Moderator: Moderators
Joachim Schlick wrote:... the Net (Wikipedia – which believes as a matter of editorial policy that evolution is proved and that intelligent design is nonsense....
Joachim Schlick wrote:B. Whay creatures if any were the evolutionary successors of the trilobite, and is there any evidence of them in the fossil record?
Joachim Schlick wrote:Is it a scientific statement - or not - to say: “I consider that the data relating to the trilobite is better evidence for intelligent design than for evolution”?
Joachim Schlick wrote:By what mechanism did non-life become life and when (roughly) did this happen?
Joachim Schlick wrote:A. What is known about the evolutioanry antecedents of the trilobite, and is there any evidence of them in the fossil record?
Already been answered - the Burgess shales have yielded examples.
B. Whay creatures if any were the evolutionary successors of the trilobite, and is there any evidence of them in the fossil record?
None. Trilobites became extinct. They were rare before final extinction. There is no reason why evolutionary successors to trilobites should have developed. The horse shoe crab is generally considered to be a relative of trilobites and is in existance today.
C. By what known genetic mechanism did trilobites gain up to 15,000 elongated prism-shaped lenses arranged hexagonally and capable of seeing in the dark?
The same broad genetic mechanism which results in other features - randon mutations, natural selection and genetic drift.
D. How much DNA would be needed to code for 15,000 prism-shaped lenses arranged hexagonally and capable of seeing in the dark?
Not known. We have no trilobite DNA - whoever said trilobites could see in the dark?
The form of a structure is not directly related to the number of genes involved in the sense of the more complex it appears, the more genes are necessarily required. It is theoretically possible that the answer is zero because indivudal genes or sets of genes can control more than one feature. What there isn't is a single gene that determines each element of the feature. If you are thinking that it needs at least 15,000 genes, you are way off understanding basic genetics.
E. Which creature first developed eyes - and how and when did
they do so?
Don't know but it is widely believed that eyes generally orginated as light sensitive patches. You need to ask someone with a better knowledge of pre-Cambrian life to answer this. I would guess that the first eyes were in this period and there is some evidence that collections of free swimming single cell organisms included organisms that were more light sensitive than others. That, perhaps, suggests that the origins of eyes date back well before the Cambrian period.
F. By what evolutionary mechanism did trilobites acquire ‘feather-like epipodites’ to help them breathe and swim?
The same broad genetic mechanism which results in other features - randon mutations, natural selection and genetic drift. It is also possibly, I guess, that polyploidy may have played a significant role.
G. Is it a scientific statement - or not - to say: “I consider that the
data relating to the trilobite is better evidence for intelligent design than for evolution”?
No. Intelligent Design is not science. There is no scientific theory (explanation, if you like) of Intelligent Design. Even its proponents at the Discovery Institute admit this. Moreover we also have evidence of transitional trilobite fossils (bearing in mind that most fossils are of transitional species). The fossil record shows, for example, transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978). ID does not explain this.
ID is a a religious position indistinguishable from creationism. The fossil record of trilobites points massively away from creationism as there are no such fossils later than the Permian.
And finally:
H. By what mechanism did non-life become life and when (roughly) did this happen?
This is a seperate subject, abiogenesis. We don't yet know all the full answers although we have gone a long way towads that objective. As far as I am aware, the consensus appears to be that we are around 10-20 years off having a relatively complete understanding.
My understanding is that the 1st evidence of life dates back 3.5 billion years.
Joachim Schlick wrote:I’ve searched your Forum for the word ‘trilobite’ and it came up with ‘no matches found’.
A. What is known about the evolutioanry antecedents of the trilobite, and is there any evidence of them in the fossil record?
The Wikipedia entry provided a brief answer to this question -
Based on morphological similarities, it is possible that the trilobites have their ancestors in arthropod-like creatures such as Spriggina, Parvancorina, and other trilobitomorphs of the Ediacaran period of the Precambrian. There are many morphological similarities between early trilobites and other Cambrian arthropods known from the Burgess Shale and other fossiliferous locations. These are investigated further here: [1] It is reasonable to assume that the trilobites share a common ancestor with these other arthropods prior to the Ediacaran-Cambrian boundary.
Joachim Schlick wrote:I’ve searched your Forum for the word ‘trilobite’ and it came up with ‘no matches found’.
So?
I found this description of the trilobite on the Net (Wikipedia – which believes as a matter of editorial policy that evolution is proved and that intelligent design is nonsense. I summarise).
Crap. Wikipedia has no such policy.
I have some questions for the expert evolution scientists on this Forum - see below.
All these can be answered with a relatively limited knowledge of biology and/or paleontology. Try a couple of A level text books from you local library.
Roger Stanyard wrote:Joachim Schlick wrote:AID is a a religious position indistinguishable from creationism. The fossil record of trilobites points massively away from creationism as there are no such fossils later than the Permian.
Roger Stanyard wrote:The form of a structure is not directly related to the number of genes involved in the sense of the more complex it appears, the more genes are necessarily required. It is theoretically possible that the answer is zero because indivudal genes or sets of genes can control more than one feature. What there isn't is a single gene that determines each element of the feature. If you are thinking that it needs at least 15,000 genes, you are way off understanding basic genetics.
wilmot wrote:After all all the differences between men and women are the result of the presence or absence of one gene.
George Jelliss wrote:wilmot wrote:After all all the differences between men and women are the result of the presence or absence of one gene.
Delete gene, insert chromosome?
I don't have even O-level biology, but even I know that!
wilmot wrote:George Jelliss wrote:wilmot wrote:After all all the differences between men and women are the result of the presence or absence of one gene.
Delete gene, insert chromosome?
I don't have even O-level biology, but even I know that!
AH except that the chromosome only has one active gene on it!!!!
tomrees wrote:wilmot wrote:George Jelliss wrote:wilmot wrote:After all all the differences between men and women are the result of the presence or absence of one gene.
Delete gene, insert chromosome?
I don't have even O-level biology, but even I know that!
AH except that the chromosome only has one active gene on it!!!!
The Y chromosome? Has 78 genes http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_wtd020714.html
But the difference between men and women is down to the x chromosome too!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest