132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 09:26 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Leadfoot Quote:
"that is not using the advantage that forums like this can offer. "


Thats total bullshit. We all come in to this forum with pour minds pre -made-up. Nobody comes in seeking "truth"> Youre whacky if you think that we have any adults open to anything.
My concern is for kids who flit in an out. They are the sponges and hving them dicover on their own and develop questions an resources for answers is what I celebrate.


Just, Wow..

Re: your concern for the kids.
Sounds like the same argument against medical use of marijuana - Sends the wrong message to the kids.

That kind of 'logic' makes me nauseous.
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 09:30 am
@Leadfoot,
I cant speak for anyone but ME. Politicizing science is a talent that is displayed by both sides of the line. Its an idotic play no matter what side employs it. Im not fully comvinced that our climate change is measurably an anthropogenic phenom. As a student of earth history, I see many climate changes that correspond to solar and axial perturbations. Still, I feel that air pollution needs to be controlled by the major industrial nations since that aspect of climate scienceIS monitorable and IS related to human industry.
However, this is so politicized by both sides that the climate an paleoclimate scince is manipulated and often ignored.
I try to shut up and avoid arguments because neither side is being very rational. Im a student of axiak wobble, sunspot minima, and Daansgard Eschger cycles

Ive beenon this line talikning about evolution and evo/devo for about 13 years and Ive explaind everything that Ive been following in my craft. Im usually pretty reasonable. However, when folks merely deny evidence with some attempts at being clever or outright obtuse, I lose patience and start calling the species by their proper name which is " Fraud"

farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 09:39 am
@Leadfoot,
Your statement about arthropods is one of the most disengenuous pieces of crap Ive had the pleasure to reviw. Youve been going on an an about "GOOEY WORMS" and now you try to envelope your bullshit into my presentations earlier. Youre ability to lie and duck for cover is amazing.
PS, 15 million years , ? Not so fast skippy, you keep trying to xtend a Cambrian radiation further back hiping you dont get called on it.
Try blowin smoke up someone elses ass . Maybe they wont notice what a liar you are.

Now I suppose youll want to xtend your "caves to skyscrapers time back anither 100K years)
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 09:43 am
@farmerman,
I just want 'kids' of all ages to have both sides of the argument.

If they decide mine is 'Fraud', that's OK. Just as long as they get to decide for themselves.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 09:47 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Youre ability to lie and duck for cover is amazing.
PS, 15 million years , ? Not so fast skippy, you keep trying to xtend a Cambrian radiation further back hiping you dont get called on it.
Oh get over yourself.

What part of 'there were some exceptions' do you not understand. I wasn't trying to extend the C.E/R Arthropods were an outlier. Doesn't change anything about what happened in the C.E. itself.
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 10:03 am
@Leadfoot,
heres a clip from Wikipedia. (Is that laymn enough for you? I notice that even they have refined their view on a Cambrian "Explosion" In fact, the recent finding of the arthropoda precursors from Flinders Hill will require even more refinment of the "possible non-event"> I realize that the "Explosion" was a huge hat rack for Creationists , only from astandpoint that it was a good "talking point" about SUDDEN APPEARANCE FULLY FORMED (which is, as you know a bumper sticker that you Creation /IDers have on your cars)


Quote:
How real was the explosion?[edit]
The fossil record as Darwin knew it seemed to suggest that the major metazoan groups appeared in a few million years of the early to mid-Cambrian, and even in the 1980s, this still appeared to be the case.[26][27]
However, evidence of Precambrian Metazoa is gradually accumulating. If the Ediacaran Kimberella was a mollusc-like protostome (one of the two main groups of coelomates),[31][70] the protostome and deuterostome lineages must have split significantly before 550 million years ago (deuterostomes are the other main group of coelomates).[104] Even if it is not a protostome, it is widely accepted as a bilaterian.[74][104] Since fossils of rather modern-looking cnidarians (jellyfish-like organisms) have been found in the Doushantuo lagerstätte, the cnidarian and bilaterian lineages must have diverged well over 580 million years ago.[104]
Trace fossils[68] and predatory borings in Cloudina shells provide further evidence of Ediacaran animals.[105] Some fossils from the Doushantuo formation have been interpreted as embryos and one (Vernanimalcula) as a bilaterian coelomate, although these interpretations are not universally accepted.[58][59][106] Earlier still, predatory pressure has acted on stromatolites and acritarchs since around 1,250 million years ago.[54]
The presence of Precambrian animals somewhat dampens the "bang" of the explosion; not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary radiation ("diversification") may also not have been as rapid as once thought. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history.[note 5] However, it does seem that some innovations linked to the explosion – such as resistant armour – only evolved once in the animal lineage; this makes a lengthy Precambrian animal lineage harder to defend.[108] Further, the conventional view that all the phyla arose in the Cambrian is flawed; while the phyla may have diversified in this time period, representatives of the crown groups of many phyla do not appear until much later in the Phanerozoic.[11] Further, the mineralised phyla that form the basis of the fossil record may not be representative of other phyla, since most mineralised phyla originated in a benthic setting. The fossil record is consistent with a Cambrian explosion that was limited to the benthos, with pelagic phyla evolving much later.[11]
Ecological complexity among marine animals increased in the Cambrian, as well later in the Ordovician.[10] However, recent research has overthrown the once-popular idea that disparity was exceptionally high throughout the Cambrian, before subsequently decreasing.[109] In fact, disparity remains relatively low throughout the Cambrian, with modern levels of disparity only attained after the early Ordovician radiation.[10]
The diversity of many Cambrian assemblages is similar to today's,[110][101] and at a high (class/phylum) level, diversity is thought by some to have risen relatively smoothly through the Cambrian, stabilizing somewhat in the Ordovician.[111] This interpretation, however, glosses over the astonishing and fundamental pattern of basal polytomy and phylogenetic telescoping at or near the Cambrian boundary, as seen in most major animal lineages.[112] Thus Harry Blackmore Whittington's questions regarding the abrupt nature of the Cambrian explosion remain, and have yet to be satisfactorily answered.[113]
Possible causes of the “explosion”[edit]
Despite the evidence that moderately complex animals (triploblastic bilaterians) existed before and possibly long before the start of the Cambrian, it seems that the pace of evolution was exceptionally fast in the early Cambrian. Possible explanations for this fall into three broad categories: environmental, developmental, and ecological changes. Any explanation must explain the timing and magnitude of the explosion.
Changes in the environment[edit]
Increase in oxygen levels[edit]
Earth’s earliest atmosphere contained no free oxygen (O2); the oxygen that animals breathe today, both in the air and dissolved in water, is the product of billions of years of photosynthesis. Cyanobacteria were the first organisms to evolve the ability to photosynthesize, introducing a steady supply of oxygen into the environment.[114] Initially, oxygen levels did not increase substantially in the atmosphere.[115] The oxygen quickly reacted with iron and other minerals in the surrounding rock and ocean water. Once a saturation point was reached for the reactions in rock and water, oxygen was able to exist as a gas in its diatomic form. Oxygen levels in the atmosphere increased substantially afterward.[116] As a general trend, the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere has risen gradually over about the last 2.5 billion years.[23]
Oxygen levels seem to have a positive correlation with diversity in eukaryotes well before the Cambrian period.[117] The last common ancestor of all extant eukaryotes is thought to have lived around 1.8 billion years ago. Around 800 million years ago, there was a notable increase in the complexity and number of eukaryotes species in the fossil record.[117] Before the spike in diversity, eukaryotes are thought to have lived in highly sulfuric environments. Sulfide interferes with mitochondrial function in aerobic organisms, limiting the amount of oxygen that could be used to drive metabolism. Oceanic sulfide levels decreased around 800 million years ago, which supports the importance of oxygen in eukaryotic diversity.[117]
