Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
the universe
why does it seem to be that animals do not seem to be evolving around us? continents are not being formed and all the evolution of the universe is complete, just as we are able to apreciate the wonder of it all, it stops, just as if to thwart our enthusiasm? and although we see millions of wild birds around us, why do we hardly ever see any dead ones? certainly not in the numbers you would imagine!
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mr. piper. 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.
-- answer removed --
"If the history of the Earth was represented by one year beginning on 1st January, the appearance of modern humans did not occur until about 20 minutes to midnight on 31st December." (I took these words from an encyclop�dic website on evolution.)
The problem is that our lives are merely a scintillating flash in the grand sweep of the earth's history. It's hardly surprising that we cannot see the kind of changes you refer to in our pathetic three score years and ten...or even within many generations of three-scores.
It is standard human conceit to think that we, as a species, are 'it', the final result, the ultimate goal that evolution was working towards.
But evolution does not work like that - there is no blueprint or masterplan, no aim or target. Species either 'are' (they survive and procreate) or dead.
Our human brains are products of evolution, and our concept of time (and spacial dimensions) fits in with our environment and needs as humans. We can grasp the concept of 'this evening' being a bit later today after sunset, 'tomorrow' when the sun rises again. Primitive man is would have had the concept of 'next year' ('when the rains come again' for example) and likely 'many years'.
We only truly understand time and spacial dimensions that fit in with our experiences.
Now, in the 21st C., we can talk of geological time in millions and billions of years and measure stellar distances in light years; or observe sub-atomic particle events occurring in millionths of seconds over distances of pico-metres.
We can measure and talk about these numbers, but we can't picture them in our heads.
I think one should consider the important fact that the Cambrian �Explosion� is a dramatic event in life�s history taking place around 540 million years ago. Over the course of perhaps less than 2-3 million years, nearly every animal phylum (over 70) ever to exist on earth appeared. Since that time no new animal phyla have been introduced. Phyla are the categories in the biological classification hierarchy that refer to an organism�s body plan, or architectural design.
In 1986, Simon Conway Morris identified an additional feature of the Cambrian Explosion that has remained troubling for the naturalistic paradigm; namely, that the ecology of the Cambrian fauna resembled that of a modern marine ecology. It includes identifiable predator-prey relationships. This finding runs counter to what would be expected if the Cambrian �Explosion� were the result of natural processes. Instead of observing a haphazard, loosely-woven ecology, as predicted by the evolutionary paradigm, the Cambrian fauna appear suddenly in the fossil record as a tight-knit ecological community, not consistent with an evolutionary model for the origin of complex multicellular animals. The new discovery by Richard Fortey of the Natural History Museum in London adds additional support for a fine-tuned, modern Cambrian ecology...
In 1986, Simon Conway Morris identified an additional feature of the Cambrian Explosion that has remained troubling for the naturalistic paradigm; namely, that the ecology of the Cambrian fauna resembled that of a modern marine ecology. It includes identifiable predator-prey relationships. This finding runs counter to what would be expected if the Cambrian �Explosion� were the result of natural processes. Instead of observing a haphazard, loosely-woven ecology, as predicted by the evolutionary paradigm, the Cambrian fauna appear suddenly in the fossil record as a tight-knit ecological community, not consistent with an evolutionary model for the origin of complex multicellular animals. The new discovery by Richard Fortey of the Natural History Museum in London adds additional support for a fine-tuned, modern Cambrian ecology...
I shall apologise in advance, Clanad
But what is the point of this inaccurate drivel?
Why should it be "counter to what would be expected (that) the Cambrian fauna appear .... as a tight-knit ecological community" ? Are we to think that because they are 'only Cambrian' (and therefore somehow primitive and inferior) that the fauna can not exist in a cohesive, functioning ecosystem?
The whole point about evolution, is that if ecosystems didn't work (even primitive ones), all fauna would plainly die very quickly, and consequently there would be no life whatsoever on this planet.
As for the Cambrian period itself, yes, it was "around 540 Million years ago" - or a period lasting from 570 to 505* million years ago. This is a duration of 65 million years (Ma) - (the same amount of time between us now and the extinction of the 'dinosaurs'). If you still find it "troubling for the naturalistic paradigm" (whatever that means) that "identifiable predator-prey relationships" had evolved in that amount of time, then what the hell would you expect succesive generations of Cambrian fauna to eat for 65 Ma? Some fashionable, primeval equivalent of the fresh air diet?
