Animals appearing whole - ie anti-evolution

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's when those assumptions start interfering with established science that I start to have problems.

They wouldn't 'interfere' if the science was sound. You wouldn't have to call it 'settled science', or 'consensus science', or 'established science' ... it would simply be called Science. Unfortunately, science painted itself into a corner on evolution. The paint's gonna have to dry a Lot longer, I'm afraid.

Were you serious when you said T-Rex 'evolved' into a chicken? Muhwahaha!!

originally posted by: happytoexist
The English scientific community have started to voice a support for the theory of a`punctuated equilibrium`. This shows that they are not comfortable with the speed limits imposed on biological processes from other disciplines.

But there aren't any speed limits imposed on evolution. Phyletic gradualism was certainly the soup du jour for many years but it was also based on a much smaller fossil record than we have now, didn't fully consider the weight of what we could learn just from tracing lineages via DNA because we understood far less about genetics in general and couldn't predict technological advances that have occurred since On Origin of Species was first published. Hell, between Gould and Eldredge publishing their paper in 72 and now we've made some really incredible advances both in terms of our knowledge base and technological capabilities and what we can actually learn about an organism from a little bit of blood or tissue.

I think if you were able to poll Anthropologists you would be hard pressed to find any who think its 100% one or the other, hard and fast. The vast majority would likely tell you that both processes are always in play and that while phyletic gradualism may have the longer reach, punctuated equilibrium is clearly evidenced in the fossil record. Just because we don't fully understand what the mechanism in place actually is that can cause a drastic and sudden turn of events doesn't mean it does not occur. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with Gould and if you look into his and Eldredge's inspiration/ jumping off point for P.E., which is geographic isolation. It makes perfect sense. Look at the differences between an organism living in South Africa for example and literally ANY organism indigenous to Madagascar. Compare the fossil records and see how far back the speciation began to occur and then chart the differences in speciation once Madagascar split off from the mainland.

If we do not know the speed of creation/change then I see no reason to believe that a very fast creative process could not have existed.

I suppose it depends on what you would consider a very fast process. As Hydeman pointed out, how we determine speed in this scenario is going to vary depending on your perspective. Fast on a geologic time scale can mean 50 million years, 10 million, maybe 500 million. People talk about the Precambrian explosion and how it shouldn't be possible, can't make sense because of how fast it occurred. Geologically, yes, it was rather quick. Biologically it was tens of millions of years. Fast from a biological time frame could be sometime in the next 20 minutes to a year. And even that varies based on perspective. To me, a year is nothing and from my own perspective, they seem to go by faster and faster as I age. In contrast, to my 6 year old daughter, a year seems and feels like an eternity because her frame of reference is much different and considerably shorter.

I have little experience of chemistry conducted in a lab, but I know from everyday common occurrences how quickly reactions can take place.

the thing here is that the real world is NOT a lab, there are no controls or controlled settings by which to test parameters. It's like looking at an equation and trying to solve for X without knowing any of the other variables. There are so many factors that can affect an organism. Bottleneck events, intrusions of new species, new predators, competition for resources, environmental changes or disasters, radiological occurrences is the source of said radiological occurrence terrestrial or stellar? Simply because there are no controls and there ARE so many variables, there can not be uniformity assigned to the equation at hand which is why you can have a fairly steady, slow and gradual change or even stagnation for millions of years and then something happens.

A good example of this is 65 million BPE in the Yucatan. The same event that wiped out every large creature that existed at that point, the dinosaurs, also allowed mammals to eventually become the dominant force of life on this planet as they expanded into new niches that were previously unavailable to them. At the point of the KT boundary event, the vast majority of mammals were no larger than squirrels and were restricted to being nighttime insectivores. The largest mammal that lived at the time wasn't much bigger than a small dog, 20...maybe 30 pounds. Fast Forward 50 million years later and there were some impressively large mammals wandering the earth and a great many of them were still hanging around looking for snacks as humans made their way out of Africa, across Asia and finally into the Americas.

