Evolution of Man

RE: Evolution of Man

I reckon that would suit you down to the ground, Patsy. Get a new hard hat and consider a new career... 😀

RE: Evolution of Man

I just might do that, David! 😀

I was also appointed at the Natural History Museum in London as a curator in the Earth Galleries. My job was to identify and catalogue the geological finds (rocks, minerals and fossils) as they came in. I tried it for a little while but the salary was uncommensurate with my knowledge, so left after a while. I did enjoy the job, but paid jobs must at least cover ones expenses. Unfortunately, it was seen as a vocation, and salary was minimal. Tch! So I took up teaching geology instead.

Love,
Patsy.
xxxxxxxx

RE: Evolution of Man

Hi Guys,

Soz, been busy & not had time to respond to your your thoughful replies until now.:)

OK I can see that bringing up the Cambrian explosion can be deemed worthy of being sniggered at “ah! that old chestnut” and palmed off as not valid due to the ‘apparent wealth’ of new fossil evidence, but it’s not really true is it (in terms of what I was using it for) – what I mean is I was using it to demonstrate that it seems to me the supposed ‘smooth and gradual’ path of evolution – (well) just ain’t! – It’s a series of fits and starts of dormancy and then explosive and prolific (in context of timescales) activity.

What I’m trying to say (in my uneducated way) is that there is a wealth of new ‘phyla’ around that time (Vendian & Cambrian = 13) … then some dormancy, the odd one new phyla again every period except Carboniferous (which enjoyed the massive amount of roughly 3) then back to the odd one per period until the recent period – where suddenly we get a whole new 12 – i.e. another burst with no prior fossil records.
(I’m using a chart from Berkeley University of California – from their Palaeontology Dept: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/metazoafr.html as a rough guide)

So, yes I accept that soft bodies under high pressures don’t stand much chance of leaving fossil records & the ‘explosion’ of hard-shelled bodies gives a greater possibility of preservation… but you can still see what I’m getting at… taking the fossil records we have – we either work from evidence or we have to ‘assume’ that these new phyla aren’t ‘new’ – which moves us away from ‘fact’ and towards conjecture – which kinda defeats the object and puts us right back in the same realms as reasoned creationism (in terms of plausibility) don’t it?[:-]

Hi Soapy Sam,
You must be getting sick of me mate, I agree that DNA looks dependent on RNA, but you open by inferring that RNA could generate & maintain “the sort of very simple early life we are talking about” – yet nowhere have I seen the RNA ‘experts’ achieve this – they cant even achieve pairing without ejecting all the left-handed RNA (Hmmm, that sounds like it could happen in ‘the natural chemical soup’ :)) – they then go on to admit also that RNA lacks “two fundamental traits” that will always stop the “RNA World” being plausible - unless we are prepared to accept that it might have had an ancestor that did in fact possess these two qualities… so back to “perhaps once upon a time”

You also said that “what we have established is that purely chemical means are feasible” – and that “At no stage of research so far has any evidence turned up for an élan vital, or any need for one” – I must be being really thick (don't answer that Patsy[&:]), but nowhere can I find evidence that it is feasible – I mean if it was/is ‘executable’ why hasn’t anybody achieved it? – And the way it’s looking to me, (although I’m patently biased:D) – on the contrary, everything is pointing even more so towards an “élan vital” despite the desire to prove otherwise.

Graham Cairns-Smith cheers me up immensely, not because his theory is derided a little by some other RNA specialists – but because he is the “Life came from Clay” man – sorry I think I’m just childish sometimes [8D] but his ‘thang’ always reminds me of a wealth of ancient (& global) “creation stories” – & so 😉 for your amusement: -

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground."
(Adam – the root word of his name meaning “female clay”)
- Genesis 2:7

And you gotta admit this one is at least interesting: -