrong

go and research foetal development a little Jeff and you'll see what i mean

777690[/snapback]

what does babies growing have anything to do with what i was talking about?

[Rakarin02]

now the way scientists say it goes is that plants came first then they made enough oxygen for animal to live but where did the animal come in? because for this to work they would of had to evolve from a plant, and how the hell can that happen, i mean i dont have a clue about any animal/plants or heard of any. so how do ya think it happened??

777534[/snapback]

Plants and animals are two completely different Phyla, and are totally unrelated.

The animals lived in water.

In the Cambrian, there were many multicellular creatures, some of extinct Phyla, as well as algae and true plants. All were aquatic. The great reefs were stromatolite reefs. (Stromatoltes are growths of algae and bacteria, which excrete calcite into the mud, forming large columns and domes.)

In time, the stromatolites became semi-aquatic, existing in tidal areas. They began to move slowly inland, but could not completely leave the litoral zone (the area hit by waves during the tides).

This caused increase in oxygen around the beaches. We know this because in late Cambrian sediments, there is a sudden increase in iron oxide, or rust. This indicates there was oxygen around the beaches.

Oxygen is important because it defracts ultraviolet light. This allowed algae and plants to move into the litoral zone, and then plants to move past it inland.

The next geologic age is the Ordivician, which is when complex plants (dicotelons with seeds, though I can't remember if flowers first appeared in the Ordivician or Silurian or Devonian...) first appeared on land.

Now, I don't remember the exact dates correctly, because I focused more on minerology than palentology. (I have a degree in Geology, and took Palentology and Evolutionary Theory, but I wanted to work in the gem trade.)

If I remember correctly, the Ordivician is when the first land creatures emerged. They were amphibious crustaceans (arthropods, specifically), which became the insects. This was made possible by the spreading of plants, as oxygen (which, by the way, is toxic and corrosive in large concentrations) became more plentiful and ultraviolet radiation dropped to safe levels on land. The arthropods chitinous shell also provided excellent protection from UV, which was still relatively high.

The next age, the Silurian, is marked by the emergence of the amphibians (evolved from jawed and armored fish, or bony fish [calciferous skeletons as opposed to cartiledge]) onto land. UV levels had dropped enough from oxygen that their relatively thin scales provided sufficient UV protection.

Next, in the Devonian, there is an evolutionary explosion of brackish and fresh water life, as well as the appearance of hard eggs, which denotes the appearance of reptiles (which evolved from amphibians).

And now you know.

[marduk]

Human Babies develop Gills during their development

they lose them at seven weeks

you understand what that has to do with what you were talking about

"me: different single celled organisms turned into different animals e.g 1 turned into a amphibion 1 into a fishy "

so 1 apparently turns into a fish and then a human ?

[Rakarin02]

I agree Jeff, you are making a few assumptions that aren't quite what data indicates.

For starters, there are fossils of creatures with both land and sea features, but that is actually irrelevant in reagrds to evidence for evolution.  The fossil record is not where the support of modern evolutionary theory lies.

As far far as your theories go, there is no reason why both could not have occured, without violating Darwinian theory in the slightest.

777707[/snapback]

Um..... Ok.....

The fossils of amphibious creatures *are* important. They show transitional species, and in the fossils, morphology is the primary determiner of taxonomy.

The fossil record *is* critical to evolutionary theory. That is where we can say things like, "See, this chain of skulls shows the evolution of dolphins from a canid mammalian carnivore off the swampy coasts of what would become Madagascar."

[Rakarin02]

Human Babies develop Gills during their development

they lose them at seven weeks

you understand what that has to do with what you were talking about 

"me: different single celled organisms turned into different animals e.g 1 turned into a amphibion 1 into a fishy "

so 1 apparently turns into a fish and then a human ?

777778[/snapback]

My paleontology teacher would smack me for forgetting this....

"Ontogeny replicates philology."

Yeah, I think that's it. Basically, when a fetus is developing, it usually shows traits of previous successors in it's evolution. Almost all mammalian fetuses display amphibious traits early in development. Also, the reptilian brain stem develops first, then the mammalian cortex, then the hominid ne-cortex.