Look at the, geologically, rather quick pace that humans best friend has altered its morphology from large wolves to tiny little guys like Chihuahua's in several thousand years, albeit with a little help from us. The only real difference between morphological changes in canines vs other organisms is that we know and can account for the variables involved.

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's when those assumptions start interfering with established science that I start to have problems.

They wouldn't 'interfere' if the science was sound. You wouldn't have to call it 'settled science', or 'consensus science', or 'established science' ... it would simply be called Science. Unfortunately, science painted itself into a corner on evolution. The paint's gonna have to dry a Lot longer, I'm afraid.

Were you serious when you said T-Rex 'evolved' into a chicken? Muhwahaha!!

It doesn't actually interfere with the science itself. There is no debate whatsoever in the scientific community about the validity of evolution. People say established science because creationists constantly claim that it's not established or that a scientific theory is not based on facts. The only time creationists interfere is when they try to get intelligent design passed off as an alternative to evolution to be taught in a science class. I'm pretty sure that's the type of interference he was talking about. Fundamentalist interpretations of the bible do indeed conflict with science and the science is sound. Sorry if that upsets you, that's just the way it is.

a reply to: hydeman11

Sorry for mashing things together.

What I would like to know is who holds the measure.? I would think geology and palaeontology seen as they feed off each others data and reaffirm each others data.

Would a biologist involved in speciation defy the information established through strata and the fossil record.?

Would he/she in their own field, from their own experiences of how life can perform accept the possibility that a very fast creative process could have taken place.? without breaking the laws/processes of their own discipline.

originally posted by: Snarl

They wouldn't 'interfere' if the science was sound.

What, in your opinion, part of modern evolutionary synthesis is not sound? What do you think is wrong or incorrect about it?

You wouldn't have to call it 'settled science', or 'consensus science', or 'established science' ... it would simply be called Science.

the only people who feel the need to add pejoratives to it are those who don't understand or refuse to believe the science involved. Scientists just call it science. or work.

Unfortunately, science painted itself into a corner on evolution. The paint's gonna have to dry a Lot longer, I'm afraid.

How so?

Were you serious when you said T-Rex 'evolved' into a chicken? Muhwahaha!!

H, as well as anyone who has read even an average science based magazine or article, let alone read over the peer reviewed data would be dead serious making that statement. I believe the paper is 7 or 8 years old now but they were able to retrieve a collagen sample from the T-Rex remains that had fossilized soft tissue and compare the proteins with collagen samples from a mammoth, map the proteins and compare and contrast the results against protein profiles from everything they could. The proteins in T-Rex collagen had their closest match not in any living reptile but the darned chicken. That's not to say that 65 MYA T-rex suddenly turned into chickens, just that their closest living relative was the chicken. it does distinctively show however that birds, the chicken specifically, were a clear descendant of dinosaurs and not the reptile we see living today. Among other items of importance, this is also another pretty clear indicator that the dinosaurs were warm blooded and not cold blooded like lizards.

a reply to: peter vlar

Thank you for the input.

Gould is the man I had in mind, no surprise.

Correct the world is not a lab, but a lab is used to scrutinise the processes in isolation.

Would you say that the punctuated scenario takes presidency over the gradual scenario, ultimately.?

originally posted by: happytoexist
a reply to: peter vlar

Thank you for the input.

Gould is the man I had in mind, no surprise.

Correct the world is not a lab, but a lab is used to scrutinise the processes in isolation.

Would you say that the punctuated scenario takes presidency over the gradual scenario, ultimately.?

No, I personally wouldn't say the PE takes precedence over PG and that's coming from someone who was a big proponent of it almost 20 years ago where I got a lot of crap for it when doing my BSc. Like I said above, they are both occurring, PG is a constant ongoing process that every so often gets body slammed by PE because it creeps up out of nowhere like Jason Voorhees at a summer camp.

a reply to: peter vlar

Why change your mind.? if you believed it was of a different character, others obviously supported it too, not all in print though.

