Denial of Evolution VI.

[James Hogan]

This is part of the section from the Denis Noble paper about inheritance of acquired characteristics:

But the evidence for the inheritance of acquired characteristics has now moved right into the
zoological domain. All the remaining examples I shall quote here are on multicellular organisms,
including mammals, and they refer to pioneering work done in the last 7 years.

Anway et al (Anway, Leathers et al. 2006; Anway, Memon et al. 2006) demonstrated that an
endocrine disruptor vinclozolin (an anti-androgenic compound), can induce transgenerational disease
states or abnormalities which are inherited for at least four generations in rats. The transmission is via
epigenetic modifications carried by the male germ line and may involve either marking of the genome
or transmission of RNAs. More recent work from the same laboratory has shown that the third
generation granulosa cells carry a transgenerational effect on the transcriptome and epigenome
through differential DNA methylation (Nilsson, Larsen et al. 2012). The sperm nucleus contains much
more than the genome (Johnson, Lalancette et al. 2011).

An alternative approach to determining how the organism as a whole may influence the genome and
whether such influences can be transmitted transgenerationally is to study cross-species clones, e.g.
by inserting the nucleus of one species into the fertilised but enucleated egg cell of another species.
Following the gene-centric view of the Modern Synthesis, the result should be an organism
determined by the species from which the genome was taken. In the great majority of cases, this does
not happen. Incompatibility between the egg cytoplasm and the transferred nuclear genome usually
results in development freezing or completely failing at an early stage. That fact already tells us how
important the egg cell expression patterns are. The genome does not succeed in completely dictating
development regardless of the cytoplasmic state. Moreover, in the only case where this process has
resulted in a full adult, the results also do not support the prediction. Sun et al (Sun, Chen et al. 2005)
performed this experiment using the nucleus of a carp inserted into the fertilised but enucleated egg
cell of a goldfish. The adult has some of the characteristics of the goldfish. In particular, the number
of vertebrae is closer to that of the goldfish than to that of a carp. This result echoes a much earlier
experiment of McLaren and Michie who showed an influence of the maternal uterine environment on
the number of tail vertebrae in transplanted mice embryos (McLaren and Michie 1958). Many
maternal effects have subsequently been observed, and non-genomic transmission of disease risk has
been firmly established (Gluckman and Hanson 2004; Gluckman, Hanson et al. 2007). A study done
in Scandinavia clearly shows the transgenerational effect of food availability to human grandparents
influencing the longevity of grandchildren (Pembrey, Bygren et al. 2006; Kaati, Bygren et al. 2007).
Epigenetic effects can even be transmitted independently of the germ line. Weaver et al showed this
phenomenon in rat colonies where stroking and licking behaviour by adults towards their young
results in epigenetic marking of the relevant genes in the hippocampus that predispose the young to
showing the same behaviour when they become adults (Weaver, Cervoni et al. 2004; Weaver 2009).

He seems to have come to the same conclusion as Eva Jablonka.

If you google search for Jablonkas paper:


Soft inheritance: challenging the modern synthesis

Abstract

This paper presents some of the recent challenges to the Modern Synthesis of evolutionary theory, which has dominated evolutionary thinking for the last sixty years. The focus of the paper is the challenge of soft inheritance - the idea that variations that arise during development can be inherited. There is ample evidence showing that phenotypic variations that are independent of variations in DNA sequence, and targeted DNA changes that are guided by epigenetic control systems, are important sources of hereditary variation, and hence can contribute to evolutionary changes. Furthermore, under certain conditions, the mechanisms underlying epigenetic inheritance can also lead to saltational changes that reorganize the epigenome. These discoveries are clearly incompatible with the tenets of the Modern Synthesis, which denied any significant role for Lamarckian and saltational processes. In view of the data that support soft inheritance, as well as other challenges to the Modern Synthesis, it is concluded that that synthesis no longer offers a satisfactory theoretical framework for evolutionary biology.

JABLONKA, Eva and LAMB, Marion J.. Soft inheritance: challenging the modern synthesis. Genet. Mol. Biol. [online]. 2008, vol.31, n.2 [cited 2013-07-16], pp. 389-395.

As you can see more and more scientists are supporting an extended evolutionary synthesis which has "Lamarckian" components. As the other user pointed out this is not knew as Gould was arguing for something similar in the 1970s but this position has now become "mainstream" I. e. many scientists are now arguing for an extended synthesis.

 

[Grumpy]

leopold

Quote Originally Posted by arfa brane
Why do you think it is? Why isn't it possible that it's a species that hasn't changed because it hasn't been through the same "pressures"?

these specimens were subjected to the same pressures as their brothers that DID evolve.

So a fish that lives at great depth in the ocean(the main reason we didn't know it still existed)experiences the same environment as a rabbit whose field is being covered by ice as an ice age begins? Do you realize just how stupid that statement is? Other creatures that did share the environment of the fish(jellyfish, sharks, mollusks, etc.)also have evolved little in the same time frames, they have no pressure to change. The ocean is a much more stable environment, it changes slowly if at all, therefore many creatures in that stable environment have changed slowly, if at all. On land the environment can change rapidly, going from tropical to arctic over time periods of thousands of years, driving rapid evolutionary changes(furry elephants, white bears, hibernation, changing diets, etc.)

the ONLY thing that can explain this is evolution IS NOT environment driven OR certain molecular structures negate environmental causes.

The only thing that can explain this idiocy is you are consciously trying to remain ignorant of the facts. The environment tests every creature's ability to survive long enough to reproduce. Normal variation within a population gives individuals different success outcomes, if the environment is benign(steady)the slight differences make no difference and not much changes, if the environment is harsh(changing rapidly)many varieties die and the population goes in the direction of those who survive. This is not rocket science, it's common sense.

Grumpy

 

[rpenner]

then how do you explain the "creature" that jumped on board "kon-tiki" on its voyage?

Which creature in particular leopold? The phosphorescent jellyfish type? Or what?

The Kon-Tiki expedition of 1947 is not famous because it discovered new fish, although some will find Thor Heyerdahl's description of flying fish and encounters with phosphorescent creatures (none of which leaped, to the best of my knowledge) enchanting.

they spoke of it often in the book.
fish would jump right onto the raft.
apparently one of them was this creature i mentioned.
i say "creature" for lack of a better definition.

As Wikipedian's say -- citation required! You have a record of presenting half-remembered ideas as if there were documented facts. So I bet you USD $100 that you cannot find Thor Heyerdahl claiming a coelacanth jumped or flew into his raft. Or, in the alternative of not accepting my wager, I offer that you can retract the claim and leave the Kon-Tiki out of this thread and I won't call you (well-justified) names.

//Added in Edit:
It doesn't matter what you claim or what you think. The first living coelacanth was described by western science dates to December 23, 1938. The second to December 21, 1952. So since the Kon-Tiki sailed in 1947 and the book was published in 1950, Thor Heyerdahl did not describe any coelacanth encounters.

this fish was thought to have went extinct millions of years ago.

It is likely leopold is discussing fish of the order Coelacanthiformes -- such as the two species of genus Latimeria -- or coelacanths, first described by science from one found among a fisherman's catch in 1938.

yet it showed almost no sign of "evolution".

The key word there is "almost." Since it was well adapted to its environment, there was no need for rapid evolution. Thus the slow genetic drift of any species was the only evolutionary driver, and its fairly static environment selected against any more radical change.

Thus it evolved very slowly, which is why it shows almost no change.

Which creature in particular leopold? The phosphorescent jellyfish type? Or what? Actually, it doesn't matter. The answer to your implied question invites us to another ride on the merry-go-round.

You're looking for stasis and punctuated equilibrium. Did you forget this concept over the last seven hundred posts or so?

