Part 1-
Creationist:
Question: The fossil record is a record of the destruction and
death caused by the Flood.
Myself:
Response: If the record represented the Noah’s flood…why is the
majority of the record extinct predatory arthropods (exo skeletons like
scorpions and crabs) who were highly adapted to swimming? Why are there
literally no fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, dinosaurs, birds, or anything
that shouldn’t have evolved yet (according to evolution) in the record? Why is
the most primitive form of every family today present before the Cambrian which
is then represented in the Cambrian with only simple advancements?
Organisms
killed by a flood would never fall into place like the Cambrian fossil record
because there is no way a highly water adapted organism like Anomalocaris would die and sink to the bottom
before a house cat. The order of the record makes literally no sense in the
light of a biblical flood. Records of floods are very obvious in that they show
a great amount of unnatural mixing and no natural order. This is definitely not
the Cambrian.
Part
2-
Creationist:
Question
to Response: Was the predictable form of
the fossils created after the fossil was found or before? The fact that the
fossils found in Cambrian rock differ from living animals of the same phyla
only shows the living forms were not buried in Cambrian rock. You also assume
that the fossil bacteria are as old as the rocks they are found in. It is well
known that bacteria have found their way to every place on Earth that is
possible for them to live, including deep rocks. Bacteria dying in a rock long
after it was formed could under the right conditions become fossilized in the
that rock, so it is no surprise to find bacteria fossils in rock well below
multicellular organisms. Furthermore, there is still no evidence connecting
bacteria to multicellular organisms. Evolutionists take fossils and find patterns
in other fossils. This is just pareidolia not evidence of common decent
Myself:
Response
to Question
"Was
the predictable form of the fossils created after the fossil was found or
before?”
Both,
fossils can often be predicted before we find them and are found later with
their form verifying the prediction as well as fossils that are found before
that still fit into the form that they are supposed to. Predictions wont be
made though without a lot of information of the two points on either side
because you need traits to follow.
“The
fact that the fossils found in Cambrian rock differ from living animals of the
same phyla only shows the living forms were not buried in Cambrian rock”
The
fact that not even one fish, reptile, amphibian, mammal, bird, dinosaur, or any
known insect or crustacean was found in the record that was supposedly created
by a flood that killed everything really makes no sense. And the fact that
everything that SHOULD be in the record like finless, jawless pre-fish (myllokunmingia,
haikouichthys , haikouella) for evolution to be correct is, without one species
out of place. Literally. None. As the Cambrian rocks get older, the forms get
more and simpler, just like they are supposed to.
“You
also assume that the fossil bacteria are as old as the rocks they are found in.
It is well known that bacteria have found their way to every place on Earth
that is possible for them to live, including deep rocks. Bacteria dying in a
rock long after it was formed could under the right conditions become
fossilized in the that rock, so it is no surprise to find bacteria fossils in
rock well below multicellular organisms”
Well
the bacteria I mentioned were the stromatolites which aren’t just 99% rock with
some bacteria on top of it. Stromatolites are literally built by bacteria
living in a group and their waste being laid down layer by layer…so they
created the structure. And during this time period what should be found in the
environment (increase in oxygen from the new bacteria) is found at this time
period and not before. They correlate with each other, as they should according
to evolution.
“Furthermore,
there is still no evidence connecting bacteria to multicellular organisms.
Evolutionists take fossils and find patterns in other fossils. This is just
pareidolia not evidence of common decent”
Well,
since you said there is no evidence for the connection between bacteria and
multi-celled organisms, ill explain the evidence that actually does exist.
Archaea
and Bacteria are small, relatively simple cells surrounded by a membrane and a
cell wall, with a circular strand of DNA containing their genes. They are
called prokaryotes. Evidence supports the idea that eukaryotic cells are
actually the descendants of separate prokaryotic cells that joined
together in a symbiotic union. In fact, the mitochondrion (the powerhouse of
the cell) itself seems to be the
"great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great granddaughter"
of a free-living bacterium that was engulfed by another cell, perhaps as a
meal, and ended up staying as a sort of permanent house guest.
The
host cell profited from the chemical energy the mitochondrion produced, and the
mitochondrion benefited from the protected, nutrient-rich environment
surrounding it. This kind of "internal" symbiosis — one organism
taking up permanent residence inside another and eventually evolving into a
single lineage — is called endosymbiosis.
Biologist
Lynn Margulis first made the case for endosymbiosis in the 1960s, but for many
years other biologists were skeptical. Although Lynn watched his amoebae become infected
with the x-bacteria and then evolve to depend upon them, no one was around over
a billion years ago to observe the events of endosymbiosis. Why should we think
that a mitochondrion used to be a free-living organism in its own right? It
turns out that many lines of evidence support this idea. Most important are the
many striking similarities between prokaryotes (like bacteria) and mitochondria:
1)
Membranes — Mitochondria have their own cell membranes, just like a prokaryotic
cell does.
2)
DNA — Each mitochondrion has its own circular DNA genome, like a
bacteria's genome, but much smaller. This DNA is passed from a mitochondrion to
its offspring and is separate from the "host" cell's genome in the
nucleus
3)
Reproduction — Mitochondria multiply by pinching in half — the same
process used by bacteria. Every new mitochondrion must be produced from a
parent mitochondrion in this way; if a cell's mitochondria are removed, it
can't build new ones from scratch.
When
you look at it this way, mitochondria really resemble tiny bacteria making
their livings inside eukaryotic cells! Based on decades of accumulated
evidence, the scientific community supports the ideas that endosymbiosis is the
best explanation for the evolution of the eukaryotic cell.
What's
more, the evidence for endosymbiosis applies not only to mitochondria, but to
other cellular organelles as well. Chloroplasts are like tiny green
factories within plant cells that help convert energy from sunlight into
sugars, and they have many similarities to mitochondria. The evidence suggests
that these chloroplast organelles were also once free-living bacteria.
The
endosymbiotic event that generated mitochondria must have happened early in the
history of eukaryotes, because all eukaryotes have them. Then, later, a similar
event brought chloroplasts into some eukaryotic cells, creating the lineage
that led to plants.
Biologists
are in the process of figuring this out using evidence provided by comparing
the gene sequences of different organisms. In general, the more similar two
organisms' genes are, the more recently their two lineages split apart from one
another. If two organisms have been evolving separately for a very long time,
and have a distant common ancestor, they are likely to have evolved lots of
differences between their gene sequences. So by comparing the genetic sequences
of different organisms, biologists can piece together their family tree — who
is related to whom. Biologists have even studied the DNA in mitochondria to
figure out how they are related to free-living bacteria. These studies have
shown, first, that all mitochondria are descended from one original
mitochondrion — that is, endosymbiosis of a mitochondrion only happened once —
and second, that mitochondria are most closely related to a bacteria called
Rickettsia prowazekii.
No comments:
Post a Comment