| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Doubts about evolution.
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Doubts about evolution.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Doubts about evolution.
    Posted: 10 Sep 2014 at 10:39
First, to avoid misunderstandings: This thread is not intenderd to be about "late creationism"  but about the most common version of how life evolved, about the importance of "fitness" and "adaptation" and "natural selection" as I remember it from school and from later reading. And in particular I question "evolution" as a mainly gradual process, as oposed to "catastrophism", since Darwins theory as far as I am informed, relied much upon a gradualistic view of the history of the earth, with little place for major disasters.
 But more and more evidence is accumulated that earth has underwent catastrophes several times during its 4,5 billion years of existence of almost unimaginable proportions, at least from the perspective of any living organisms living here. There has been lots of impacts, surely comparable to the cratered other bodies of the solar system, there has been enormous earthquakes and supervulcanoes, probably also nearby supernovae, most likely disasters of yet unknown types, and I see little reason to believe we have seen even the "top of the iceberg" of various disasters and larger and smaller extinctions. So gradualism is not the full story, even if eventual floods did not happen the way the Bible and other books of mythology tell us. 
And when such disasters hit the inhabited planet, it is hard to see how "adaption" in the usual sense could have time to work, since so much must have happened almost instantly. Nor could there be any guarantee that even the most succesfull (or "fit") organisms untill the disaster would survive, since what mattrered would be totally different, and for some disasters would mean elimination of at least all "higher" forms of life. Except, that we can not exclude that some rare environments could be less severely hit. So, could it have been more a matter of were an organism lived, than about its "properties"? From many parts of the planet, deep and extensive systems of caves under the erarths surface is known, and we also know about valleys high about sealevel, about other isolated biotopes.
Perhaps in some of those strange places the environment changed very little if at all, even during the most cataclysmic events? 
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1047
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Sep 2014 at 13:29
I've had doubts about evolution too. Not that it actually exists as a process for change - it's scienficially demonstratable that creatures mutate and pass on properties to their offspring. The problem here is the slow rate of change - species we see today are essentially unchanged since ancient times. yet at times there's a very rapid change, normally associated with periods of catastrophe or climatic change. Thus out of nowhere do creatures like mammoths and woolly rhinos emerge to cope with ice age conditions.  The climate cjhanges far faster than evolution - we know that. Scientists say that species cannot be influenced by the enviroment and that adaption and natural selection are the overriding principles. I've come to the conclusion that this is false. In some way, the enviroment triggers changes in species beyond the normal speed of mutations and sexual propagation/natural selection.Notice how that after a massive catastrophe in past ages, there is a rapid spurt of evolution as creatures adapt to in the new enviroment. Whereas previously biology was a stable condition, with species competing in a sort of crude balance for known resources - suddenly that changes and creatures seek out these new opportunities because nothing is out there to stop them. Then eventually another balance is reached and evolution slows down to its normal pace.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Sep 2014 at 22:05
Evolution is science. Not speculation my friend.  Environment obviously plays a part and this is the first time I've heard someone mention the suggestion that there is evidence to the contrary.

---New addition---

Yea this thread is weird.  What the two posts are essentially saying is that evolutions exists but the doubts about it aren't really doubts at all just dreams about a category called "extreme evolution."  There's not such thing as extreme evolution it's all just evolution.  The fittest survive.  The fittest isn't about some "highest life form" as the OP mentioned, the fittest is the fittest period.  Right now the label "highest life form" is the human I presume but technically speaking it is no more highly evolved than disgusting bacteria which are totally suited for their environment.  If the environment changes then so does the criteria for the fittest.  Even an ape would understand Darwin why can't these two?

*I'm going to sigh forever now that I've been dumb enough to participate in this thread.


Edited by literaryClarity - 11 Sep 2014 at 00:38
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2014 at 01:54
But organisms did die off, massively at times, the most famous being the dinosaurs. Evolution provides no guarantee of survival, it is merely an adaptive mechanism, another trick of the blind watchmaker, as Dawkins might have put it. Wipe the slate clean, and start over again with those little bacteria things, and those funny multi-legged deals hanging underneath the trees. That seems to be the way it goes. In no time, cosmological y speaking, these life forms are again climbing the ladder towards parliamentary democracy and consumer electronics.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2014 at 02:58
If dinosaurs got killed off then how did we get lizards and birds.  People need to think before speaking.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2014 at 04:07
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

If dinosaurs got killed off then how did we get lizards and birds.  People need to think before speaking.
 
Dinosaurs, as we currently know them, did indeed die out, and we don't really know the reason. Many have speculated that they were decimated by some disasterous climatic event, others claim that ancient man killed them all, we'll probably never know.
 
Many forms of life, including the genus Homo have changed over the millenia through adaptation and genetic mutation. Evolution, imho, is a fact, life forms evolve to suit the prevailing conditions under which they live, and will continue to do so or they'll die out.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2014 at 04:25
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

If dinosaurs got killed off then how did we get lizards and birds.  People need to think before speaking.

They most certainly do.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2014 at 04:29
The dinosaurs themselves display transitions from one period to the next with different forms emerging.  They were once all one kind and then kept on separating into different forms, carnivores from herbivores etc.  The found that dinosaurs that lived on the mainland got smaller for dietary reasons or food scarcity while those whom lived in very dense populations grew very big.  The dinosaurs had hundreds of millions of years to evolve.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2014 at 07:07
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Evolution is science. Not speculation my friend.  Environment obviously plays a part and this is the first time I've heard someone mention the suggestion that there is evidence to the contrary.

---New addition---

Yea this thread is weird.  What the two posts are essentially saying is that evolutions exists but the doubts about it aren't really doubts at all just dreams about a category called "extreme evolution."  There's not such thing as extreme evolution it's all just evolution.  The fittest survive.  The fittest isn't about some "highest life form" as the OP mentioned, the fittest is the fittest period.  Right now the label "highest life form" is the human I presume but technically speaking it is no more highly evolved than disgusting bacteria which are totally suited for their environment.  If the environment changes then so does the criteria for the fittest.  Even an ape would understand Darwin why can't these two?

*I'm going to sigh forever now that I've been dumb enough to participate in this thread.
I think You misunderstood the OP. It was not about "highest life forms". Where did You get that from? Neither did I mention "extreme evolution", since I do not see that makes sense. On the other hand there is very much meaning in asking how life survived extreme events. "With "higher organisms" I simply mean pretty much everything above the size of microbes, since I don´t think amany such organisms (the non-microbes) could survive the changes that the biggest disasters implied(like the burning of everything on the surface). Except in the rare cases they lived in an environment that were less directly affected, like a deep cave or some other strange place, like we know exist even today. But how can being at the right place in the right time be seen as "fitness"?
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2014 at 07:10
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

The dinosaurs themselves display transitions from one period to the next with different forms emerging.  They were once all one kind and then kept on separating into different forms, carnivores from herbivores etc.  The found that dinosaurs that lived on the mainland got smaller for dietary reasons or food scarcity while those whom lived in very dense populations grew very big.  The dinosaurs had hundreds of millions of years to evolve.
So many of them could have gone from abundancy to extinction in much less than a year under the worst cirkumstances.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2014 at 14:17
Could have, speculation.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2014 at 14:58
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Could have, speculation.
Or some thoughts, or reasonable guesses.
Some events sounds so extreme, that it is hard to imagine anything surviving it (save for some orgaqnisms, bacteria in particular, living in extreme environments). But with all the different environments on the planet it is not  that hard to imagine some that somehow more or less escaped the worst consequences in many cases. How would an impact today affect organisms living in large and deep systems of subsurface caves? Would there be firestorms even there if a 10-20-30 kilometre body from outer space hit the planet? Could organisms living in such locations re-colonise the planet?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2014 at 16:10
There has been a suggestion that, millions of years ago, Earth was knocked off its axis by some catastrophic cosmic event. This caused climatic change at such a pace that many species could not adapt in time, and died out.
 
I can't find the source for this, perhaps someone can help me out.


Edited by toyomotor - 12 Sep 2014 at 04:00
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2014 at 18:15
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Could have, speculation.
Or some thoughts, or reasonable guesses.
Some events sounds so extreme, that it is hard to imagine anything surviving it (save for some orgaqnisms, bacteria in particular, living in extreme environments). But with all the different environments on the planet it is not  that hard to imagine some that somehow more or less escaped the worst consequences in many cases. How would an impact today affect organisms living in large and deep systems of subsurface caves? Would there be firestorms even there if a 10-20-30 kilometre body from outer space hit the planet? Could organisms living in such locations re-colonise the planet?


I'm not sure how this has any bearing on "doubts" of evolution.  The evolutionary process is an ongoing one including the sequence of events which spell certain doom over many unadapted species.  For example if a climatic event such as global cooling followed after a period of global warming and vice versa these will "seem catatrosphic" for many.  Hence perhaps neanderthal did not survive because they were too cold adapted.  Perhaps humans will not survive because we are too hot adapted.  But they are some mutated forms of some earlier preceeding humanoid form hence evolution worked.  These aren't "doubts" on evolution it is not the problem of the individual with limited information to pretend as though evolutionary processes are not in work through the progression of TIME.

You aren't even showing how evolution has any flaws let alone debunking the actual premise of the theory.  Namely, speciation comes about from being selectively fit within a selective environment.  All you are doing is telling yourself how evolution played out and that you imagine the planet was eradicated of life only to be repopulated again through evolution.  If that is the case the title of the thread ought to rather be "Evolution is limited by meeting severe catastrophe."  Otherwise one should accept the fact that any life which continues onwards continues onward with inevitable evolutionary chronology.