If PE declares that an organ was greatly altered to the benefit of all those involved in a burst of creativity, would this not be a marvel and quite different from PG.?

Would this then lay open a way for that which the OP wished to silence.?

We could then ask the question," can a complete complex species develop in our life time".? surely the possibility would exist.

More so if an experienced biologist could see no problem based on the performance of life.

a reply to: peter vlar

What, in your opinion, part of modern evolutionary synthesis is not sound? What do you think is wrong or incorrect about it?

My opinion is that climactic change is necessary to invoke an evolutionary process (remaining true to the context of this thread). If evolution occurs, that event won't be documented in the fossil record, but more likely 'discovered' by a bacteriologist. The far ends of any scale require a certain amount of faith.

Creation
Mutation
Adaptation
Natural Selection
Evolution

Science proves itself in the lab. Real scientists are loathe to speculate when the simple words, "I don't know." suffice.

-Cheers

originally posted by: happytoexist
a reply to: peter vlar

Why change your mind.? if you believed it was of a different character, others obviously supported it too, maybe not in print though.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking why I changed MY mind? if so then the answer is that I have not. It's not a proposition of one or another or one over the other. I have always thought that the two processes made far more sense working together than either did on their own.

If PE declares that an organ was greatly altered to the benefit of all those involved in a burst of creativity, would this not be a marvel and quite different from PG.?

It would be impressive, certainly but I just don't see how the two processes can be separated so thoroughly. No matter how you look at it, phyletic gradualism was occurring the entire time up to the PE event if you will, and will continue on long after.

Would this then lay open a way for that which the OP wished to silence.?

Anything is possible. The outcome is determined by the data. If the data can be positively peer reviewed and independently replicated then there really isn't a question. I'm following the evidence where it leads. Until there is evidence of a god or gods I'm going to be extremely cautious and skeptical of the notion. Personally, as a thought exercise, I thought Krazyshot's OP was an interesting premise and a nice change of pace from the usual threads of this nature but I'm not quite sure what he may have wished to silence.

We could then ask the question," can a complete complex species develop in our life time".? surely the possibility would exist.

That depends on the parameters and conditions of, as well as how you want to define complex life. Considering it was a couple of billion years between the first simple algae's and what we would generally consider "complex" life I personally don't think the premise of a complex life form bursting into existence in the short span of our lifetime to be very realistic. With that said, as far as the math goes, it's certainly not impossible. Just highly improbable in my opinion.

a reply to: peter vlar

Thanks for all your insights.

I do accept your conclusion of a joint affair(PE+PG) until otherwise proved. I have always been intrigued by PE and found it to be such a breath of fresh air.

Agreed, good post on the Ops part, I did get the impression though that it was to show that no known scientific approach could account for such arrivals of a species...on this I have my doubts.

I`m not happy using the term complex, it is neither here nor there.

Improbable for the time being, but with a new approach to RNA/DNA riddles afoot and epigenetic findings I see changes on the horizon.

Thanks.

a reply to: happytoexist

Howdy,

No need to be sorry. I apologize for being dense and not being able to understand you clearly enough.

Paleontology and geology are two completely fields. Both have some use in the other field, certainly, but you ask a good question. Originally, geology was very much invested in paleontology, in constructing what is known as the relative geological timescale. This timescale is based mostly on extinction events, so fossils and fossil identification were important. Likewise, geology can use fossils to establish paleoclimates and paleoenvironments.

That said, you can do a lot in geology with less than a basic understanding of paleobiology, and there are surely jobs that do not require one to use any paleontological data. For example, land surveying or hydrogeology have few uses for fossils...

In essence, no geology does not invalidate paleontology and paleontology does not invalidate geology. What you are seeing is indeed how well they work together to accomplish similar tasks. They do not feed off of each other's data so much as they corroborate and use each other's data. It is perfectly fine to be a molecular biologist and study how proteins function (or what have you...), and that's borrowing from chemistry much the same way.

