News0 min ago
Problem with Evolution theory
How is it that the Earth compared with other solar planets has largely escaped from being hit by large extra terrestrial objects? The only two major instances I can recall is the meteor strike in the Pacific rim said to have wiped out the dinosaurs and the other is the large segment in Siberia where a whole forest was flattened but elsewhere not many craters..
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Actually, beginning with Earth's collison with a planet the probably size of Mercury or even Mars, our Moon was formed. Perhaps as early as 4.53 billion years ago. At least that's the prevailing theory for which there's some good evidence (see here: http://spitzer.caltec...utoplay=true&limit=20 ). Fortuitously, the strike was exactly a glancing blow and did not destroy either, but the resulting debris coaleced and formed our Moon.
Additionally the Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB) would have been massive as well as the slightly later cometary bombardment which may have provided Earth with it's aboundant water.
But, there have been many other meteorite strikes, however, because of the active tectonic plate movement throughout most of Earth's history, the evidence has been folded and destroyed. Secondly, because of the "water-world" environment of Earth's earliest history, many of the meteroites of varying sizes would have splashed, leaving little or no evidence.
Additionally the Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB) would have been massive as well as the slightly later cometary bombardment which may have provided Earth with it's aboundant water.
But, there have been many other meteorite strikes, however, because of the active tectonic plate movement throughout most of Earth's history, the evidence has been folded and destroyed. Secondly, because of the "water-world" environment of Earth's earliest history, many of the meteroites of varying sizes would have splashed, leaving little or no evidence.
Evidence of other huge impacts is frequently being found. The latest find points to a massive impact about 800,000 years ago, probably in the IndoChina region Although the crater has not be located, (scientist think it may now be under the ocean) the unmistakable debris has already been found across one tenth of the earth's surface. However the impact was definitely big enough to send ejecta into space.
http://dsc.discovery....ntarctica-crater.html
The dinosaur killer was on the Yucatan peninsular in the Gulf of Mexico. It hit limestone releasing vast quantties of carbon dioxide leading to profound climate change and widespread extinctions. Other very large impacts into other types of rock have not left such a prominent mark in the fossil record.
http://dsc.discovery....ntarctica-crater.html
The dinosaur killer was on the Yucatan peninsular in the Gulf of Mexico. It hit limestone releasing vast quantties of carbon dioxide leading to profound climate change and widespread extinctions. Other very large impacts into other types of rock have not left such a prominent mark in the fossil record.
There are plenty of large impacts still evident on Earth.
http://www.unb.ca/pas...e/CIDiameterSort3.htm
The largest known is 300 km across (nearly twice the diameter of the Chicxulub crater in Yucatan).
Over forty craters are twenty kilometers or more in diameter.
And as Clanard explained, many, many more will have been erased or fallen in the ocean.
http://www.unb.ca/pas...e/CIDiameterSort3.htm
The largest known is 300 km across (nearly twice the diameter of the Chicxulub crater in Yucatan).
Over forty craters are twenty kilometers or more in diameter.
And as Clanard explained, many, many more will have been erased or fallen in the ocean.
Some clarification needed rov - I don't really understand what you are getting at.
1.Firstly, which solar object(s) are you claiming that have suffered impacts by large extraterrestrial objects of a scale siimilar to the ones you mentioned striking Earth?
2.How do you know these solar objects to which you are comparing earth to have suffered more frequent large significant impacts than Earth?
3.As someone else has already mentioned, why are you supposing that the frequency of collisions ( or lack of them - i still don't quite get your point) cause a problem for evolutionary theory anyway?
1.Firstly, which solar object(s) are you claiming that have suffered impacts by large extraterrestrial objects of a scale siimilar to the ones you mentioned striking Earth?
2.How do you know these solar objects to which you are comparing earth to have suffered more frequent large significant impacts than Earth?
3.As someone else has already mentioned, why are you supposing that the frequency of collisions ( or lack of them - i still don't quite get your point) cause a problem for evolutionary theory anyway?
I actually agree with Chaka, miracles never cease.
Don't know enough about interstellar collisions and what not, I'd have thought for the moon to be torn from the earth that it would leave quite a big hole, similarly the asteroid strike that killed the dinosaurs I've seen little evidence in the geology to substantiate this.
Although admittedly my knowledge on that subject is only drawn from various T.V programmes when I can a r s e d.
Don't know enough about interstellar collisions and what not, I'd have thought for the moon to be torn from the earth that it would leave quite a big hole, similarly the asteroid strike that killed the dinosaurs I've seen little evidence in the geology to substantiate this.
Although admittedly my knowledge on that subject is only drawn from various T.V programmes when I can a r s e d.
The geological evidence is there for all to see at the second site I posted. Topographical magnetic and a few others. The best one i the magnetic. In some the tail of the molten droplet of the iron core plunging into the hole is really clear. The third biggest, Chixilub at 170 km diameter, was the dinosour killer.
