It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lizards trapped in amber for 100 million years amaze scientists

page: 2
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   


Amber proves to us that many organisms remain unchanged and survive, how do we account for that?

Whether the evidence comes from fossilized bone or from preservation in Amber, the record clearly shows that many animals do in fact survive ELEs intact. In the one ELE we've been discussing (the one relevant to this particular specimen), small lizards in fact did quite well in comparison to many other animals. As a general rule, small animals that lived underground had a better chance of surviving. There are many other factors as well.



Honey bees are preserved in amber, they are sensitive to the environment.

Again, the only ELE relevant to the honey bee is the Yucatan event. Evidence shows that bees suffered major losses during this period of time. But some clearly survived. It only takes one surviving hive to keep the gene pool alive.



I think we have differing views of how impactors may affect the environment globally.

Impactors may have a wide range of affects on the evironment globally, ranging from no impact to complete shredding of the planet. The moon is thought to have formed from a massive impact.. no living thing could have survived such an impact, as the planet was practically obliterated.

The Yucatan impact, on the other hand, was a whole lot smaller. It killed a lot of species. It did not kill them all.


The boundary layer at Cretaceous is just one known event.

True, but it's more revealing to discuss specific events in light of specific discrepancies. Otherwise, it's all just generalities.
edit on 9-3-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-3-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


Evidence shows that bees suffered major losses during this period of time. But some clearly survived. It only takes one surviving hive to keep the gene pool alive.


Except for the flowers for years after aren't growing anymore, its too damn cold for how many centuries?

"Some clearly survived". Or were intentionally preserved… just like they were brought here in the first place.


Otherwise, it's all just generalities.

Well yah, life is the key, it had to come from somewhere. Not buying the electric mud puddle theory, generally speaking.

Further:


Impactors may have a wide range of affects on the evironment globally, ranging from no impact to complete shredding of the planet. The moon is thought to have formed from a massive impact.. no living thing could have survived such an impact, as the planet was practically obliterated.

Yah, the Cretaceous boundary layer (you call it Yucatan impactor) was so violent a charcoal layer can be found round the world. Imagine the shockwaves propagating, setting off major earthquakes and volcanoes all around the world. Mount Pinatubo was a firecracker and it affected the weather, imagine thousands of volcanoes adding to the miasma for decades, centuries. Glacier records are the sign how cold earth was, called Ice Ages. the gas from bubbles trapped in the deep ice show how inhospitable to life the atmosphere was at times.

If anything the violence of Jupiter impacts of Schumaker comets and the Russian meteor have redefined what is considered big enough to have significant effects, even fission if you ask me. Tritium found in cretaceous boundary layer.

edit on 9-3-2016 by intrptr because: additional



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

The violence of the impact was precisely WHY so many species were wiped out. However, they clearly were not all wiped out. But it is simply not true that all plants were wiped out for centuries. When the meteor struck the earth, its kinetic energy was converted to explosive energy. A massive dust cloud resulted. Some of this went into space, while the rest of of it blanketed the earth. Per calculations conducted by Carl Sagan in the 1980s, the shrouding of the earth lasted for several months, NOT for centuries.

Current estimates indicate it could have lasted up to a year.

There are, in fact, plant species that can survive for years in complete darkness. I've owned some of these plants. They go into a dormant state.

Plants were heavily impacted, but not wiped out. Insect activity diminished severely, but was not completely extinguished. Bees suffered tremendous losses, but they did not die out completely.



edit on 9-3-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


However, they clearly were not all wiped out.

You keep saying that, and I agree. We just differ on how they survived. Pretty sure you observed I don't go with fairy book tales…

My theory is life was brought here from elsewhere.

Further: Estimates are fine of how long this and that. The earth is slowly warming right now like it has been for eons from the last cataclysm. You time frames of a year at most are not supported by any than others estimates (as much as I respect Carl, his estimates were before the Jupiter impacts and Russian meteor). There are craters on earth surface that are tens of miles wide.

People just don't understand what that does to the Earth and its biosphere. Some impact zones on Jupiters cloud surface were larger than earth from two kilometer sized pieces of comet.

Bigger than earth


edit on 9-3-2016 by intrptr because: Further



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Pretty sure you observed I don't go with fairy book tales…


Nor do I. When it comes to the physical world, I only believe in things which can be substantiated with empirical evidence. And I think it's probably best if we leave it at that.

By the way, there are more recent estimates of the global impact of the Yucatan impact. There is absolutely no evidence that the impact was of such magnitude that it would, by necessity, have destroyed every single organism on earth.


And as mentioned above, there are REASONS why certain organisms survived while others did not. A few of these reasons, I have listed. There are many others we could discuss. None of them involved, by necessity, any type of otherwordly protection.
edit on 9-3-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-3-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-3-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greggers
Except for the flowers for years after aren't growing anymore, its too damn cold for how many centuries?


Once again, you're viewing this as a total destruction of earth. This is not the case at all. There were certainly mass die-offs of many species, including plants, insects and animal life. But it isn't 100% and that's a known fact. Heck just look at places like Patagonia, where there was only a 21 to 34 percent drop in leaf damage there versus a 55 to 75 percent decrease in North America, Donovan said. Notice the numbers aren't 100%

Here's an excerpt from an article I highly suggest reading: Bugs in Patagonia Survived Impact

Down in Patagonia, thousands of miles from the site of the deadly asteroid impact in present-day Mexico that killed off the dinosaurs, most bugs easily survived one of Earth's worst mass extinctions 65 million years ago. The discovery adds to a growing body of evidence that the Cretaceous mass extinction had varied effects on species in different spots around the world.

Evidence from fossilized leaves suggests that, compared with insects in North America, a greater diversity of insects in South America chewed, sucked and otherwise fed off plants after the Cretaceous extinction, researchers reported Oct. 28 at the Geological Society of America's annual meeting in Denver.




originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greggers
"Some clearly survived". Or were intentionally preserved… just like they were brought here in the first place.


No... There was no magic involved....


originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greggers
Well yah, life is the key, it had to come from somewhere. Not buying the electric mud puddle theory, generally speaking.


How do you jump from asteroid impact to abiogenesis? Is this some kind of attempt at a detraction from the argument at hand?


originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greggers
Yah, the Cretaceous boundary layer (you call it Yucatan impactor) was so violent a charcoal layer can be found round the world. Imagine the shockwaves propagating, setting off major earthquakes and volcanoes all around the world. Mount Pinatubo was a firecracker and it affected the weather, imagine thousands of volcanoes adding to the miasma for decades, centuries. Glacier records are the sign how cold earth was, called Ice Ages. the gas from bubbles trapped in the deep ice show how inhospitable to life the atmosphere was at times.


Yes, the charcoal layer can be found globally, and it did set off a chain reaction with earthquakes and volcanoes, however, that thus equate a total destruction of earth. As seen in the link above, many places didn't even suffer a 50% loss in vegetation destruction.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers
Okay, and "by the way", amber is the best record of how far back life goes, essentially unchanged.

Torpeodes some aspects of evolution.

Finally, read "Lucifers Hammer", by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, best physicist supported guesstimates of a large impactor I've come across.

Sure its a novel, but the best estimates of lifes origins are novel, too.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greggers
Okay, and "by the way", amber is the best record of how far back life goes, essentially unchanged.

Torpeodes some aspects of evolution.


*Facepalm*.....



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147


Once again, you're viewing this as a total destruction of earth. This is not the case at all.

Just that thin sliver we call the atmosphere / biosphere, not the "whole earth".

I might loosely add a tilt in axis and a change in orbital path, spin rate, seasons, etc.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Ghost147


Once again, you're viewing this as a total destruction of earth. This is not the case at all.

Just that thin sliver we call the atmosphere / biosphere, not the "whole earth".

I might loosely add a tilt in axis and a change in orbital path, spin rate, seasons, etc.


Ah, nice, so ignore all the information that completely disproves your false premise. got it.

Do you or do you not believe that the asteroid that occurred in the Yucatan event killed all life on Earth?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greggers
Okay, and "by the way", amber is the best record of how far back life goes, essentially unchanged.

Torpeodes some aspects of evolution.


*Facepalm*…..

No change in a hundred million years? Facepalm yourself with a handful of fresh amber.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greggers
Okay, and "by the way", amber is the best record of how far back life goes, essentially unchanged.

Torpeodes some aspects of evolution.


*Facepalm*…..

No change in a hundred million years? Facepalm yourself with a handful of fresh amber.


Find me the evidence where there was 'no change for hundreds of millions of years'. or is it just your opinion that because it looks similar, it must be identical?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147


Do you or do you not believe that the asteroid that occurred in the Yucatan event killed all life on Earth?

This is an ultimatum, then. No I don't 'BELIEVE' whatever modern theories about the impact that destroyed the "Cretaceous" era say. Whichever impactor, it was a rock from space.

No argument there.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greggers
Okay, and "by the way", amber is the best record of how far back life goes, essentially unchanged.

