What is the Universe expanding into..

Do you think there was anything before the big bang?

  • I don't think there was anything before the Big Bang

    Votes: 56 12.5%

  • I think something existed before the Big Bang

    Votes: 200 44.7%

  • I don't think the big bang happened

    Votes: 54 12.1%

  • I think the universe is part of a mutiverse

    Votes: 201 45.0%
  • Total voters
    447
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#10,883
I long ago retired from the BusIness of War. A wretched Business which makes no-one Happier.

Imagine my distress in seeing British Bombers about to deliver a Strike to our good friend "Mad, Vlad Putin!" whilst snaffling up Breakfast at Portsmouth, UK, Wetherspoons.

S7 RAF UK Cargo Carriers.jpg


What, I figured out, as a top British Mathematician, is that we are merely confusing our oppenents into thinking that flying a single Bomber in a circle is quite the same thing as having about 30 of them doing the same thing.

My good friend, Paul, is unconvinced by my arguments. But I assure you, I am right.

See, I noticed that when one flew left, the next flew right. QED. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. 😎
 
#10,892
Disco-Pete said:
Okay, let's see then...hmm, I know, I'll get me an old skull and reshape it to look like an ape on it's way. Yea, that'll fool em. Wait, no, looks like the beaks'll have to do. Then again, we do have genes in common with monkeys...and trees(look out tonight, that big oak may just grab you!).
Click to expand...

It seems your misconceptions are based on absurdities.

What exactly do you think evolution is? Give us a serious answer.
 
#10,893
Fast Eddie D said:
It seems your misconceptions are based on absurdities.

What exactly do you think evolution is? Give us a serious answer.
Click to expand...
This is not rocket science. The tenets of this conjecture are well known. Taking me to task on rhetoric with obvious implications is a bit absurd, no?
Why don't you test yourself and I'll examine and mark it for you?

To wit, "where are the transitional fossils"?
 
#10,896
I am more interested in the evolution of the Universe, a process for which we are still seeking answers.

The degree of gravitational lensing produced by galaxy cluster Abel 611 suggests there is more mass present in the cluster than the visible mass would suggest.

Astronomers are exploring the idea that the galaxy cluster, which has insufficient visible matter to stop it flying apart, is likely being held together by dark matter.

1667255393481.png


Image from the Hubble Space Telescope.
 
#10,898
Ask and you shall receive.

Transition from from primitive jawless fish to bony fish
​

  • Cladoselache (late Devonian) -- Magnificent early shark fossils, found in Cleveland roadcuts during the construction of the U.S. interstate highways. Probably not directly ancestral to sharks, but gives a remarkable picture of general early shark anatomy, down to the muscle fibers!
  • Tristychius & similar hybodonts (early Mississippian) -- Primitive proto-sharks with broad-based but otherwise shark-like fins.
  • Ctenacanthus & similar ctenacanthids (late Devonian) -- Primitive, slow sharks with broad-based shark-like fins & fin spines. Probably ancestral to all modern sharks, skates, and rays. Fragmentary fin spines (Triassic) -- from more advanced sharks.
  • Paleospinax (early Jurassic) -- More advanced features such as detached upper jaw, but retains primitive ctenacanthid features such as two dorsal spines, primitive teeth, etc.
  • Spathobatis (late Jurassic) -- First proto-ray.
  • Protospinax (late Jurassic) -- A very early shark/skate. After this, first heterodonts, hexanchids, & nurse sharks appear (late Jurassic). Other shark groups date from the Cretaceous or Eocene. First true skates known from Upper Cretaceous.
 
#10,899

Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians
​

  • Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis) -- These ancient bony fish probably gave rise both to modern ray-finned fish (mentioned above), and also to the lobe-finned fish.
  • Osteolepis (mid-Devonian) -- One of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other lobe-finned fishes). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of major limb bones, capable of flexing at the "elbow", and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
  • Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion (mid-late Devonian) -- Early rhipidistian lobe-finned fish roughly intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Eusthenopteron is best known, from an unusually complete fossil first found in 1881. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian- like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet in the overall layout of the major bones, muscle attachments, and bone processes, with tetrapod-like tetrahedral humerus, and tetrapod-like elbow and knee joints. But there are no perceptible "toes", just a set of identical fin rays. Body & skull proportions rather fishlike.
  • Panderichthys, Elpistostege (mid-late Devonian, about 370 Ma) -- These "panderichthyids" are very tetrapod-like lobe-finned fish. Unlike Eusthenopteron, these fish actually look like tetrapods in overall proportions (flattened bodies, dorsally placed orbits, frontal bones! in the skull, straight tails, etc.) and have remarkably foot-like fins.
  • Fragmented limbs and teeth from the middle Late Devonian (about 370 Ma), possibly belonging to Obruchevichthys -- Discovered in 1991 in Scotland, these are the earliest known tetrapod remains. The humerus is mostly tetrapod-like but retains some fish features. The discoverer, Ahlberg (1991), said: "It [the humerus] is more tetrapod-like than any fish humerus, but lacks the characteristic early tetrapod 'L-shape'...this seems to be a primitive, fish-like character....although the tibia clearly belongs to a leg, the humerus differs enough from the early tetrapod pattern to make it uncertain whether the appendage carried digits or a fin. At first sight the combination of two such extremities in the same animal seems highly unlikely on functional grounds. If, however, tetrapod limbs evolved for aquatic rather than terrestrial locomotion, as recently suggested, such a morphology might be perfectly workable."
 
#10,900

Transition from amphibians to amniotes (first reptiles)
​

  • Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge. Amphibian ankle. 5-toed hand and a 2-3-4-5-3 (almost reptilian) phalangeal count.
  • Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (late Carboniferous) -- Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs, but with additional reptilian features: structure of braincase, reptilian jaw muscle, expanded neural arches.
  • Solenodonsaurus (mid-Pennsylvanian) -- An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs. Loss of palatal fangs, loss of lateral line on head, etc. Still just a single sacral vertebra, though.
  • Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- These are protorothyrids, very early cotylosaurs (primitive reptiles). They were quite little, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls (amphibian pineal opening, dermal bone, etc.), shoulder, pelvis, & limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae. Rest of skeleton reptilian, with reptilian jaw muscle, no palatal fangs, and spool-shaped vertebral centra. Probably no eardrum yet. Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in little amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom