Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Cambrian explosion: Burgess Shale: punctuated equilibrium
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="NailsII" data-source="post: 60173832" data-attributes="member: 197098"><p>Not quite correct unfortunately.</p><p>Darwin actuallly stated near the end of <em>Origin</em> that if it couldn't be shown that complex organs - such as the eye - could have evolved gradually, step by step, then his theory would fail.</p><p>Of course, Darwin himself knew that many different animals have many different types of eye, so he could see the hallmarks of gradual progression already.</p><p>The most notable way to disprove evolution would be to find a fossil out of place - a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian, for example. Note how this has never been found, even though any such find would almost guarantee someone a Nobel prize.</p><p>The Cambrian explosion does not falsify evolution, because there are fossils from before this rapid speciation event - and these earlier fossils are, suprise suprsise, simpler forms of life such as stromatolites and impressions of jellyfish. Clearly there was life before the Cambrian, it just so happens that - for a variety of reasons, there was over a period of around 20 million years (hardly an explosion on any other timescale than geological) where life rapidly evolved into differing forms..</p><p> </p><p>Punctuated Equilibriam is a description of the evidence, it would appear that there were times of stability and times of rapid change in earth's history. When looked at with geological upheaval, this is not suprising.</p><p>Continents move, climates change and natural disasters wipe out many forms of life in the blink of an eye (again in geological time).</p><p> </p><p>Most famously, the extinction event near the end of the K-T boundarty shown the demise of some rather famous large lizards and the planet is easy pickings for another animal to dominate the land. Birds and mammals seem to have benefitted from this event; the lack of predation has allowed them to thrive, multiply and diversify - and become the apex predators themselves in some cases.</p><p> </p><p>This isn't "making stuff up", it is forming new opinions based on new evidence - the more evidence is available, the more accurate the theory which describes it.</p><p>Only through revelation would we have a complete picture that never changes with very little, if any, evidence. If evolution by natural selection had been revealed to Darwin by some supernatural power, he would almost certainly have got everything right instead of most things right.</p><p> </p><p>I also would like you to back up your last statement with some evidence, as I am not aware of exactly the same proteins being found in unrelated forms of life. Perhaps you could enlighten us on this.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p>It isn't so much a feature, but maybe I could give you an example.</p><p> </p><p>Imagine two animals which live side-by-side in an ecosystem. One is a predator, one is prey. The predator effectively guides the evolution of the prey, as any weaker individuals are more likely to be eaten, and as such have fewer offspring. If the predator dies out, perhaps through climate change or diseae, the prey species no longer has such a strict control on which animals will reproduce. This means that its gene pool can grow more diverse, and if the population becomes split into two different groups which no longer interbreed (ie the disaster that wiped out the predator was geological in nature, such as the introduction of a larger river that they could not cross) then the two populations would be able to diversify and eventually become different species.</p><p> </p><p>The same could be said of a predator which evolves a new trait, such as a keener sense of smell or a slight increase in speed/manouverability.</p><p> </p><p>We live on a dynamic planet, things change over time and life has been able to adapt to these changes and flourish.</p><p> </p><p>The timescale involved would depend on many things, such as the size of the population and its normal reproduction rate.</p><p> </p><p>In short, there are pressures which limit populations.</p><p>Remove these properties and these populations can grow and diversify.</p><p> </p><p>I hope that answers your question.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NailsII, post: 60173832, member: 197098"] Not quite correct unfortunately. Darwin actuallly stated near the end of [I]Origin[/I] that if it couldn't be shown that complex organs - such as the eye - could have evolved gradually, step by step, then his theory would fail. Of course, Darwin himself knew that many different animals have many different types of eye, so he could see the hallmarks of gradual progression already. The most notable way to disprove evolution would be to find a fossil out of place - a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian, for example. Note how this has never been found, even though any such find would almost guarantee someone a Nobel prize. The Cambrian explosion does not falsify evolution, because there are fossils from before this rapid speciation event - and these earlier fossils are, suprise suprsise, simpler forms of life such as stromatolites and impressions of jellyfish. Clearly there was life before the Cambrian, it just so happens that - for a variety of reasons, there was over a period of around 20 million years (hardly an explosion on any other timescale than geological) where life rapidly evolved into differing forms.. Punctuated Equilibriam is a description of the evidence, it would appear that there were times of stability and times of rapid change in earth's history. When looked at with geological upheaval, this is not suprising. Continents move, climates change and natural disasters wipe out many forms of life in the blink of an eye (again in geological time). Most famously, the extinction event near the end of the K-T boundarty shown the demise of some rather famous large lizards and the planet is easy pickings for another animal to dominate the land. Birds and mammals seem to have benefitted from this event; the lack of predation has allowed them to thrive, multiply and diversify - and become the apex predators themselves in some cases. This isn't "making stuff up", it is forming new opinions based on new evidence - the more evidence is available, the more accurate the theory which describes it. Only through revelation would we have a complete picture that never changes with very little, if any, evidence. If evolution by natural selection had been revealed to Darwin by some supernatural power, he would almost certainly have got everything right instead of most things right. I also would like you to back up your last statement with some evidence, as I am not aware of exactly the same proteins being found in unrelated forms of life. Perhaps you could enlighten us on this. It isn't so much a feature, but maybe I could give you an example. Imagine two animals which live side-by-side in an ecosystem. One is a predator, one is prey. The predator effectively guides the evolution of the prey, as any weaker individuals are more likely to be eaten, and as such have fewer offspring. If the predator dies out, perhaps through climate change or diseae, the prey species no longer has such a strict control on which animals will reproduce. This means that its gene pool can grow more diverse, and if the population becomes split into two different groups which no longer interbreed (ie the disaster that wiped out the predator was geological in nature, such as the introduction of a larger river that they could not cross) then the two populations would be able to diversify and eventually become different species. The same could be said of a predator which evolves a new trait, such as a keener sense of smell or a slight increase in speed/manouverability. We live on a dynamic planet, things change over time and life has been able to adapt to these changes and flourish. The timescale involved would depend on many things, such as the size of the population and its normal reproduction rate. In short, there are pressures which limit populations. Remove these properties and these populations can grow and diversify. I hope that answers your question. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Cambrian explosion: Burgess Shale: punctuated equilibrium
Top
Bottom