Torpeodes some aspects of evolution.


*Facepalm*…..

No change in a hundred million years? Facepalm yourself with a handful of fresh amber.


Find me the evidence where there was 'no change for hundreds of millions of years'. or is it just your opinion that because it looks similar, it must be identical?


"Looks similar" hell. That one image is a gecko down to the toe pads for clinging. Same with ants, mosquitos, bees, ferns whatever.


Different adaptations but essentially, the very same… it is amber that preserves the record so well, bits of bone can't come close to identifying species. The battle over Ichthyosaur become Porpoise is one example.

Terrible Lizards is a hundred years old theory. They've discovered that some were birds, some were bats, some were alligators, great white sharks, fifty foot porpoises, etc. Just bigger examples of modern species, essentially unchanged.

Go find a Megalodon tooth and compare it to a great white.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Maybe you should make a trip to Myanmar. If I recall correctly, there was a thread about a newly rediscovered insect in amber from that area. You might get lucky and find a whole horde of creatures covered in amber.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
"Looks similar" hell. That one image is a gecko down to the toe pads for clinging. Same with ants, mosquitos, bees, ferns whatever.


So what you're saying is, you have no way of telling if this is the same species as a modern gecko, ant, mosquito, bee, fern 'or whatever', other than your subjective, uneducated opinion (by uneducated I mean without an evolutionary biology degree, not as an insult)?

You do realize that now a days we use more than "hmmm, looks similar" to determine if something is of the same or another species, right?

Do you apply the same logic with living creatures too?



Tell me, are they all just one species?


originally posted by: intrptr
Different adaptations but essentially, the very same…


If they are different, and 'essentially the same', then they aren't the same are they? They are still a different species whether you accept it or not.


originally posted by: intrptr
it is amber that preserves the record so well, bits of bone can't come close to identifying species.


Yes, actually, bone can in fact identify species.


originally posted by: intrptr
The battle over Ichthyosaur become Porpoise is one example.


Can you please cite what you're trying to say to elaborate.



originally posted by: intrptr
Terrible Lizards is a hundred years old theory.


What?


originally posted by: intrptr
They've discovered that some were birds, some were bats, some were alligators, great white sharks, fifty foot porpoises, etc. Just bigger examples of modern species, essentially unchanged.


There goes the term "essentially unchanged" again.


originally posted by: intrptr
Go find a Megalodon tooth and compare it to a great white.


I own a Megalodon tooth and have owned a great white tooth, other than relative shape, there are massive differences and no sane person would consider the two to be the same species.

The fact is the theory of evolution does not say that organisms must evolve morphologically. In fact, in an unchanging environment, stabilizing selection would tend to keep an organism largely unchanged. Many environments around today are not greatly different from environments of millions of years ago.

Some so-called fossil species have evolved significantly. Cockroaches, for example, include over 4,000 species of various shapes and sizes. Species may also evolve in ways that are not obvious. For example, the immune system of horseshoe crabs today is probably quite different from that of horseshoe crabs of millions of years ago.

The same thing goes for a list of 'living fossil species'

~ The modern coelacanth is Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Latimeria has no fossil record, so it cannot be a "living fossil."

~ Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.

~ Coelacanths have primitive features relative to most other fish, so at one time they were one of the closest known specimens to the fish-tetrapod transition. We now know several other fossils that show the fish-tetrapod transition quite well.

~ Forey, Peter L., 1998. History of the Coelacanth Fishes. London: Chapman & Hall.
~ Further reading

Sorry, but I believe you're coming at this argument with several false premises in varying topics.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147


Do you or do you not believe that the asteroid that occurred in the Yucatan event killed all life on Earth?

I don't know. I wasn't there.

Be back later. You can pump your beliefs at me and I'll get back to you.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

There are thousands of ant and bee species toady all adaptations from a single genome of ant, bee whatever.

Are they all different? Sure. But they are all ants, see…



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Ghost147


Do you or do you not believe that the asteroid that occurred in the Yucatan event killed all life on Earth?

I don't know. I wasn't there.


Right, because if a person wasn't there to see it, we can never know anything at all. Just like I've never seen $2 billion dollars in cash, therefore it doesn't exist.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Ghost147

There are thousands of ant and bee species toady all adaptations from a single genome of ant, bee whatever.

Are they all different? Sure. But they are all ants, see…


The argument isn't that they aren't from the same Order, Clade, or Family, the argument is on if they aren't the same species, which they are not. No on is denying that they are related, but they certainly aren't the exact same thing.


edit on 9/3/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join