As long as environmental pressures do not destroy or significantly alter a niche the pressure for evolution lessens on that particular species. Note "lessens" does not imply "stops". I realize that distinction will probably be lost on you, but hey...

Indeed, Wikipedia editors, in the introductory paragraphs of the relevant article, write:

Traditionally, the coelacanth was considered a “living fossil” due to its apparent lack of significant evolution over the past millions of years;[4] and the coelacanth was thought to have evolved into roughly its current form approximately 400 million years ago.[6] However, several recent studies have shown that coelacanth body shapes are much more diverse than is generally said.[7][8][9] In addition, it was shown recently that studies concluding that a slow rate of molecular evolution is linked to morphological conservatism in coelacanths are biased on the a priori hypothesis that these species are ‘living fossils’.[10]

[4] Forey, Peter L (1998). History of the Coelacanth Fishes. London: Chapman & Hall. ISBN 978-0-412-78480-4.
[5] Lavett Smith, C.; Rand, Charles S.; Schaeffer, Bobb; Atz, James W. (1975). "Latimeria, the Living Coelacanth, is Ovoviviparous". Science 190 (4219): 1105–6. Bibcode:1975Sci...190.1105L. doi:10.1126/science.190.4219.1105.
[6] Johanson, Z.; Long, J. A; Talent, J. A; Janvier, P.; Warren, J. W (2006). "Oldest coelacanth, from the Early Devonian of Australia". Biology Letters 2 (3): 443–6. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2006.0470. PMC 1686207. PMID 17148426.
[7] Friedman, Matt; Coates, Michael I.; Anderson, Philip (2007). "First discovery of a primitive coelacanth fin fills a major gap in the evolution of lobed fins and limbs". Evolution & Development 9 (4): 329–37. doi:10.1111/j.1525-142X.2007.00169.x. PMID 17651357.
[8] Friedman, Matt; Coates, Michael I. (2006). "A newly recognized fossil coelacanth highlights the early morphological diversification of the clade". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 273 (1583): 245–50. doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3316. JSTOR 25223279. PMC 1560029. PMID 16555794.
[9] Wendruff, Andrew J.; Wilson, Mark V. H. (2012). "A fork-tailed coelacanth,Rebellatrix divaricerca, gen. Et sp. Nov. (Actinistia, Rebellatricidae, fam. Nov.), from the Lower Triassic of Western Canada". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 32 (3): 499–511. doi:10.1080/02724634.2012.657317.
[10] Casane, Didier; Laurenti, Patrick (2013). "Why coelacanths are not 'living fossils'". BioEssays 35 (4): 332–8. doi:10.1002/bies.201200145. PMID 23382020.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth
See also: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/04/20/coelacanths-are-unexceptional-products-of-evolution/

Thus, neither morphology nor genetics supports the claim that the coelacanths are unchanged over millions of years. Just that they haven't changed very much. It's a branch on the tree of life that did not end where thought it ended (because we have not cataloged every individual and species on the planet even in 2013, and certainly not in 1938) and compared to other tree branches, this one grew fairly, but not exceptionally, straight.

yes, i said that.

why is this sample seemingly immune from macroevolution?

First of all, macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level, so the Wikipedia page listing two living species of coelacanths is demonstration of speciation and thus macroevolution. Second of all the links that Wikipedia and I provided ( link one and link two ) are for the benefit of the ignorant and confused -- this means you. You demonstrate no evidence that you read the Wikipedia page or my other link, but if you had you would have seen that the living coelacanths are so morphologically different than fossil coelacanths that they have been put in a separate genus. Further, fossil coelacanths are themselves in many genera. Thus coelacanths past and present are evidence of macroevolution above the species level.

these specimens were subjected to the same pressures as their brothers that DID evolve.
the ONLY thing that can explain this is evolution IS NOT environment driven OR certain molecular structures negate environmental causes.

