extinction

[border_ruffian]

There are numerous lines of evidence from the fossil record, molecular biology, and comparative anatomy that support ideas about evolutionary change.<br /><br />To learn about some of the evidence, I recommend visiting the “Evolution Wing,” a virtual exhibit sponsored by the University of California Berkeley:<br /><br />http://evolution.berkeley.edu/<br /><br /><br />

 

[agnau]

I was refering to the lack of any documented new species having evolved in the course of documented human history. The fossil record is long and meandering over billions of years, but I have not heard of a species identified as having evolved in say the last 50 or 60 thousand years. If I am wrong, I am wrong.

 

[agnau]

That is just a new breed not a species, what about a new species that can not successfully interbreed with the old parent species? I understand that it takes a geological scale according to the fossil record if macro-evolution is true. But even wolves can still interbreed with dogs. <br /><br />This is the last I will post on this issue.

 

[border_ruffian]

Yeah it was weird when I saw his post. I'm new here so I'm not familiar with all the members, but I gather this person does this a lot. Have the moderators ever told him anything before?

 

[bobw]

After numerous complaints one of the mods did mention it to him in this thread and after an argumentative series of answers, he was told:<br /><br />"Yes, I understand you have been allowed to preach here for a long time. A policy change is indeed considered at the moment and we will inform you if anything changes." <br /><br />Newtonian just can't take a hint and will continue hijacking the Astronomy forum as long as he can get away with it.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[border_ruffian]

Thanks for the link. It's an interesting read.

 

[newtonian]

crazyeddie - I meant on this thread.<br /><br />In response to your response: may I suggest sitting?<br /><br />Personally, though, I can't stand sitting!

 

[newtonian]

derekmcd - No offense taken. I do not believe in taking fences.<br /><br />So, what do you think about my model for Dinosaur extinction? Note I did not get it from Scripture, btw.

 

[doubletruncation]

Newtonian:<br />I found your idea on how dinosaurs became extinct (that they effectively changed their own environment to make it more liveable for mammals who supplanted them) to be interesting, though I don't know the extent to which dinosaurs would have deforested their environment or got rid of the bogs. I'm not a paleontologist, but from what I understand the dinosaurs did seem to disappear rather suddenly (pinned down to plus or minus a few million years), did the plant-life also disappear suddenly as well or did it disappear over time (as I imagine your model would predict)? Also the concentration of iridium near the boundary between dinosaurs and no dinosaurs does seem to corroborate the impact theory. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[newtonian]

crazyeddie - Actually, there is no evidence for macro-evolution in the fossil record.<br /><br />Gould, in trying to overcome the obvious lack of links has promoted punctuated equilibrium as an explanation.<br /><br />The fossil record is exactly as one would expect if special creation was true.<br /><br />All of the major kinds appear suddenly in the fossil record with no links to other kinds.<br /><br />Take the platypus as an example. It has features of many other kinds, but there is zero evidence that these features arrived in the platypus by a gradual Darwinian change.<br /><br />Micro-evolution, on the other hand, has vast fossil and observational evidence for it - from Darwin's observations on the Galapagos Islands, to Dobshanky's experiments in radiation induced mutation in Drosophila to the peppered moth to dog and daylily breeding to anti-biotic resistance in bacteria, etc..<br /><br />The latter is an example of why natural extinctions are rare for kinds, but not for species.<br /><br />Note also that bacteria avoid extinction by man through gene sharing of anti-biotic resistant genes across species barriers.<br /><br />I should add, btw, that there are very recent discoveries concerning mechanisms for micro-evolution, including epigenetic coding, notably dynamic methyl and acetyl links to histones on the chromatin.<br /><br />Making dogmatic assertions, like you are doing, is way premature in view of how many new things we are learning about microevolution mechanisms.<br /><br />Your blind faith in popular evolutionary models borders on religious dogma rather than inquisitive scientific research to determine truth.

 

[doubletruncation]

While I think it may be true that the fossil record is not typically used as evidence of natural selection driven evolution (though it does seem to certainly point to *some* type of evolution), I don't think it's quite true to say that there is no evidence for macroevolution within the fossil records. The lack of very detailed transitional forms (though I don't think this lack is as striking as intelligent design proponents tend to portray - my feeling is that they are focused often on the fossil record as it stood in Darwin's time) is not necessarily surprising, since fossilization depends in large part on local conditions and the body type of the species. Also note that I think speciation can occur fairly rapidly (in geologic time) whereas a species can remain stable for a long time since the evolution of a new species is largely caused by changes in the environment. It is also my impression that there are in fact nearly complete fossil records (including detailed transitional forms) for a number of species, primarily plankton, in tropical marine sediments - these are in fact macroevolutionary changes rather than microevolutionary changes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[newtonian]