I do think, however, that it would be wrong for a biologist to make hasty conclusions about the fossil record. Most people don't understand the limitations of the fossil record or the implications that fossilization as a process might have. In the end, a biologist is trying to understand the process that a paleontologist has observed in rocks, so if a biologist's hypotheses do not mach the fossil record, then I suppose paleontology holds the answer of what did happen and biology has only offered an explanation of what could happen. Do not misunderstand me, the biologist's data may be correct and the conclusions may be sound, and yet it might not have been the case for whatever particular fossil organism was being used in his/her study.

Now, as for science and creative processes... No, I don't think most scientists would agree that "creative" processes have taken place. Science has no concern for the supernatural, which is implied when you think that nature has creativity, a trait of intelligence. Silly semantics, I know.

As for rapid speciation, it certainly would seem possible and probably by the fossil record and modern biology (I'm thinking bacteria here). I've not heard of any such disagreements between biologists and paleontologists other than what is defined as "slow" or "fast" and, "Why does it even matter?" In general, what I see is a consensus on the very broad and generalized idea with disagreements in the finer details. If these disagreements break the laws of their own discipline, they'd certainly need strong evidence to do so.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's when those assumptions start interfering with established science that I start to have problems.

They wouldn't 'interfere' if the science was sound. You wouldn't have to call it 'settled science', or 'consensus science', or 'established science' ... it would simply be called Science. Unfortunately, science painted itself into a corner on evolution. The paint's gonna have to dry a Lot longer, I'm afraid.

Care to elaborate? I'd be willing to bet that your problems with evolution are from misconceptions about it.

Were you serious when you said T-Rex 'evolved' into a chicken? Muhwahaha!!

Sure, why wouldn't I be serious about that?

T. Rex Related to Chickens

An adolescent female Tyrannosaurus rex died 68 million years ago, but its bones still contain intact soft tissue, including the oldest preserved proteins ever found, scientists say.

And a comparison of the protein's chemical structure to a slew of other species showed an evolutionary link between T. rex and chickens, bolstering the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Howdy,

I generally like what you say and I appreciate your forwardness in writing what you think, but I think it prudent to maybe clarify what you have written.

See, Snarl asked you if T-Rex evolved into chickens, and you seemingly said yes to this. This is strictly speaking untrue... or unknowable. We know they share ancestry, we know that chickens evolved from dinosaurs related to T-Rex, but we cannot say with certainty that there is a direct line of ancestry between T-Rex and chickens (In other words, we cannot say that T-Rex evolved into chickens).

I make this distinction so that Snarl is not misled into another misconception. Surely, it seems rather illogical to believe a gigantic dino like the T-Rex turned into a tiny little chicken. (Although, perhaps crazier things can be seen in the fossil record. )

I suggest this page for anyone interested in the evolution of birds from therapods.

en.wikipedia.org...

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: hydeman11

Ok, fair enough. But I stand by that it is a good possibility that they evolved into chickens. And I really don't find it very unlikely either, considering how they would have to act and behave. After that asteroid hits, I'm sure all the big meat died off. The T-Rex probably evolved to be smaller and started eating smaller and smaller things. As meat became more and more scarce, maybe it started eating grains and other things. Eventually it evolves some feathers. It's arms become wings and slowly it becomes a chicken. It isn't that far fetched considering the time-spans we are talking about here.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: hydeman11

Ok, fair enough. But I stand by that it is a good possibility that they evolved into chickens. And I really don't find it very unlikely either, considering how they would have to act and behave. After that asteroid hits, I'm sure all the big meat died off. The T-Rex probably evolved to be smaller and started eating smaller and smaller things. As meat became more and more scarce, maybe it started eating grains and other things. Eventually it evolves some feathers. It's arms become wings and slowly it becomes a chicken. It isn't that far fetched considering the time-spans we are talking about here.

I don't think you're too far off with that line of thinking. We see similar evolution appearing even in recent times, Pygmy Mammoths and H. Floresiensis come to mind right off the bat.