Wrong -- it's that you are naive and ignorant and overconfident in your self-evaluation of competence. Coelacanths did evolve. Their molecular structures did evolve. Their morphology did evolve. And you are not competent to predict the direction of evolution of morphology on the basis of change in environment because you lack the knowledge of the history of their environment, the history of their allele distributions in the gene pools, the history of mutations introducing new variation, and the relation between genotype and survival probability.

When denialists reach for a claim of "the only possibility is X is wrong", all too frequently this is a false dilemma compounded with an invalid argument from personal incredulity further compounded by a deep and unforgivable ignorance of X. Denialists would set fire to the knowledge of humanity, science is the process of adding to that knowledge -- they are not the same thing.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Very crude. And totally baseless.

Aside from some horrific mutation there is no case where animals are going to be born "looking nothing like like their parents". You have proven your case. By your definition macroevolution is a preposterous idea and does not exist. Period. I'll even go out on a limb and say that the entire scientific community would be in total agreement with this post. See how easy it is to prove your point when we have simple definitions in place? Kudos, jan.

A combination of tiredness, misplaced reading glasses, and a small screened mobile phone were the reason for my very crude definition. Plus I already gave a link pointing out the differences to something I'm sure you already know. So for the very last time I will give a definition.

Microevolution refers to changes within a specific type or kind of organisms, but the descendants always remain the same type or kind as the ancestor.

Macroevolution refers to major changes over time eventually creating new types of organisms that end up being different ancestoral types.

jan.

 

[Aqueous Id]

why is this sample [coelacanth] seemingly immune from macroevolution?

It isn't. Like all taxa currently living, it sits at the distal end of a particular branch in the phylogenetic tree. There are actually two tips, since there are two extant species. Without knowing for sure all of the intermediate forms of coelacanths, it's impossible to draw this accurately. But like all other organisms living or dead, the main branch for Order Coelacanthiformes is rooted at a single-celled common ancestor. For sake of discussion let's call her Monocellular Eve, recognizing that she existed long before gender became differentiated. You can then draw the tree from Eve to each of these two extant species, from the fragmentary evidence available, and there you have your picture of macroevolution. Alternatively, you can pick some arbitrary species anywhere in that sketch, call it Ancestor X, and erase everything from Eve to X and you have another particular window on their histories. You can do so as many times as you like and each tree is yet another example that these species were not immune from macroevolution.

The other route to take from a macroevolutionary viewpoint is through sequencing. If you start with the DNA from these two extant coelacanths, and compare them to other organisms in the database of genomes, you will get some surprising results. For example, they will have greater genetic similarity to humans than to living fish.

There are several traits these extant coelacanths possess which predict a lengthy period of stasis. Note, however, that they are on the critically endangered list, having fallen victim to fishing and may soon meet the same fate as countless other species destroyed by human impact. Among the traits that favor stasis are thick scales, noxious flesh, and confinement to extreme depths.

Note also, as posted before, there is no rule that relates to the length of time a group of organisms continues to propagate. Extinction happens on a case by case basis to individual organisms until the last member of a species dies, regardless of the cause, and there is no reason to think that the process acting on any species would necessarily affect the timeline of any other species, other than large events, such as those leading to mass extinctions. But there is no reason to assume that any such events affected the evolution of deep water animals. The fossil record demonstrates a thinning out of genera during such events.

By the same token, speciation occurs on a case by case basis, so there is no reason to conclude that the speciation that gave rise to this taxon or any other would be correlated in duration to the time that needs to pass before the taxa undergo a particular kind of speciation that becomes a transitional form to a new phenotype, which seems to be the intent of your question. In fact there is ample reason to doubt that the two kinds of events should be correlated in any way.

Another trait of coelacanths is that they are ovoviviparous (gestating the eggs internally) which secures against predation of laid eggs. Add to this the noxious flesh of the parents, and the odds for stasis are high for all scenarios in which predation is a chief cause of extinction.

 

[Jan Ardena]

billvon,

A chihuahua looks like a wolf?

