A
Atreju
Guest
Easy for ocean creatures to get buried under sediment
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
A
Atreju
Guest
I’m responding to techno dude asking if it is possible for creatures to evolve to suit a new climate by pointing out that the climate used to be radically different.
Although I am curious how fossils could be buried in sedimentary layers beneath glacial layers if glaciers take a long time to form and the world is only 6,000 years old.
Although I am curious how fossils could be buried in sedimentary layers beneath glacial layers if glaciers take a long time to form and the world is only 6,000 years old.
B
buffalo
Guest
Part of that question is how long do rotting carcasses last.
Part 2 - is in an aggressive climate vs non-aggressive.
E
edwest
Guest
Just looking at the past few thousand years shows climate anomalies. And other things like Meteor Crater in Arizona:
The crater was created about 50,000 years ago during the Pleistocene epoch, when the local climate on the Colorado Plateau was much cooler and damper.[9][10] The area was an open grassland dotted with woodlands inhabited by mammoths and giant ground sloths.[11][12]
I guess those animals moved out at some unknown point in time. To someplace much cooler and damper.
The crater was created about 50,000 years ago during the Pleistocene epoch, when the local climate on the Colorado Plateau was much cooler and damper.[9][10] The area was an open grassland dotted with woodlands inhabited by mammoths and giant ground sloths.[11][12]
I guess those animals moved out at some unknown point in time. To someplace much cooler and damper.
Last edited:
A
Atreju
Guest
How can a crater be created 50,000 years ago if the world is only 6,000 years old?
T
Techno2000
Guest
Vague…
A
Aloysium
Guest
Explain to us how that might work that does not involve a precise mechanism that allows for this to happen. If this is beyond your pay grade surely where you picked up this idea would provide some reference.
Again no one I’ve read in many years here has discounted this. It’s existence is better explained by creation and design, by the way.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
What role did macroevolution play in the ice age ?
E
edwest
Guest
No stereotyping please.
A
Atreju
Guest
It’s mathematical more than mechanistic. A very fit organism has few ways to get better. whereas an organism fit for a different environment can be improved in many ways when the environment changes. You can see this in genetic algorithms and evolutionary programming. You don’t need to program a mechanism to keep things at a fit level in such algorithms, once an ideal solution is achieved, the selection pressure keeps it where it is, unless the fitness parameters are changed.Atreju:
Explain to us how that might work that does not involve a precise mechanism that allows for this to happen. If this is beyond your pay grade surely where you picked up this idea would provide some reference.
Again no one I’ve read in many years here has discounted this. It’s existence is better explained by creation and design, by the way.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
Right , ask them to explain where did all this “selection pressure” come from for evolution to produce 10 million different kinds of plant and animal species.Atreju:
Explain to us how that might work that does not involve a precise mechanism that allows for this to happen. If this is beyond your pay grade surely where you picked up this idea would provide some reference.
Again no one I’ve read in many years here has discounted this. It’s existence is better explained by creation and design, by the way.
A
Atreju
Guest
The environment.Aloysium:
Right , ask them to explain where did all this “selection pressure” come from for evolution to produce 10 million different kinds of plant and animal species.Atreju:
Explain to us how that might work that does not involve a precise mechanism that allows for this to happen. If this is beyond your pay grade surely where you picked up this idea would provide some reference.
Again no one I’ve read in many years here has discounted this. It’s existence is better explained by creation and design, by the way.
This is on page 1 of any intro text on evolution. It’s extremely bizarre that you keep failing to understand it. I know many very small children who can understand this. Go take a biology class.
T
Techno2000
Guest
The entire ecosystem would be affected by selection pressure and have to be made fit ,otherwise there would be no support or food chain.Aloysium:
It’s mathematical more than mechanistic. A very fit organism has few ways to get better. whereas an organism fit for a different environment can be improved in many ways. You can see this in genetic algorithms and evolutionary programming. You don’t need to program a mechanism to keep things at a fit level in such algorithms, once an ideal solution is achieved, the selection pressure keeps it where it is, unless the fitness parameters are changed.Atreju:
Explain to us how that might work that does not involve a precise mechanism that allows for this to happen. If this is beyond your pay grade surely where you picked up this idea would provide some reference.
Again no one I’ve read in many years here has discounted this. It’s existence is better explained by creation and design, by the way.
A
Atreju
Guest
Yes, the entire ecosystem is affected by natural selection as well as exerting its own selection pressure. That acts both to maintain stability in a stable environment as well as to accelerate evolutionary change in unstable environments.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
Vague… so it gets hot and cold and things change.
A
Atreju
Guest
there’s more to environment than temperature.
A
Aloysium
Guest
We are talking about physical entities so there is a mechanism. That mechanism has to pre-exist for the stats to work. You need a physical set of dice to roll snake eyes.
Random mutations are not random in the case you describe. Any morphological change in the DNA which has a functional counterpart in the phenotype, the actual creature within its environment must involve epigenetic factors, which operate on at least these two ontological levels.
What I said - creation.
J
Johann_du_Toit
Guest
Pope Pius XII stated in Humani Generis that evolution is perfectly compatible with the Catholic Teaching on creation. Many of the Church Fathers believed that God created the simple living organisms first, and reserved man for last. St Augustine, although believing in creationism himself, speculated that man’s creation could have been the end result of a drawn out process, like a child forming in the womb.
A
Aloysium
Guest
All the information and more, including that of future generations is contained in the zygote. This is not the case of bacteria, which evolutionary theory states would be at the foundations of life, which proceeded through the random activity of atoms, with whatever life was unfit being cut off before its prime. Creation is anything but evolution. But then, the term seems to be kept purposely vague so that people can come up with analogies that represent creation, as does yours, while thinking its evolution.
Last edited:
- Status