As for the formation of the moon, the crater from a collision with another planet would more than cover the surface of the whole earth. I would have melted both planets. The energy of collisions on this scale is monumental. Heavy matrials sank into the core of the earth and light materials from the crust went out into space at huge velocoties. Some went into orbit and coalesced into the moon. The rest of it slowly settled back to the earth and solidified. If there was life before this collosal impact there certainly was not afterwards.
As for the formation of the moon, the crater from a collision with another planet would more than cover the surface of the whole earth. I would have melted both planets. The energy of collisions on this scale is monumental. Heavy matrials sank into the core of the earth and light materials from the crust went out into space at huge velocoties. Some went into orbit and coalesced into the moon. The rest of it slowly settled back to the earth and solidified. If there was life before this collosal impact there certainly was not afterwards.
I thought it was fairly obvious to those who doubted the question. There are only two lines of thought (maybe you can ignore the others) you either believe in evolution or otherwise a God that created the heaven and the Earth. If you believe the Earth has not had its fair share of hits from outer space then you may come to the conclusion that the Earth has some special protection.
Some replies point to individual hits but has a study been done to compare them with other planets. You can see many planets in the raw with gaping craters and they far exceed the ones known about on Earth.
Some replies point to individual hits but has a study been done to compare them with other planets. You can see many planets in the raw with gaping craters and they far exceed the ones known about on Earth.
Although having said this BESO's link is a very compelling study. Although the majority are less than 5km across the destructive ones are few. Here again even when you study craters on the moon do they not get a more proportionate number of larger ones than the Earth? I would have thought a simple study of crater size and number on other planets would tell us more
We do have a special protector, it's called Jupiter
Hupiter is thought to act as a bit of a cosmic vacuum cleaner, without it we would be hit by many more.
http://www.astrobio.n...21/rethinking-jupiter
However you can't compare with other solar planets that have no significant atmosphere like the moon or Mercury.
Hupiter is thought to act as a bit of a cosmic vacuum cleaner, without it we would be hit by many more.
http://www.astrobio.n...21/rethinking-jupiter
However you can't compare with other solar planets that have no significant atmosphere like the moon or Mercury.
Nothing special. It is just that that is what happened to us. There are probably thousands of other planets where something like us might have formed except they didn't have a Jupiter. In these places there was nobody to post links noting how they would have been better off with a big planet to protect them.
rov1200, evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the earth and the universe. It explains how modern complex animal and plant life evolved from very primitive life.
I never cease to be astonished by the number of people on this and other sites who are happy to form theories about evolution when they plainly know nothing about it.
I promise I will never try to discuss mediaeval French art, rugby, horse dressage, The X Factor, lithography or any of the other things about which I am ignorant.
I never cease to be astonished by the number of people on this and other sites who are happy to form theories about evolution when they plainly know nothing about it.
I promise I will never try to discuss mediaeval French art, rugby, horse dressage, The X Factor, lithography or any of the other things about which I am ignorant.
Chakka have you never heard of negative consequences. Its a well known method in mathematics to justify the alternative and is widely used in logic problems.
We know there are two alternative theories, either you believe in God or you take Darwins experiments to prove that life is due to evolution. If you can with almost a high degree of certainty prove that life is protected on the Earth its a good reason for a God and less reliance on evolution.
I assume you have read Origin of the Species or are you just spouting out something we have all read about?
We know there are two alternative theories, either you believe in God or you take Darwins experiments to prove that life is due to evolution. If you can with almost a high degree of certainty prove that life is protected on the Earth its a good reason for a God and less reliance on evolution.
I assume you have read Origin of the Species or are you just spouting out something we have all read about?
rov1200, I'm well aware of the logical tool you mention and have often used it. It is usually called <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> and doesn't apply here.
Evolution is an established scientific principle whch would obtain even if you could prove that God exists. Whether that God created the universe or not is an entirely different matter. And incidentally, it is merely a religious idea with not a jot if reason or evidence to support it.
Again, even if you could show that the earth is somehow protected (and there is no sign of that ) it would not justify a leap into the superstition of divinity; there would have to be a rational explanation. But since, so far, there is nothing to explain, I don't know why we're all wasting our time.
And why is this post in the Science slot? Belongs in R&S surely.
Evolution is an established scientific principle whch would obtain even if you could prove that God exists. Whether that God created the universe or not is an entirely different matter. And incidentally, it is merely a religious idea with not a jot if reason or evidence to support it.
Again, even if you could show that the earth is somehow protected (and there is no sign of that ) it would not justify a leap into the superstition of divinity; there would have to be a rational explanation. But since, so far, there is nothing to explain, I don't know why we're all wasting our time.
And why is this post in the Science slot? Belongs in R&S surely.
1 to 17 of 17
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.