doubletruncation - Just one of my theories - and I agree there is evidence for catastrophe. <br /><br />I lean more to catastrophism over uniformitarian models for earth's history.<br /><br />But I take the surviving of smaller reptiles while larger reptiles became extinct as an indication food pressure was part of the cause of extinction.<br /><br />It would not have taken long for Dinosaurs to reach a crisis point in earth's vegetation. There would be a relatively long time Dinosaurs would simply be making a dent in earth's jungles. But eventually, as Dinosaur population increased and earth's vegetation kept being thinned a crisis point would be reached.<br /><br />Total extinction, though, may have been by that catastrophe indicated by your noted iridium layer - note that interpretations do differ drastically on the timing and models - as I noted recently on a Science channel broadcast concerning a specific area.<br /><br />It should be noted that there are no frozen Dinosaurs in the arctic muck (permafrost, etc., now melting due to global warming) - where more recent mass extinctions of species, but not of kinds, occurred.<br /><br />BTW - that last extinction corresponds with the Biblical flood - near the border between historic and pre-historic (hence mostly noted in mythically embillished accounts in virtually all of human cultures.)<br /><br />That latter extinction was quite sudden - as examination of frozen mammoths and other animals has indicated. These animals were frozen so suddenly that many species of plants remained undigested in their stomachs - so well preserved that they were able to be identified as to species.<br /><br />The change in climate was also permanent - at least until the current gradual global warming.<br /><br />One study I remember reading indicated the specific mammoth studied was rapidly (within one hour) subjected to temperatures less than minus 125 degrees F (at least in wind chill) to account for the preservation of the plant species deep w

 

[newtonian]

qso1 - I agree humans are responsilbe for destruction of habitat and extinction of species.<br /><br />We have had good articles confirming this. Here is but one of many examples:<br /><br />http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/1997/7/8/article_01.htm<br /><br />An excerpt:<br /><br />“Dr. Edward O. Wilson, a biologist at Harvard University, estimates that 27,000 species per year, or three per hour, are becoming extinct. At this rate, up to 20 percent of earth's species could be extinct in 30 years. But the rate of extinction is not constant; it is growing. It is expected that by early in the next century, hundreds of species will disappear each day!”"<br /><br />For more details see the link and also related links and the search engine under extinctions, etc.

 

[newtonian]

agnau - Part of the problem with discussions (and even more so: debates) on evolution is the changing parameters for definition of species. <br /><br />For example, Dobzhansky once stated no new species of Drosophila were produced by mutations - just varieties of one Drosophila species. Now it is claimed new Drosophila species have been produced - but this depends on how one classifies species.<br /><br />"Science, the official magazine for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, also spiked Gould’s argument: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in the physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [a position about midway between extremes].” quoted in "Awake!," 7/22/87, p. 11.<br /><br />Dobzhansky called this variation about a mean: equilibrium. <br /><br />From which is derived Gould's punctuated equilibrium model. <br /><br />However, actual observation does not show the macro-evolution jumps Gould theorizes about. Observation does dramatically confirm the oscillation about a mean, or equilibrium, within genetic boundaries which Science notes in my quote of a quote.<br /><br />Btw, Biblical kinds are not necessarily still able to interbreed, but they share common ancestry. Note, however, it is also difficult to pin down boundaries for kinds.<br /><br />Suffice it to say that those of my faith have published tenable models indicating the current millions of species in relatively recent geological history have descended from only hundreds of parent kinds.<br /><br />However, this is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.<br /><br />The belief that all species within one kind can still interbreed is scientific interpretation, not Biblical teaching. The simple Biblical teaching is that all life reproduces "after their own kind." That is clearly true as both daylily breeders and dog breeders have documented in depth. <br /><br />Dogs, for example,

 

[newtonian]

doubletruncation - I need to sleep soon - so please be patient for a proper response.<br /><br />Speciation can indeed occur rapidly - see my above posts. However, new species would still be one kind. Compare the history of various related vegetables, such as brocolli, brussel sprouts, cauliflower, and many other vegetables springing from one parent vegetable in historic times though human selection - comparable to natural selection.<br /><br />In the interests of time I will post a few quotes on the fossil record - I intend to do more than quote mining, of course - but time pressure allows me only to do this tonight:<br /><br />The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.<br /><br />A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.<br /><br />Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.<br /><br />Zoologist Harold Coffin st

 

[derekmcd]

<i>Another point relevant to thread theme is the reasons why God would have allowed various species to become extinct in the past.</i><br /><br />The relevanat theme in this thread has nothing to do with god.<br /><br /><i>Take Dinosaurs, for example. In those ancient times (avoiding the glaring disagreement on dating) the earth had a much higher CO2 content and also a stronger greenhouse effect such that the earth's climate was conducive to intense vegetative growth - far mor intense than the jungles of the Amazon.<br /><br />Under such conditions many mammals would have difficulty surviving - and therefore were not yet created.</i><br /><br />Created wouldn't be the proper term to use. Mammals were around the entire time dinosaurs were. Most were likely nocturnal and no larger than a house cat.<br /><br /><i>Dinosaurs were well equipped to survive in both the prevalent bogs (which helped support their vast weight) and in the otherwise impenetrable jungles.</i><br /><br />Not all dinosaurs were enormous. Many were very small and yet they are extinct, too.<br /><br /><i>For three obvious examples: stegasaurus (sp?) could have used its upper armor to allow it to penetrate the lower canope of dense growth and feed on lower vegetation.</i><br /><br />The stegosaurus' body plates were not likely used as armor or for penetration of a canopy. They were relatively thin and had blood vessels running through them. I believe they were more simply used as markings or identifiers that may have also doubled as radiators for cooling.<br /><br /><i>Triceratops (sp?) would have been able to use its powerful head like a pitchfork to fork out of its way - and then eat, the extremely thick vegetation.</i><br /><br />Thier horns and frill were used for defense and likely also as status amongst themselves. Their habitat was not dense jungle, but plains along with the T-rex. <br /><br /><i>Tyranosaurus rex could have used its little upper arms to gather thick vegetation much higher up into its powerful</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<i>All of the major kinds appear suddenly in the fossil record with no links to other kinds.</i><br /><br />You keep using the term 'kind'. I've heard of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species and such... Where does "Kind" fit in? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>