The shortage of oxygen might well have prevented the rise of large, complex animals. The amount of oxygen an animal can absorb is largely determined by the area of its oxygen-absorbing surfaces (lungs and gills in the most complex animals; the skin in less complex ones); but, the amount needed is determined by its volume, which grows faster than the oxygen-absorbing area if an animal’s size increases equally in all directions. An increase in the concentration of oxygen in air or water would increase the size to which an organism could grow without its tissues becoming starved of oxygen. However, members of the Ediacara biota reached metres in length tens of millions of years before the Cambrian explosion.[42] Other metabolic functions may have been inhibited by lack of oxygen, for example the construction of tissue such as collagen, required for the construction of complex structures,[118] or to form molecules for the construction of a hard exoskeleton.[119] However, animals are not affected when similar oceanographic conditions occur in the Phanerozoic; there is no convincing correlation between oxygen levels and evolution, so oxygen may have been no more a prerequisite to complex life than liquid water or primary productivity.[120]
Ozone formation[edit]
The amount of ozone (O3) required to shield Earth from biologically lethal UV radiation, wavelengths from 200 to 300 nanometers (nm), is believed to have been in existence around the Cambrian explosion.[121] The presence of the ozone layer may have enabled the development of complex life and life on land, as opposed to life being restricted in the water.
Snowball Earth[edit]
Main article: Snowball Earth
In the late Neoproterozoic (extending into the early Ediacaran period), the Earth suffered massive glaciations in which most of its surface was covered by ice. This may have caused a mass extinction, creating a genetic bottleneck; the resulting diversification may have given rise to the Ediacara biota, which appears soon after the last "Snowball Earth" episode.[122] However, the snowball episodes occurred a long time before the start of the Cambrian, and it is hard to see how so much diversity could have been caused by even a series of bottlenecks;[44] the cold periods may even have delayed the evolution of large size organisms.[54]
Increase in the calcium concentration of the Cambrian seawater[edit]
Newer research suggests that volcanically active midocean ridges caused a massive and sudden surge of the calcium concentration in the oceans, making it possible for marine organisms to build skeletons and hard body parts.[123] Alternatively a high influx of ions could have been provided by the widespread erosion that produced Powell's Great Unconformity.[124]
Developmental explanations[edit]
A range of theories are based on the concept that minor modifications to animals' development as they grow from embryo to adult may have been able to cause very large changes in the final adult form. The Hox genes, for example, control which organs individual regions of an embryo will develop into. For instance, if a certain Hox gene is expressed, a region will develop into a limb; if a different Hox gene is expressed in that region (a minor change), it could develop into an eye instead (a phenotypically major change).
Such a system allows a large range of disparity to appear from a limited set of genes, but such theories linking this with the explosion struggle to explain why the origin of such a development system should by itself lead to increased diversity or disparity. Evidence of Precambrian metazoans[44] combines with molecular data[125] to show that much of the genetic architecture that could feasibly have played a role in the explosion was already well established by the Cambrian.
This apparent paradox is addressed in a theory that focuses on the physics of development. It is proposed that the emergence of simple multicellular forms provided a changed context and spatial scale in which novel physical processes and effects were mobilized by the products of genes that had previously evolved to serve unicellular functions. Morphological complexity (layers, segments, lumens, appendages) arose, in this view, by self-organization.[126]
Horizontal gene transfer has also been identified as a possible factor in the rapid acquisition of the biochemical capability of biomineralization among organisms during this period, based on evidence that the gene for a critical protein in the process was originally transferred from a bacterium into sponges.[127]
Ecological explanations[edit]
These focus on the interactions between different types of organism. Some of these hypotheses deal with changes in the food chain; some suggest arms races between predators and prey, and others focus on the more general mechanisms of coevolution. Such theories are well suited to explaining why there was a rapid increase in both disparity and diversity, but they must explain why the "explosion" happened when it did.[44]
