[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: The Summers Theory
I've been saving this all day.
> Facts indicate so far that dinosaurs were the first general life on
> Earth besides organisms and plants.
Completely untrue. The earliest fossils are of microbial lifeforms.
The first Prokaryotes appeared around 3500 - 2800 MYr ago. The first
eukaryotes were around 1500 MYr.
Let's be generous and assume that our learned writer labours under the
misapprehension that the word "organisms" is equivalent to
and that the phrase "general life" will automatically be interpretted
'multicellular' life. Even in that case, its untrue. The first
life we find recorded as fossils in deposits from 1500 - 600 Myr.
long way to go to the dinosauria...
580 Myr - Ediacaran organisms
545 Myr - Cambrian deposits such as the Burgess shale arthropods.
500 - 450 Myr - Vertebrate fishes
420 Myr - first land animal fossil (a millipede)
350 - 300 Myr - Amphibians and primitive insects
300 Myr - first reptiles
65 Myr - 'extinction' of the dinosaurs at the KT boundary
So, your "first life" assertion is either for dinosaurs is either 3450
million years out, or, at minimum, 300 or so million years out,
how generous we are in interpreting your rather idiosyncratic usage of
english language and guessing what you actually mean by the word
A clue: an 'organism' is a generic term for any living thing.
> Now we can probably rule out the organisms as the base of life at this
> point, because at a new stage such as that all that would have been
> possible is further organism creation.
I'll take all the help I can get in trying to work out what this
sentence means. An organism is by definition 'life'. The dinosaurs are
thousands of millions of years removed from the origin of life, and
highly evolved creatures in their own right. Us mammals have still got
*long* way to go before we match their success. Now do you want to
about dinosaurs, or do you want to talk about the origins of life
> The dinosaurs were the first real sentient-esque life, the first beings.
As long as one ignores fishes, amphibia, insects... the list
now, I would put up certain species of squid and octopi as my
the intelligence stakes against most mammals that I am sure you would
"sentient-esque", and they have histories that I suspect predate your
So, another factual error. But lets ignore it and proceed.
> Therefore, everything must have at least marginally descended from some
> form or species of dinosauria in the dinosaurian kingdom at one point,
> including homo sapiens.
Absolutely not. For trivial examples, plants diverged from animals
before (is an oak as much a dinosaur as the sparrow that perches in
and arthropods split off from the vertebrates, so thats all of the
and their kin. We could go on, but even the simplest evolutionary
will give you a tree showing what evolved from what.
Homo sapiens derive from the mammal lineage, which surfaced around 200
Million years ago (and diverged from the dinosaur ancestral stock at
point). Remember that the big 'Jurassic Park' dinos that you have in
werent around until quite a few millions of years later than that.
> Not all of these descendants would have kept the exact form and
> characteristics of their dinosaurian ancestors, but the relevancy is still
So your thesis is that humans are modified dinosaurs.
And your evidence?
> As basic evidence, humans, when sunburned, do slough off a layer of skin,
> and grow new skin and lose skin daily at a molecular level.
AMphibians such as frogs and toads shed their skin too, but they
long before the dinosaur line was established. Since the skin in all 3
has to do basically the same job, its design is effictively similar.
UV damage is going to occur to any surface that is shown above ground,
since any organisms that couldnt shed damaged skin and renew it from
wouldn't live very long, its no surprise that we all share a similar
mechanism for doing so. Neither is it a surprise that we achieve
through having muscles attached to a jointed skeleton. The fine
those skeletons however, point of divergence points long before
mammals were distinct. The structure of the jawbone, the placement of
holes through which arteries and veins reach the brain, and the
the hiops are all excellent pointers to evolutionary heritages for
> As for man descending from apes, this is still possible as well, except
> that the apes were not the first rung in sapien evolution.
The great apes are exactly as evolved as us (but for a different
environment). On the timescales we are talking about, they diverged
ancestral stock at about the same time as us, too. Our mutual
not apes, but they were ape-like or human like, depending on your
view - since they were the common launching point for both lineages,
see elements of both lines in them. And of course they werent the
rung" nothing ever is, unless you trace all the way back to 4000 MYr
the first ever replicating system.
Snce below you head of on a tangent, I am to assume that this is your
theory": that man must be a dinosaur-descendant because he suffers
sunburn, which looks a bit like a lizard shedding its skin.
Magnificent. Naieve, but magnificent.
Have you ever read a book on this (or any) subject?
> The next step in this sequence of theories is my theory on extinction, the
> Repercussions Theory, and will be included next time. Please note this is
> just a new theory and not all details are here. Anyone wishing for more
> that I don't post is welcome to ask.
I ask. No I *beg* that you continue to elucidate this "sequence of
theories", for nothing has given me more pleasure since Miss Anne
theory of brontasaureseses.
> Brittany Frederick, paleontolgist and author of "The Ancients: Hidden
> Mysteries of the Dawn of Time"
-=-=-=-=-=- -.-. .- .-.. .-.. -- . -.-.--- --- ... .-.-.-
Mark O'Leary Voice: +44 116 2506201
Network and Communications Group Fax: +44 116 2577169
De Montfort University Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Keeper of the Sci.Skeptic FAQ