Were you expecting some Anomalocaris super-model surviving on the Cambrian version of six cups of coffee and 20 Marlboro saying "I won't get up in the morning for less than a tight-knit ecological community....with an identifiable predator-prey relationship"?
* accepted minima - 570-492 Ma if you include the Tremadoc
(cont...)
(....cont.)
Finally, the "Cambrian Explosion" is a populist term for little more than a Fossil-Lagerstatten (look it up if you need to, see Seilacher, 1970).
Conway-Morris, Whittington, Gould et al. studied the exceptional fauna of the Burgess Shale. What was exceptional was the preservation, which, due to the nature of the original sediment, included previously unknown soft-bodied animals that, unlike a hard shelled animal, would not normally be preserved.
They themselves state it was a period of great diversity of life - but why shouldn't it be? Being primitive or of an early geological era does not preclude diversity.
glad to see i got the cauldron bubbling, sorry to disagree slightly ansteyg but to say that evolution has not stopped would be admitting to knowing what will be happening tomorrow and that evolution is carrying on after "now", evolution is a process that exists because it involves the occurance of a series of "nows" that have previously occurred, that only proves that evolution has existed and for the briefest of periods ("now") is existing.To suggest that it has not stopped requires one to believe that because it has happened and is happening at this moment it will carry on and therefore hasn't stopped. seems like an act of faith to me , not very scientific.
I find it not unusual, that when confronted with a differing opinion, evolutionsists attack the one delivering the opinion as unschooled, who produces only "inaccurate drivel". I think your bias is showing like my grandmother's white slip, from beneath your dress of evolutionary certainty.
You've certainly not addressed the important point of my very limited offering to this forum: since the Cambrian Explosion, no new phyla have been introduced. The second important point is that the appearance in the geologic record of the phyla indicates they appeared in less than 2 to 3 million years.When I studied geology at an accredited university in the U.S., the commonly held belief (and still has adherents) is that any macroevolutionary process must, of needs, take significantly more time than this.
Again, my post was extremely limited, (especailly due to the editorial changes recently inacted by the AB concerning chattiness) but understand, I am not attacking your well presented opinion, only offering an alternative line of reasoning which is dependent on the evidence found in the geologic coulmn...
-- answer removed --
sorry to pass on your chops ansteyg, but thats too obvious, me a creationist, tsk, were i so transparent!
my arguement is that whilst admitting the fact that we can't concieve the enormity of space and time and how very long and slow it is by our experience as pointed out by some "ABers" strangeley we (all living things (with the exeption of plants)) appear to live relatively close to the scale of the human lifespan, not enough time by far to observe the evolutionary process in action, we are generally presented with the results of an apparent evolutionary system and expected to assume it is the last so far in a logical progression of less evolved creatures and that it will endure and carry on evolving. it just seems that, the fish can swim, procreate in water and feed in there particular environs, the birds can fly lay waterproof protected eggs etc. we all seem to be more or less sorted. when a dolphin finds a way of feeding himself in a tank by nudging a switch you don't say "oh look, flippers evolved" yet a honey guide would have had to learn how to entice another animal to the honey for a first time, but his ability is noted as part of his evolution.impossible to predict but do you really imagine that pigeons will eventually develope another pair of wings to out fly a buzzard? or as i am saying, the job, in the large part appears to be done.
Mr Piper - continents continue to move and change thanks to the process of tectonic plate movement. Mountain ranges continue to be pushed up and worn down. The universe has not stopped changing - it is expanding and at this point we do not know if if will expand forever or collapse back down to a big crunch.
The fact that animals are well suited to their current environments doesn't mean:
1. they can't be better suited - small changes may just give them the edge over other animals living in the same environmental niches. This means they will be more succesful at reproducing themselves and therefore reproducing and passing on the genetic changes to their offspring, and;
2. Environments change and this may result in faster evolutionary change.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Are The West In The Grip Of The Woke...
News5 mins ago
Offers & Competitions19 mins ago
News20 mins ago