End-Ediacaran mass extinction[edit]
Main article: End-Ediacaran extinction
Evidence for such an extinction includes the disappearance from the fossil record of the Ediacara biota and shelly fossils such as Cloudina, and the accompanying perturbation in the δ13C record.
Mass extinctions are often followed by adaptive radiations as existing clades expand to occupy the ecospace emptied by the extinction. However, once the dust had settled, overall disparity and diversity returned to the pre-extinction level in each of the Phanerozoic extinctions.[44]
Evolution of eyes[edit]
Main article: Evolution of the eye
Andrew Parker has proposed that predator-prey relationships changed dramatically after eyesight evolved. Prior to that time, hunting and evading were both close-range affairs – smell, vibration, and touch were the only senses used. When predators could see their prey from a distance, new defensive strategies were needed. Armor, spines, and similar defenses may also have evolved in response to vision. He further observed that, where animals lose vision in unlighted environments such as caves, diversity of animal forms tends to decrease.[128] Nevertheless, many scientists doubt that vision could have caused the explosion. Eyes may well have evolved long before the start of the Cambrian.[129] It is also difficult to understand why the evolution of eyesight would have caused an explosion, since other senses, such as smell and pressure detection, can detect things at a greater distance in the sea than sight can; but the appearance of these other senses apparently did not cause an evolutionary explosion.[44]
Arms races between predators and prey[edit]
The ability to avoid or recover from predation often makes the difference between life and death, and is therefore one of the strongest components of natural selection. The pressure to adapt is stronger on the prey than on the predator: if the predator fails to win a contest, it loses a meal; if the prey is the loser, it loses its life.[130]
But, there is evidence that predation was rife long before the start of the Cambrian, for example in the increasingly spiny forms of acritarchs, the holes drilled in Cloudina shells, and traces of burrowing to avoid predators. Hence, it is unlikely that the appearance of predation was the trigger for the Cambrian "explosion", although it may well have exhibited a strong influence on the body forms that the "explosion" produced.[54] However, the intensity of predation does appear to have increased dramatically during the Cambrian[131] as new predatory "tactics" (such as shell-crushing) emerged.[132]
Increase in size and diversity of planktonic animals[edit]
Geochemical evidence strongly indicates that the total mass of plankton has been similar to modern levels since early in the Proterozoic. Before the start of the Cambrian, their corpses and droppings were too small to fall quickly towards the seabed, since their drag was about the same as their weight. This meant they were destroyed by scavengers or by chemical processes before they reached the sea floor.[37]
Mesozooplankton are plankton of a larger size. Early Cambrian specimens filtered microscopic plankton from the seawater. These larger organisms would have produced droppings and corpses that were large enough to fall fairly quickly. This provided a new supply of energy and nutrients to the mid-levels and bottoms of the seas, which opened up a huge range of new possible ways of life. If any of these remains sank uneaten to the sea floor they could be buried; this would have taken some carbon out of circulation, resulting in an increase in the concentration of breathable oxygen in the seas (carbon readily combines with oxygen).[37]
The initial herbivorous mesozooplankton were probably larvae of benthic (seafloor) animals. A larval stage was probably an evolutionary innovation driven by the increasing level of predation at the seafloor during the Ediacaran period.[8][133]
Metazoans have an amazing ability to increase diversity through coevolution.[9] This means that an organism's traits can lead to traits evolving in other organisms; a number of responses are possible, and a different species can potentially emerge from each one. As a simple example, the evolution of predation may have caused one organism to develop a defence, while another developed motion to flee. This would cause the predator lineage to split into two species: one that was good at chasing prey, and another that was good at breaking through defences. Actual coevolution is somewhat more subtle, but, in this fashion, great diversity can arise: three quarters of living species are animals, and most of the rest have formed by coevolution with animals.[9]
PS, the "stages of the original "Eplosion (10 in total) nd with a lagerstatte 20 Million years after the Burgess shale. SO, not counting Ediacaran and late Cryogenian, the actual "Explosion" was probably about 50 million years. Thats still too fast for you evolution denialists?
brianjakub
 
