EVOLUTION vs CREATIONISM

[James R]

Saquist:

But for how long? That's the question. The comparison to the period of change is equally important.

Why is that comparison important to you?

Should there not be an analysis that attempts to log the point of change and see if it truely is coinciding wiith other specimens which may lead to the discovery of a comman evolutionary inducer at a specific time.? I would be intrested in seeing that. That would be some convincing corraborative information. To pin down an event as the point of change.

Ok. Take a simple one: the extinction of the dinosaurs and emergence of large mammals. Common evolutionary inducer: a rather large meteor.

That large meteor hit the Earth about 65 million years ago. Far from every dinosaur was killed in the initial impact, but the climate change caused by the event made it impossible for large dinosaurs to survive. At the same time, the extinction of dinosaurs left an ecological gap open for exploitation by mammals. Over the last 65 million years, mammals have become the most dominant of the large animals on the planet.

So how long are the periods os change?

They vary, depending on what change you're talking about.

How long is the period of stability?

As long as the environment remains relatively stable, as I said before.

Are they're any correlations across multiple species in the same enviorment?

Thousands. Take, for example, the evolution of mammals following the dinosaur extinction I mentioned above.

 

[Myles]

Saquist,

Remember the cave paintings I referred to ? The earliest have been dated to about 32, 000 years ago which is a bit longer that the 6,000 you claim for man's first appearance.

Don't worry about evolution. All you need to do now is deny the accuracy of the scientific method of dating. That should be easy enough for someone of your mentality. There are lots of other things you could deny if only you knew about them.

 

[Saquist]

Yes, I think that's right.

Okay so the Cambrian period was obviously not a stable enviroment according to evolution
Something happend in the enviorment that change those creatures.
Now normally when we're dealing with wide spread change...we're talking about ELE but in this case...it appears to be the exact opposite. something was a motivator...an inducer.

Isn't it important to isolate what happend here? Is not the Cambrian period the best opportunity to explor the details of evolution? And wouldn't making those comparisons betwen this explosion of life lead to a greater understanding of what happend in the enviroment compared to other eras?

So no one ever explored this?
I love comparisons...I don't get it. That would be one of the first things I'd do.

 

[spidergoat]

It's one of the central questions in evolutionary studies. The environment also includes other life forms. Perhaps genomes were less established back then, maybe there was some mutagen present like radiation, maybe it's just that few ecological niches were filled. It seems evolution doesn't always act the same way.

 

[Saquist]

Okay...I'm lost here on " Perhaps genomes were less established then" What does that mean firstly.

But we know radiation DEFFINTELY doesn't cause a positive reaction on DNA unless there is something I don't know. One percent of all mutations being adverse is not what I would call a motivator no matter how much time we're talking about let alone within 52 million years. That's just plants. and less than 1% for animals.

Looking from that stand point there is obviously an evolutionary inducer (motivator) that we don't know about about. Or adaptation and natural selection are much much stronger and the mutation and errors that occur hold down that rate of change amazing well.

 

[spidergoat]

Radiation might harm most individual DNA, but mutagens could assist diversity in the long run.

My money is on the environment just being relatively empty. Few ecological niches were filled, and that led to a great spreading out, which drove the geographical separation that drives diversity. Maybe not. There is obviously something not completely understood.

 

[Saquist]

from what I've read on mutation and the one observation I've seen on mutation diveresity suggest that that diveresity is far from infinite..

But what did you mean by "Perhaps genomes were less established then."?

I can actually see niches filling up proving to be a buffer of some point. I think that's about the interaction between those niches.

(And congradulations on 19,000)

 

[James R]

Okay so the Cambrian period was obviously not a stable enviroment according to evolution

Obviously not.

I fact, it appears that the Cambrian period was one in which there were a lot of environmental niches ripe for new exploitation.

 

[Gustav]

see?
james endorses, as i do, mutation thru insidious alien infiltration.

"ripe for new exploitation"

ja
we owe everything
i repeat
everything
to anal probes
and whatnot

 

[Vkothii]

Aha, the "purposeful probe" did it?