While it is not accurate enough to be taken literally (as some scientific bodies tried to do around the turn of the last century, modifying taxonomy based on ontogeny), fetus development does give a very rough "fast forward" of the creature's evolution.

[aquatus1]

The fossils of amphibious creatures *are* important. They show transitional species, and in the fossils, morphology is the primary determiner of taxonomy.

The fossil record is important. It verifies the predictions made by evolutionary theories. It is not, however, what modern evolution itself is based on. Modern evolution is based on genetic research.

The fossil record *is* critical to evolutionary theory. That is where we can say things like, "See, this chain of skulls shows the evolution of dolphins from a canid mammalian carnivore off the swampy coasts of what would become Madagascar."

777798[/snapback]

The fossil record is critical to the establishment of the evolutionary path, but that is not what evolutionary theory is about. Evolutionary theory is about how the process of evolution occurs, not about which specific creature popped up in which particular time period.

The reason why I am making this distinction is because I gather that Jeffbobs is attempting to work up to a denunciation of evolutionary theory. Considering how often, and how incorrect, the tired old argument of evolution being incorrect because the fossil record isn't accurate is brought up, I wanted to head this off at the pass by making it clear that the fossil record is not the supporting structure of evolutionary theory, and therefore trying to use it to falsify evolution would be conceptually incorrect.

[Rakarin02]

I plant just didn't appear.  We evolved from eminzes and single cell organisms, which later grew.  But you're coming across as if a plant just appear and it was the grand-daddy of all life.  It wa a result of other things.

"Who's your daddy?"

777597[/snapback]

well wasn't it the grand daddy of things? what else was there except microscopic things.

ya i get what you mean, sorry wasnt thinking much when i did this post.....well considering this, there is no proof of darwins evolution theories so you reckon this is how all animals e.g (mamals, fishys) and the rest evolved

777655[/snapback]

The first creatures were archaeocyanobacteria, followed by bacteria, monera, blue-green algae, red algae,and green algae. All are prokaryote cells, which means they don't have a true nucleus and the DNA floats freely. It is believed that once-parasitic relations between small and large cells led to symbiotic relations, which became the cell nucleus and mitocondria in eukaryote cells (complex cells with a contained nucleus which controls all DNA functions [containment, replication, and creating messenger RNA for protein syntheses in other cell parts]).

Also, "no proof of evolution"? Beg pardon? So, the Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory classes I took for my geology degree were just gibberish? My professor's PhD thesis on Ordovician brachiopod development against the emergence of plate-toothed fish and Ordovician brachiopod taxonomy were all just made up? My paper on the Ordovician/Silurian mass extinction, which knocked echinoderms out of the dominant place in shallow and brackish water, was something I just invented to "add to the conspiracy"?

And the basis of your understanding of evolutionary mechanics, taxonomy, biology, chemistry, genetics, atomic dating, geology, and paleontology which is so deep it lets you summarily dismiss the lifelong work of thousands of credentialed and distinguished researches spending lifetimes doing carefully analyzed and peer-reviewed research, this comes from....?

[Rakarin02]

The fossil record is critical to the establishment of the evolutionary path, but that is not what evolutionary theory is about.  Evolutionary theory is about how the process of evolution occurs, not about which specific creature popped up in which particular time period.

The reason why I am making this distinction is because I gather that Jeffbobs is attempting to work up to a denunciation of evolutionary theory.  Considering how often, and how incorrect, the tired old argument of evolution being incorrect because the fossil record isn't accurate is brought up, I wanted to head this off at the pass by making it clear that the fossil record is not the supporting structure of evolutionary theory, and therefore trying to use it to falsify evolution would be conceptually incorrect.

777833[/snapback]

Ok, I see what you're saying. Here in Florida, I've grown accustomed to people saying the fossil record is wong because "it's just a bunch of bones in mud" or "the Devil put them there to deceive us". (I hear the latter one about every six months over the last ten years just sitting in restaurants or waiting in line.) I just get testy and p***y when I see people say "The fossil record is wrong. Evolution is wrong." They are always the ones who have no idea what they are talking about, and usually end up quoting their minister as "proof". Sorry.

