🚀 go-pugleaf

I first attempted to post this on Saturday the 10th, however, our server died 
and was down for the weekend.  Since I could not find this on dejanews, I am 
reposting it.  If this is the second copy, my apologies.


On Sat, 10 May 1997, david ford wrote:
] 
] On 7 May 1997, Steve Guerke wrote:
] dford3@gl.umbc.edu says...
] On 6 May 1997, Steve Guerke wrote:
] 
] > >>  As I said in my earlier post, the evidence from the 
] > >> Cosmologists, and the Geologists give great evidential support to 
] > >> there having
] > >> been enough time for the process of evolution to have occured.
] >
] > >The universe was created out of nothing in the big bang,
] >
] > hummm.... it was created in the Big Bang.  Was it created out of nothing? 
] > since we have no idea as to what went on prior to Plank time, we really 
] > have no way of knowing whether or not it was created out of nothihng
] 
] I'm working on a response to this consisting of some sundry musings and
] posing of questions for further research. To avoid the big bang
] singularity, the only way I'm aware of is if you hold that pre-Planck time
] (or 10^-43 seconds after the big bang, when the universe was 10^-33 cm
] across), that the dimension of time was a spatial dimension. 

Pure speculation (nothing wrong with speculation, mind you) but unless
you can come of with a way to falsify your idea of time being a spatial
dimension, then it must remain pure speculation.  


] 
] Are you willing to say that this is possible, that it's possible for time
] to become space?  Is there any basis in quantum mechanics for saying that
] this might be possible, or is this an idea without any basis in QM and
] that is a desperate attempt to avoid the big bang singularity with its
] creation out of nothing? 
] 

My understanding of QM is extreamly limited at best. Maybe someone
following this thread with some real knowledge of QM might be able to
answer this question.  All I am willing to say, is that since we cannot
"see" what happened prior to 10^-43 after the BB then anything "might"
have been possible.  you can't rule out anything, if you cannot find a
way of testing its truth or falsity.





] > > and is 10 to 20 billion years old.
] >
] > from the evidence we have (assuming that the speed of light is a constant 
] > and since there is no evidence that it's not, it's a pretty safe 
] > assumption)
] 
] There are several lines of evidence saying that the universe is billions
] of years old, lines that say nothing about light. 
] 

agreed, and these different linge of evidence tend to support one
another.  Seems you don't have any real problem with an old universe.



] > > The earth is 4.6 billion years old.
] > 
] > From what the Geologists tell us (and it dovetails pretty damn well with 
] > what the Astronomers tell us as to the age of the solar system.
] > 
] > >  Tell me, is 5
] > >million years enough time for all the basic body plans of animals to
] > >appear using mutations in DNA?  
] > 
] > Where do you get 5 million years?
] 
] Either the article in _Time_ about a year ago called "When Life
] Exploded,"[this definitely mentioned 10 million years], or a Gould article

[snip]


] >
] > since most of the basic/precursor body plans date from that period 1/2 a 
] > billion years ago.  I would say yes, there has been more than sufficient 
] > time.  What evidence do you have that there wasn't?
] 
] To say it again, these body plans appeared in the space of 5 million
] years.  [Definitely under 10 million years.] The Cambrian period started
] around 543 million years ago, so all the basic body plans appeared in the
] years 543 to 538 mya.  I'm not giving you 500 million years for the
] evolution of all the basic body plans, just 5 million.  So, is 5 million
] years, in your estimation, enough time for random, non-intelligence
] directed mutations in organisms' DNA to result in the appearance of 32+
] phylum, and all the basic body plans this planet has ever seen?
] 

Ok, I misunderstood your original point, that during a span of 5 MY that
took place roughly 543 MY ago the AKA the Cambrian Explosian.


So you question was really, is 5-10 MY enough time for evolution to  
come up with all of the basic body plans? Well, yes and no :-).

First, this assumes that the none of the basic body plans were in
existance during the 3 billion years of life that existed prior to the
Cambrian Explosion. I don't think that assumption is valid.

What makes the Camb. Exp. unique, is the formation of hard body parts
that fossilized better than the soft body parts.  So we have limited
information on the morphology of living things prior to the Cambrian,
that doesn't mean that the body plans didn't already exist without the
hard parts.  In fact the evidence suggests that they probably did.  So
the Cambrian might be best viewed as a period of culmination of a much
longer period of development.  As an example, slugs don't fossilize real
well, but a snail, with its hard shell, will be a much better candidate
for fossilization.  The shell is the primary difference between the two
critters, otherwise their body plans are very similar.

Earlier this week, I read a short item in the Washington Times (I wish
I had snipped it) about a researcher who thinks that one of the driving
forces for the Cambrian explosion may have been the development of
sight.  If critters now can see their prey, there will be great pressure
for the development of defenses, critters with harder body parts would
have a higher survival rate than those without, this would, in turn
provide selective pressure on organizims that can defeat these defenses
(i.e. the development of teeth, or other means of disolving hard body
parts to a more digestable form).  When you look at the fossils from the
Cambrian, it does look like an incredible arms and defensive weapons
race was going on.  

So yes, I do think that 5 to 10 MY would be enough to lock in the most
effective body plans (many of the body plans represented in the fossil
record of the Cambrian have not survived to the present), but I would
maintain that the body plans long predated the Cambrian, but that the
Cambrian brought on hard parts which have survived in the fossil record.


_____________________________________
The talk.origins faqs are at http://www.talkorigins.org/
Please cc any replies.  remove the xx in my email address.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than are lies."  --
F. Nietzsche
My thoughts are mine alone, no one else is responsible for them.
Stephen Guerke,                        University of Ediacara
http://www.udel.edu/sguerke            Student ID 000000007