A chihuahua looks like a doberman?

No, wolves aren't dogs. They are wolves.

The names differ, but they are the same species, with a few differences.

jan.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Macroevolution refers to major changes over time eventually creating new types of organisms that end up being different ancestoral types.

jan.

You must not lose sight of the fact that macroevolution is not a process of nature[sup]*[/sup]. It's merely a window, arbitrarily drawn by the investigator, to include any number of evolutionary events of interest to that person. As that window grows much larger than the scope given to studying particular creatures in the wild (or in the lab), it exposes the phylogenetic tree at lower magnification, revealing the fact of macroevolution without succumbing to any of the issues you or leopold have raised. It simply connects all forms in any given branch to the root form that exists at the fork where the branch emerges from its trunk. At this level of magnification, it's meaningless to discuss macroevolution at all without mentioning the tree to which it refers. Similarly, for all the transitional forms posted here so far, you are better off superimposing their pictures onto the appropriate fork on the branch where they diverged, otherwise you lose sight of the actual meaning of the word 'macroevolution'.

*the only process in effect is the one defined in Darwin's Theory of Evolution, as amended. Macroevolution as you and leopold are using the term is an accumulation of successive applications by nature of this process, which occurs at the species level and nothing more.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan Ardena



You are now admitting that man and apes are both apes? There are actually fewer morphological differences between man and Bonobos than there are between a chihuahua and a wolf. So if the process chihuahuas went through was not evolution, neither was the process we went through and we are still monkeys. Make up your mind.

Grumpy

No I'm not. I'm admitting that wolves and dogs are of the same species.

jan.

 

[billvon]

A chihuahua looks like a doberman?

No, that's my point. You claimed that macroevolution was "change occurs to the point where animals change into other animals looking nothing like like their parents." Chihuahuas look nothing like Dobermans, nor do they look like wolves. So you have a species that 'evolved' from wolves into chihuahuas, which look nothing like their parents of millennia ago. Therefore - macroevolution.

The names differ, but they are the same species, with a few differences.

All life on Earth could be described he same way - basically the same, with a few differences. The farther back their ancestors were the bigger the differences. In a few thousand years we went from a wolf to a chihuahua. In a few hundred thousand we went from prehistoric man to modern man. In a few million, from homo habilis to modern man. In ten million or so, from primate ancestor to man.

The process is exactly the same in all cases. The longer you have the more changes there are.

 

[billvon]

these specimens were subjected to the same pressures as their brothers that DID evolve.

?? No they didn't. They are deep sea fish. That's a different environment, with different pressures, than (say) the environment that produced mammals.

the ONLY thing that can explain this is evolution IS NOT environment driven . . .

That's actually good proof it is environment driven.

Static environment = static organism
Dynamic environment = rapidly changing organism.

 

[Trippy]

why is this sample seemingly immune from macroevolution?

Static environment = static organism
Dynamic environment = rapidly changing organism.

Billvon's right, it isn't.

Environmental pressure drives macroevolution. Changes in environmental pressure drive radiation and speciation. This is one of the ways in which I disagree with Gould: A species that is apparently in stasis isn't actually in stasis and should not be regarded as such. It should be regarded as a dynamic equilbirium, and a change in environmental pressures is going to drive a change in evolution.

Evolution doesn't predict that a species in a stable environment that has reached equilibriun with its niche is going to evolve further anymore than the laws of motion predict a bubble with all of its forces in equilibrium is going to suddenly shoot off in a particular direction.

 

[rpenner]

As Wikipedian's say -- citation required! You have a record of presenting half-remembered ideas as if there were documented facts. So I bet you USD $100 that you cannot find Thor Heyerdahl claiming a coelacanth jumped or flew into his raft. Or, in the alternative of not accepting my wager, I offer that you can retract the claim and leave the Kon-Tiki out of this thread and I won't call you (well-justified) names.