So, you and I are just arguing over small points. You say the fossil record is secondary because it confirms the process, but evolutionary theory is focuses more on the genetics. I say the fossil record is important because it shows the changes in morphology which proves changes occur to increase adaptability to an environment. Also, I was accustomed to using palaeontological dating of sedimentary rocks (ostracods, radiolaria, those large shelled single-cell thingies which my professor will probably magically appear and smack me for forgetting their name... and one of the masters students was doing her dissertation on those.... argh....), so morhpology was always what was most important to me.

Macro development vs. micro development. Or, to use that hackneyed analogy, you have the elephant's ear, I have its tail.

I'm sorry. Truce?

[jeffbobs]

Human Babies develop Gills during their development

they lose them at seven weeks

you understand what that has to do with what you were talking about

"me: different single celled organisms turned into different animals e.g 1 turned into a amphibion 1 into a fishy "

so 1 apparently turns into a fish and then a human ?

777778[/snapback]

well i made a mistake, i mean multi celled cos we are multi celled. not you dont turninto a fish as you have lungs aswell 1 feture the same as a different creature doesnt make you that kind of creature. and it has nothing to do with evolution.....how does a baby being born have anything to do with survival of the fittest, cos that how evolution works

[Rakarin02]

This has the stamp of Darwin all over it.  What're u talking bout?

777659[/snapback]

darwin: animals evolved into different animals e.g mammals and reptiles

me: different single celled organisms turned into different animals e.g 1 turned into a amphibion 1 into a fishy

NOT 1 animal turns into something completly different with completly different things abut them.

is that easier for ya?

777683[/snapback]

There is some truth to what you say, but not in your example. Different phyla evolved from different groups of multi-cellular animals. However, there was an original "progenitor" eukaryote.

The problem with your example is, all those creatures are from the phylum Vertebrata. Basically, all vertebrates (creatures with a backbone, spine, and centralized nervous system) come from the same original stock.

Now, there are some who say that vertebrates arose from chordate echindas (starfish, sea urchins, sand dollars, sea lillies), which started to develop a central nerve column (sea lillies), but most say vertebrates came from a phylum of complex worms. (Worms are very successful in evolution, with eleven phyla of worms today, and some have a "ventral nerve column".)

So, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals (and avians, saurians) did not evolve from separate crawly things. There are too may physiological similarities to place them all in different phyla. One crawly thing developed a "ventral nerve column", a skeleton (probably cartlidge before bone) which supported the nerve column, and then a spine and nerve central nerve cluster. This crawly thing with a backbone became fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then saurians and avians and mammals.

[jeffbobs]

This has the stamp of Darwin all over it.  What're u talking bout?

777659[/snapback]

darwin: animals evolved into different animals e.g mammals and reptiles

me: different single celled organisms turned into different animals e.g 1 turned into a amphibion 1 into a fishy

NOT 1 animal turns into something completly different with completly different things abut them.

is that easier for ya?

777683[/snapback]

There is some truth to what you say, but not in your example. Different phyla evolved from different groups of multi-cellular animals. However, there was an original "progenitor" eukaryote.

The problem with your example is, all those creatures are from the phylum Vertebrata. Basically, all vertebrates (creatures with a backbone, spine, and centralized nervous system) come from the same original stock.

Now, there are some who say that vertebrates arose from chordate echindas (starfish, sea urchins, sand dollars, sea lillies), which started to develop a central nerve column (sea lillies), but most say vertebrates came from a phylum of complex worms. (Worms are very successful in evolution, with eleven phyla of worms today, and some have a "ventral nerve column".)

So, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals (and avians, saurians) did not evolve from separate crawly things. There are too may physiological similarities to place them all in different phyla. One crawly thing developed a "ventral nerve column", a skeleton (probably cartlidge before bone) which supported the nerve column, and then a spine and nerve central nerve cluster. This crawly thing with a backbone became fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then saurians and avians and mammals.

777881[/snapback]

hehe sand dollars

[marduk]

My professor's PhD thesis on Ordovician brachiopod development against the emergence of plate-toothed fish and Ordovician brachiopod taxonomy were all just made up

He must be a very interesting person !!