It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: StalkerSolent
originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: StalkerSolent
Microtectonics maybe, but not macrotectonics... surely?
However, it's not a field I've looked into practically at all, so it is wisest to keep my mouth shut about it for now.
originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Why is it obvious that the evolutionary rate was slow when there was barely any life on earth? Given what we know of smaller organisms, I honestly would expect that to be the fastest.
Sure. I pointed that out. But then you run into problematic territory when you try to explain how massive evolutionary shifts happened in a matter of years. Like you pointed out, with mammals it takes a long, long time.
In no way should the average speciation rate of all life in the history of earth influence the rate at which it works today.
I'd beg to differ. Unless you're saying that the laws of the universe are arbitrary, we should be able to make a link between the two, given enough time and research. I don't think we've had either yet.
Psst, nonsense. Mutations are always beneficial! Haven't you seen the X-Men films?
Really? I was pretty sure we'd actually measured current rates of continental drift.
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
I have questions.
Has any mutations helped humans evolve in the last 6000 plus years ?
Has any mutations been passed down to the next generation ?
Warning: bad answers could generate a new thread on this very topic
Because there was significantly less diversity during the first billion years of life on earth, and less overall creatures on earth. Less creatures evolving at once is less speciation, hence a slower rate. This isn't rocket science. It's obvious based on what you are trying to calculate. Your rate calculates the average rate of known speciation changes as a whole for earth. It is not based on individual rates, it's just a summation of all changes on earth put together and therefor bears no indication on what the rate is today, because the rate constantly changes, even in different geographical locations. Not only that, but also your rate hinges on how many species are on earth at once, so it's bound to be all over the place depending on when you look.
No you don't run into problems. And can you provide a link to a "massive" evolutionary shift that happened in a matter of years? Don't forget that before speciation can occur, genetic mutations need to accumulate. Speciation is basically a trait becoming dominant in a population where it changes them enough to be classified differently. The environmental changes may be sudden, but the speciation process takes a large amount of generations.
Your loose average calculations are not laws of the universe and there is no reason whatsoever that the speciation rate today is too fast or too slow and I already explained it to you. The earth has been changing in the past 4 billion years. There is no reason whatsoever to suggest the rate today should equal the average, or to claim this poses a problem for evolution. Sorry man, that's not how evolution works, not how science works, and not how mathematics works. Any other academic disciplines you'd like to bastardize today?
Each individual species has different mutation rates, you have to look at them individually instead of taking an average of all life today (which is near impossible) and comparing it to the average of all life in the history of planet earth. Where can you possibly find the number of the speciation rate today? First explain how you calculate THAT.
When has any evolution advocate ever claimed that mutations are always beneficial?
We also actually measure the current rate of mutations in evolution.
It relates to the same nonsense that Quad was trying to say. There is no difference between micro and macro evolution. There is no reason whatsoever to make the assumption that mutations and traits would stop accumulating past a certain point. Denial of macro evolution while believing in micro is just like believing that continental drift is real, but not thinking that after millions of years they could move great distances. It's simple basic math, and no denier or evolution "critic" has ever answered this point.
originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Right. I could just see a scenario where the first living creatures evolved very rapidly because they were so simple. But I guess the lack of numbers would counterbalance out that advantage, though.
Sure, I can buy that. I'm still a little confused, though, as to whether you think evolution is a fast or slow process. Although I guess it would depend on the critter in question, am I right?
So you don't think observations we make today have any bearing on the past?
Like I pointed out before, we don't have a good enough catalogue on the number of creatures alive today to be able to do this with any accuracy. However, when we have seen speciation, like in the example of the Hawthorne fly I linked too previously, it seems to have taken decades.
I haven't been denying macro, have I? I'm simply puzzled by the apparent conflict between the literally billion+ species that roam(ed) the earth and the >4 billion years they have had to evolve. I was under the impression that evolution (usually) was a long, arduous process, but I am unable to reconcile that with the data, even assuming that some species evolve *very* rapidly and some *very* slowly. I'm guessing this problem is part of what got people to thinking along the lines of punctuated equilibrium and the like.
There is 40% less oxygen in the air on the 4,000m high Tibetan plateau than at sea level. Under these conditions, people accustomed to living below 2,000m – including most Han Chinese – cannot get enough oxygen to their tissues, and experience altitude sickness. They get headaches, tire easily, and have lower birth rates and higher child mortality than high-altitude populations.
Tibetans have none of these problems, despite having lower oxygen saturation in their tissues and a lower red blood cell count than the Han Chinese.
We are in agreement then. Yes, you are correct, they would probably have very short lifespans, so they may have reproduced even daily or multiple times a day, but the lack of overall numbers in comparison to the word today would be drastically different and there's no reason to expect it to average out at some point. Today, in all logic should be way faster than the first billion years of life.
Exactly. It's not a fast or slow process. It varies. Obviously one can deduce that bigger changes take longer to develop than small ones, but it is subjective depending on the time between generations, the mutation rate of the species, and the frequency of environmental changes. Human mutation rates have been shown to be much faster than the rates observed in chimps or gorillas. It's also true that there is much more time in between human generations. So in theory, chimps and humans could balance out, where chimps experience less mutations, but reproduce in half the time (usually 8-9 years), while humans experience more mutations but reproduce less often (20-25 years). Sorry for going off on that tangent, I just felt like going a little deeper on the subject.
Sure, they help us learn about the past, but your average calculation ignores TONS of factors involved in what actually determines the speed of evolution in different times and areas.
This is true. Now consider the extinction level event that made the dinosaurs extinct. Within 15 million years of that impact event, mammals dominated the earth. That is relatively quick and if you calculated the speciation rate during that time, it would likely blow away any other rates aside from the cambrian explosion and other ELEs. If the same species of fly lived 65 million years ago when that happened, I'd wager that they would speciate faster than in the lab today (or would go extinct).
Nah, I wasn't trying to say you were denying it, that was more about relating Quad's post to what we were discussing. I don't see any problem with the estimated amount of species that have evolved in 4 billion years. Keep in mind that even just 1 million years is a LONG time from our perspective. I doubt most folks can even contemplate how long that is. The big issue with the numbers is that it is merely an average, not an expected rate of evolution.
If you take 10,000 species evolving at once and compare it to 10 million evolving at once, obviously the rate will skyrocket because more creatures are evolving at the same time. This is the big flaw in the calculation you have offered, as it only provides an average rate of everything, it cannot and will not predict what the rate should be now.
To do this you'd need more information as well as a way to calculate the average rate today where there are flies and bacteria that reproduce almost daily and humans that reproduce every 20 years. You'd have to somehow reconcile each one to get a reliable number or rate of speciation.
originally posted by: Jim Scott
a reply to: CoherentlyConfused
What Hubble didn't know was that a later study on quantum red shift would prove he took the wrong choice: Earth is at the center of the Universe.
originally posted by: ParasuvO
originally posted by: CoherentlyConfused
a reply to: Jim Scott
He found the expansion of the universe, and said there were two possibilities: either it was created (and we can't have that), or it started from nothing by itself
Both theories say everything came from nothing.
The difference is one group says god did it. The other group says we don't know how the universe started, but because we have made these observations, this could be what happened.
I choose to be on the side that's more intellectually honest.
Please tell and show us which one ??
Neither of them are even remotely near honesty.
Maybe try a 3rd side, or for that matter, look for the truth, something which neither science or religion have EVER been free to do.