I'll be buggered...

 

[Gustav]

nice

 

[Saquist]

Obviously not.

I fact, it appears that the Cambrian period was one in which there were a lot of environmental niches ripe for new exploitation.

But the question is...how were those niches filled?
Why so rapidly?
Further, after ELE that have been postulated were equal "explosions" observed?

If so this could be useful for a base line comparison of other areas in the geologic record.

 

[iceaura]

You have had this pointed out to you many times. Arguing against a theory is one thing, refusing to bother to comprehend the basics of the theory you pretend to argue against is another matter entirely. ”

What do you mean?

For one example, you keep asking for things like the "moment of change", the specific time when such and so appeared, etc.

You regard the inability of people to provide you with the specific ancestor of the first bird, or the transitional fossils between frogs and dogs, and several other matters, as points against evolutionary theory. That means you haven't come to grips with the basics of evolutionary theory.

All of the replies to you, and to the other creationists here, have been at bottom variously adept or awkward attempts to describe or explain evolutionary theory. They haven't been arguments, in the standard sense of two sides each presenting their cases.

Okay so the Cambrian period was obviously not a stable enviroment according to evolution
Something happend in the enviorment that change those creatures.

One prime candidate was the emergence of significant quantities of free oxygen in the atmosphere.

But whatever - and it may have been simply an extraordinary, once in a billion years in all the world's oceans, chance genetic event with legs (literally) - it's a matter of great interest. It's not something evolutionary theorists have been ignoring.

 

[Saquist]

I believe you are taking it upon your self to misrepresent me iceaura.
I do not recall such statements within any of my previous post.

 

[James R]

But the question is...how were those niches filled?
Why so rapidly?

Have you asked a biologist?

Further, after ELE that have been postulated were equal "explosions" observed?

What's ELE?

If so this could be useful for a base line comparison of other areas in the geologic record.

In what way?

 

[Saquist]

I've read a massive list of books given too me by an evolutionist named Sedistix on the File Front Gaming Forums in an effort to learn more. I found them highly speculative and even contradictory to each other on some issues. Actually on many issues. The reasoning were diverse and reminded me of the thread on going in the biology forum.

When I finished Einstien's Universe I didn't think I could be more confused by sciencetific terminology untill I finished that first book on his list. I'll obviously have to read them all again one day if I hope to be able to relate it propperly.

ELE stands for Extinction Level Event.

Biology is still a mystery despite it being right in front of us. They must be missing something.... The Cambrian period was at a point as Iceaura said where there should have been an excess of oxygen in the atmosphere. I've read that somethings enlargen in pure oxygen enviroments. They're maybe something to it...But I've also read that an oxygen atmosphere is causes matter to break down...oxidizes faster...I'm not sure if that was related to only non living things. I do know such an atmosphere would be neutral and that's not viable for organic development so I don't think the high oxygen content was an evolutionary motivator.

 

[Vkothii]

The oxygen that got into the atmosphere was produced by photosynthesis, which converts CO2 and H2O into glucose, and releases O2.

The newly oxidising atmosphere was a new selection pressure, which organisms had to "deal with". Obviously, they learned how to (during the Cambrian).

 

[Saquist]

That runs opposite to the understanding that the high oxygen content is neutral an not conducive to biological chemistry. You don't just learn how to deal with it. It's not the the instigator of change I'm looking for.

 

[Vkothii]

Oxygen isn't neutral, it's oxidising and toxic.
It was something that organisms learned to deal with by evolving an oxidative metabolic cycle, which reverses the photosynthesis of glucose, consumes O2 and releases CO2 and H2O. And of course, energy.

This all dates back to well before the Cambrian, btw. During the Cambrian, eukaryotes diverged and radiated quickly, into new ecological niches, but there were complex eukaryotes before the Cambrian. Oxidative metabolism is believed to date back to ~2.5b years.

 

[Saquist]

I'm just telling you what I've read.