//Added in Edit:
It doesn't matter what you claim or what you think. The first living coelacanth was described by western science dates to December 23, 1938. The second to December 21, 1952. So since the Kon-Tiki sailed in 1947 and the book was published in 1950, Thor Heyerdahl did not describe any coelacanth encounters.




First of all, macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level, so the Wikipedia page listing two living species of coelacanths is demonstration of speciation and thus macroevolution. Second of all the links that Wikipedia and I provided ( link one and link two ) are for the benefit of the ignorant and confused -- this means you. You demonstrate no evidence that you read the Wikipedia page or my other link, but if you had you would have seen that the living coelacanths are so morphologically different than fossil coelacanths that they have been put in a separate genus. Further, fossil coelacanths are themselves in many genera. Thus coelacanths past and present are evidence of macroevolution above the species level.

Microevolution refers to changes within a specific type or kind of organisms, but the descendants always remain the same type or kind as the ancestor.

Macroevolution refers to major changes over time eventually creating new types of organisms that end up being different ancestoral types.

(emphasis added) -- You are using a shifty term to distinguish the two definitions. "Type" and "kind" have no intrinsic meaning in biology.

First of all, biology does not recognize that organisms have "types" -- frogs are not organism of "type frog", nor is there some ideal of frog-ness that all frogs cluster about or strive towards. At a biochemical level, there is no immutable hereditary element which is unique to "frogs." What biology teaches is that there are a number of four-limbed, tail-less-as-adults amphibian organisms with a large number of common traits. These organisms form breeding populations, and thus the natural unit of classification is the commonality of inter-breeding populations -- that we call "species." The Leiopelma hochstetteri organisms have tail-less tail-muscles and different numbers of vertabrae than most other organisms we call "frogs." The Rhinoderma darwinii organisms have an unusual life-style with tadpoles being carried in the male mouths. The Rhacophorus nigropalmatus organisms cement their eggs above the water with seminal fluid and can parachute from its normal home in tree tops all the way to the forest floor. These three groups of organisms have so much in common, that biology recognizes this by clustering these species in a clade called Order Anura. "The characteristics of anuran adults include: nine or fewer presacral vertebrae, a long and forward sloping ilium, the presence of a urostyle, no tail, shorter forelimb than hindlimb, radius and ulna fused, tibia and fibula fused, elongate ankle bones, absence of a prefrontal bone, presence of a hyoid plate, a lower jaw without teeth, an unsupported tongue, lymph spaces underneath the skin and a muscle, the protractor lentis, attached to the lens of the eye. The anuran larva or tadpole has a single central respiratory spiracle and mouthparts consisting of keratinous beaks and denticles." -- Wikipedia

With this definition, all modern examples of frog-like or toad-like oraganism are classified in Order Anura. This order is part of Class Amphibia which has living creatures which are quite un-frog-like. But even members of Class Amphibian share common traits. In the fossil record, there are body types which are Amphibia which are partially frog-like (Triadobatrachus massinoti) which is entirely consistent with the claim that all modern frog-like organisms had a common ancestral population with other living amphibians and extinction explains why no modern creature looks like a adult frog but with a tail and why L. hochstetteri adults have muscles homologous to tail muscles in amphibians with tails.

Order Anura is further divided in a tree-like pattern of classification. This is exactly the pattern predicted by repeated speciation events, as populations split and forever go their separate ways. Thus the tree of frog-life is just a forking branch on the tree of life -- a bit isolated because of the extinction of ancestral proto-frogs with tails. Also, all the species with 9 presacral vertebrae are in New Zealand which is also the type of clustering one expects if the trait of having 8 or fewer presacral vertebrae is a heritable trait in only some frog populations. The pattern of a tree of life is one you assemble piece-by-piece with the evidence you gather and the same pattern fits both morphology and genetics and mitochondrial genetics.

 

[leopold]

leopold




So a fish that lives at great depth in the ocean(the main reason we didn't know it still existed)experiences the same environment as a rabbit whose field is being covered by ice as an ice age begins?

strawman, and you know it grumpy.

