But because these unicellular prokaryotes lacked any cartilage or bones (endoskeleton or exoskeloton - hard outer layer, like a shell), they left no fossil traces.
You might be interested to learn that there are plenty of fossils found that have no hard body parts. The conditions for fossilization are rare but not impossible. The Burgess Shale is the most well known of these 'mother lodes'. However, much is coming out of China these days.
In his last post, he asked me to provide a textbook source and that is what I did.
I know he did. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about all the posts where you've copied and pasted LOTS of stuff that doesn't always say what you think it says. Charonz' comments to you in that Urey/Miller thread for instance. Frankly, I noticed this about you from the start and was part of what made me interject into your original ressurection spree.
Your painting a picture of YOURSELF right now as someone who wants to appear as being more knowledgeable than what is printed in textbooks and more correct than teachers, of whom you say have "vastly misrepresented their curriculum due to their own ignorance." I no of no such cases of "misrepresenting the curriculum." Do you know what a "curriculum is"? I know of teachers that have been wrong in their views and stated incorrect facts, but none that I have have taught geology when the curriculum was physics, etc.
Oh shutup.
You're being a douche bag now because I've hurt your feelings.
"Duh der. You don't know what curriculum is. You're a stupid twit because you don't use proper English. Grammar grammar grammar."
Do you realize just how idiotic that response was?
Now. What did I mean? Perhaps I used curriculum incorrectly. Who gives a shit? The point was plain. I've known a lot of teachers who blew smoke out of their ass on a daily basis.
However, I don't think that I did use the word incorrectly.
"A group of related courses, often in a special field of study: the engineering curriculum."
Therefore, a teacher can teach a series of courses in a particular curriculum. If this teacher is a liar who likes to blow smoke out of his ass to appear more knowledgeable than he is, then he is misrepresenting his curriculum. I.e. he is teaching falsehoods as truths in his
curriculum. Thus he is misrepresenting his curriculum.
Douche bag.
You're new to the internet aren't you?
Grammar patrol is a poor defense.
As to me trying to appear more knowledgeable than teachers and textbooks. No. With the teachers, it generally didn't sink until much later just how much they were lying. To the young and impressionable, their act carries itself well. It is only with later maturity and more education that one begins to realize the depths of the lies that certain teachers told.
And as to textbooks. I already showed how the textbook you quoted only referred to the KT event. I'm not talking shit on the textbook, but rather your interpretation of it (or your teachers (that was your out, but you decided to take offense instead... your call.)) The problem wasn't with the textbook but rather with your interpretation that it is a 'fact' or even a 'reasonable assumption' that most of the extinction events were caused by (or even accompanied by) meteoric impacts.
If I just post what is written in the textbook, as above, or a small quote from a huge long article, then you certainly cannot accuse me of "your own misinterpretation of what the textbooks are teaching" as you are doing right now!
Whatever, douche. I'm just trying to help you to stop appearing so foolish. You've said stupid shit so much that it's getting old. You keep getting called on it and then you just go digging for more copy and pastes. Don't take my advice then. Whatever.
So now I am avoiding your false contemptuous accusation and am providing clear, straightforward, scientifically reviewed and substantiated evidence.
Then how come you're wrong so much?
Edit:
Oh. And before Ophiolite jumps my shit: "The KT event is the only which has been proven to be caused by a meteoric impact."
Proven is a bit strong here. I'll admit. It's still controversial and probably always will be. However, there is lots of evidencet that a catastrophic impact did occur and that it had wide-scale effects, even if it was, as was said earlier, 'the final nail in the coffin'.
The extinction event I'm interested in is the Permian-Triassic where it has been shown that oxygen levels in reached a nadir followed by a peak which coincided with the existence of the largest of the dinosaurs...