You start off with an isolated population, perhaps there were young T-rex that survived the initial conflagration. They were already small and with diminished resources there was enough food for them to survive but not enough for them to maintain the previously large size. This too has been seen as a result of malnutrition and limited resources. Obviously everything I just typed is entirely and highly speculative and I'm just riffing off the top of my head but it is all well within the bounds of reality.

The only part of what you wrote that I would disagree with is the feathers appearing later as we have a lot of anecdotal evidence that many dinosaurs, including T-Rex had feathers or down like plumage. All in all though, I don't think you're too far off and there are definitely paleontologists who would agree.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Howdy,

I'm not saying it isn't a possibility, but I think it is more likely that the larger dinosaurs would have died off rather quickly. Now, T-Rex was likely (at least some of the time) a scavenger, so maybe they had a lot of food and had a great time after some die offs.

That said, large animals are often the first things to go in drastic environmental changes, which would be what a bolide collision would be. I find it incredibly more likely that smaller therapod/or similar dinosaurs (some of which surely had feathers before the age of T-Rex) were able to survive and become modern birds. That said, there is also decent evidence to suggest that T-Rex might have had feathers. For more info, the link below.

en.wikipedia.org...

Essentially, all I am saying is that it cannot be conclusively said that T-Rex evolved into chickens.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's also just as likely that the forerunners of chickens started pecking away at an abundance of T-Rex carcasses. Subsequently, picking up some genetic traits of dinosaurs (you are what you eat) ... and voila ... everything you think is actually backwards.

Speciation does Not occur in complex organisms. Science has been around long enough that a finger would have found that pulse by now, if it existed. Science is Not going to prove evolution in our lifetimes. There is no modeling environment large enough (let alone complex enough) to develop 'proof'. This is a simple and irrefutable fact.

Arguing for evolution over creationism (or vice versa) is simply entertaining, if you like debate, and I do. I think creationists will remain in the lead 'by a nose' until the debate is over. What existed (or did not) in 'the seconds' preceding the Big Bang are actually important the 'moment' one allows for esoteric considerations. Let's simply consider that rather than drawing your thread OT.

a reply to: Snarl

Howdy,

Apologies, I know that you were responding to Krazysh0t, but may I cut in?

Are you suggesting that things gain traits of what they eat? I have eaten a lot chicken, yet I do not have a beak. My family has eaten a lot of chicken, yet none of them have feathers. My ancestors ate a lot of chicken, no talons. This is not how DNA works in complex multicellular organisms.

If speciation does not occur in complex organisms, can you explain Darwin's finches? Not only were they not the same species of finch, they were of different genera (meaning they could not reproduce to ]and have fertile offspring).
en.wikipedia.org...

I'm pretty sure Darwin was the first to actually put his finger to the pulse, although there were certainly several before him looking for it.

And of course, what occurred before the Big Bang is not important to evolution. Evolution involves only speciation and only seeks to explain the origin of species. A god could have created the first cell, yet evolution explains the rest. That is all. In this sense it is not evolution vs. creationism. If you wish to argue about abiogenesis by natural processes vs. creationism, that would be more fitting. Although, I think it has been discussed here already.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: hydeman11

Hello Hydeman,

I've really enjoyed reading you posts in this thread!!

I think we all know I was simply funnin' with Krazysh0t. He's mature enough to handle my jibes and no doubt the majority of the readership who make it back to page 19 of this thread are as well.

About the T-Rex/Chicken thingy ... nobody knows. Let me not cast aspersions on a PhD bone collector. I could, but he's not here to defend himself.

I am familiar with Darwin's finches. It's true that there may be some small discovery in that study, but I fear it's anecdotal and serves as a straw man in the evolutionary/creationism debate. Is the final outcome not still a finch? To throw my own straw man into the mix, I don't believe Darwin himself was an evolutionist in the modern sense. I do sometimes wonder what his learned take would be in this era. I suspect it would fall somewhere along the lines of our train of thought: still inconclusive.

-Cheers