Do you realize just how stupid that statement is?

yes, i do indeed realize how stupid your strawman statement was.

Other creatures that did share the environment of the fish(jellyfish, sharks, mollusks, etc.)also have evolved little in the same time frames, they have no pressure to change.

so, what you are proposing here is that most, if not all, deep sea creatures undergo little if any evolution.
correct?
couldn't the same thing be said of, say, elephants or worms?
i imagine worms have been around a very long time.
i believe this is nothing more than conjecture with no real evidence.

The only thing that can explain this idiocy is you are consciously trying to remain ignorant of the facts.

what are the facts grumpy, and what falsifiable test has been made to prove those facts?
the piece from science pointed out that many at the meeting was concerned about the lack of data.
in your opinion what data could they have been talking about?

 

[billvon]

so, what you are proposing here is that most, if not all, deep sea creatures undergo little if any evolution.

Deep sea creatures in static environments don't change much.

couldn't the same thing be said of, say, elephants . . .

No. Elephants live on the surface of the planet where the climate changes regularly.

i imagine worms have been around a very long time.

Sure. So have arthropods and vertebrates. Those in static environments change very slowly; those in dynamic environments change rapidly.

what are the facts grumpy

That evolution is driven by two factors:
1) Environmental pressures that cause selection (i.e. "survival of the fittest")
2) Random mutations to the heritable genome of the organism

 

[leopold]

what is wrong with the hypothesis that all lifeforms made their appearance "suddenly"?
be sure to include your interpretation of suddenly.

it seems that once life made its appearance it would have been everywhere within a very short time, maybe global within 10 years.
all species evolved then within a short time according to the environment it happened to find itself in.

opinions?

 

[billvon]

it seems that once life made its appearance it would have been everywhere within a very short time, maybe global within 10 years.

Change that to 10 million and I'd go with it.

all species evolved then within a short time according to the environment it happened to find itself in.

You may be referring to the Cambrian explosion, a relatively short amount of time (80 million years) where we saw a major increase in diversity among the various phyla.

 

[gmilam]

what is wrong with the hypothesis that all lifeforms made their appearance "suddenly"?
be sure to include your interpretation of suddenly.

Lack of evidence?

it seems that once life made its appearance it would have been everywhere within a very short time, maybe global within 10 years.
all species evolved then within a short time according to the environment it happened to find itself in.

Why would it seem like that? Do you just pull these numbers out of your ass or what?

 

[rpenner]

opinions?

Nothing you said is supported by the fossil record which clearly shows body types coming into fashion, modifying, and ending over hundreds of millions of years, with most of mammalian body types coming into fashion in the last 80 million years and no sign of dinosaurs in the last forty million years. Likewise flowering plants seemed scant 200 million years ago, but have most of their history in body type occurring in the last 120 million years. The history of apes and man seemed to start just about 20-22 million years ago with many branches on the family tree going extinct.

http://www.helsinki.fi/~mhaaramo/me.../eutheria/primates/hominoidea/hominoidea.html

 

[arfa brane]

what is wrong with the hypothesis that all lifeforms made their appearance "suddenly"?
be sure to include your interpretation of suddenly.

Well, one really really big problem with "suddenly" is that life on this planet was single-celled for more than 4 billion years.
All the species during this 'era', were bacterial, but at some stage diverged into photosynthetic species (cyanobacteria, responsible for most of the oxygen in the atmosphere), and early fungi, like yeasts, and eubacteria (modern 'true' bacteral organisms). Eventually multicellular organisms evolved, but these have been around for a mere .5 billion years or so.

 

[leopold]

Do you just pull these numbers out of your ass or what?

it's statements like this that tramples the hell out of free thought and creativity.

i wished the mods could force every one of your future posts to be word for word from a respected source.
the truly creative is one vast assumption, they do indeed "pull it out of their ass".