  1  
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 11:29 am
@farmerman,
Are you lumping me in with Leadfoot and not answering my questions. I really do want to know the evidence and the mechanisms suporting the evolution of sexual reproduction. I really would appreciate your help in finding and understanding that information. I would like to think of myself as a skeptic not a denier I am open to anything. If there was an intelligent design person discussing this with me I would be asking them just as hard of questions.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 12:14 pm
@brianjakub,
Here's another view.
https://www.quora.com/When-did-the-first-heterosexual-organisms-evolve
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 12:26 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
PS, the "stages of the original "Eplosion (10 in total) nd with a lagerstatte 20 Million years after the Burgess shale. SO, not counting Ediacaran and late Cryogenian, the actual "Explosion" was probably about 50 million years. Thats still too fast for you evolution denialists?
You are not paying attention. I'll say it again.

In my first post on the Cambrian I gave a range of 20 - 45Myrs (already close to your number).
Parados in his mis-reading of Wikipedia stretched it to 70myrs to which I replied that even if he were right I still would not find mutation and natural selection an adequate explanation for the level of diversification.

So, to answer your question again: yes.
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 01:03 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
even if he were right I still would not find mutation and natural selection an adequate explanation for the level of diversification.
actually you meant to say that ..."I still cant believe that ...nat selection an "adequate" explanation...

well, I guess we will just have to accept your "feelings as an "adequate" hunch eh?

Talk about snap shut close minded.


0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 01:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I am looking more information on the evolution of males and females in complex organisms including fossil evidence and mechanisms on how they evolved their complexity parallel but separate. Like, how spawning fish evolve to live birth mammals.
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 02:43 pm
@brianjakub,
sorry. I was originally "lumping you together" .

Be that as it may, You need to try to break your questions down into more"bite size chunks".
Youre being a bit broad and vague with your requests.


0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 02:50 pm
@brianjakub,
spawning fish didnt "evolve" into those giving live birth. Very few fish deliver live young(like sharks).
However FISH can be seen in the fossil record to have gradually developed into amphibians (A few genera of fish became adapted to shallow water environments and, during the early to mod Devonian, fish gradually left fossils that show the development of amphibians from "Non-bony fish" stock.

All genera have shown us evidence from which phyla and classes of ancestors they arose.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 03:20 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman, I remember seeing fish in Africa that survived on land. They sought after water, but in Africa, they are rare. Do you know what they are called?
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 05:29 pm
@cicerone imposter,
african lungfish are of the genus Protopterus. They are related to South American lungfish because the two had been separated by the breakup of pangea . They are similar but each has gone its own evolutionary path

You can see how closely morphologically related they appear. Genetically they are "cousins" and ll the species had been one when Africa, S America and Australia were joined at the hip during Gondwana days

    http://pds15.egloos.com/pds/200907/03/07/e0082207_4a4d673b04e28.jpg
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 07:16 pm
@farmerman,
Thank you. Lung fish; sounds strange, but fits.
Builder
 
  1  
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 09:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
They are survivors. The Aussie ones use their "leg" fins to dig into the mud when the rivers run dry, and switch themselves into a coma until it rains again.
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 17 Apr, 2016 04:32 am
@Builder,
another air breather is the mud skipper. Its actually a derived form in the GOBI family. Its not a transitional form between fish and amphibians .
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sun 17 Apr, 2016 01:16 pm
@farmerman,
Damn right!

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Sun 17 Apr, 2016 06:20 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
I thought microevolution was evolution within a species, and macro-evolution was evolution between species. Is that incorrect or is there more modern language for that now.

macroevolution is simply a number of microevolution steps until some progeny can no longer mate with the original parent. You keep wanting to ignore all the little steps because you can't understand how they could happen. The problem isn't with the theory of evolution. The problem is with your ability to think about anything other than simple concepts.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 01/17/2025 at 05:32:44