Edited by literaryClarity - 11 Sep 2014 at 18:27
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2014 at 21:57
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Could have, speculation.
Or some thoughts, or reasonable guesses.
Some events sounds so extreme, that it is hard to imagine anything surviving it (save for some orgaqnisms, bacteria in particular, living in extreme environments). But with all the different environments on the planet it is not  that hard to imagine some that somehow more or less escaped the worst consequences in many cases. How would an impact today affect organisms living in large and deep systems of subsurface caves? Would there be firestorms even there if a 10-20-30 kilometre body from outer space hit the planet? Could organisms living in such locations re-colonise the planet?


I'm not sure how this has any bearing on "doubts" of evolution.  The evolutionary process is an ongoing one including the sequence of events which spell certain doom over many unadapted species.  For example if a climatic event such as global cooling followed after a period of global warming and vice versa these will "seem catatrosphic" for many.  Hence perhaps neanderthal did not survive because they were too cold adapted.  Perhaps humans will not survive because we are too hot adapted.  But they are some mutated forms of some earlier preceeding humanoid form hence evolution worked.  These aren't "doubts" on evolution it is not the problem of the individual with limited information to pretend as though evolutionary processes are not in work through the progression of TIME.

You aren't even showing how evolution has any flaws let alone debunking the actual premise of the theory.  Namely, speciation comes about from being selectively fit within a selective environment.  All you are doing is telling yourself how evolution played out and that you imagine the planet was eradicated of life only to be repopulated again through evolution.  If that is the case the title of the thread ought to rather be "Evolution is limited by meeting severe catastrophe."  Otherwise one should accept the fact that any life which continues onwards continues onward with inevitable evolutionary chronology.
Well, at least it does not fit completely withn one  way evolution is seen, as an always gradualist "slow" proces. Already before Darwin there was a controverse between what was labelled "catastrophism" (Cuvier)  against "uniformitarianism by Hutton.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2014 at 23:04
This is why this thread is a fool's errand.  My friend you are still talking within the same bounds of the original evolution.  The slow process whereby in the event of catastrophe there are those remaining whom must eke out a lonely existence and repopulate the planet in their name FOR WHICHEVER PHYLA OF ORGANISM THEY ARE.  When they do they are STILL EVOLVING AT THE SAME SPEED. Unless you want to override all the known evidence and suggest that during catastrophes the earth's time speeds up for no reason whatsoever.


Edited by literaryClarity - 11 Sep 2014 at 23:11
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Sep 2014 at 07:36
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

This is why this thread is a fool's errand.  My friend you are still talking within the same bounds of the original evolution.  The slow process whereby in the event of catastrophe there are those remaining whom must eke out a lonely existence and repopulate the planet in their name FOR WHICHEVER PHYLA OF ORGANISM THEY ARE.  When they do they are STILL EVOLVING AT THE SAME SPEED. Unless you want to override all the known evidence and suggest that during catastrophes the earth's time speeds up for no reason whatsoever.
Why the big letters? None of us have complained about being able to read. And why assume there is any "fixed speed"? It is not some "clockwork" process, and while some organisms seems to have changed much in "short" time, others appear almost unchanged from eons.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Sep 2014 at 09:33
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

This is why this thread is a fool's errand.  My friend you are still talking within the same bounds of the original evolution.  The slow process whereby in the event of catastrophe there are those remaining whom must eke out a lonely existence and repopulate the planet in their name FOR WHICHEVER PHYLA OF ORGANISM THEY ARE.  When they do they are STILL EVOLVING AT THE SAME SPEED. Unless you want to override all the known evidence and suggest that during catastrophes the earth's time speeds up for no reason whatsoever.
Why the big letters? None of us have complained about being able to read. And why assume there is any "fixed speed"? It is not some "clockwork" process, and while some organisms seems to have changed much in "short" time, others appear almost unchanged from eons.
 
Such as amoeba for example, or possibly crocodiles/alligators.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1047
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Sep 2014 at 12:59
Quote
If dinosaurs got killed off then how did we get lizards and birds.  People need to think before speaking.

Huge catastrophes tend to kill off the larger species whilst smaller ones have a better chance of survival. Some of the Cretacean species wwere probably larger than the infamous Jurassic - one find in India suggested a sauropod with an extrapolated all up weight of 200 tons - that's a seriously heavy animal for which no further evidence has been found - and the original find is lot due to monsoons). There was a pterosaur that lived on an island now part of Romania that was as big as a giraffe - no-one knows for sure if it actually flew but bone structure suggests that it did. The thing is, birds were co-existant with dinosaurs in the Cretaceous period (being an off shoot of the same family)
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Sep 2014 at 20:55
I don't think it has to do with disaster specifically but life in of itself.  Species would see losses across the board in all times including times of stability.  I think in the end the big dinosaurs were just not good enough predators against something more efficient.  The Tyrannosaur gave way to packs of Velociraptor and these gave way to flighted birds stealing their eggs.  Evolution became about who was ultimately able to survive using their "devious niche".
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Sep 2014 at 07:42
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

I don't think it has to do with disaster specifically but life in of itself.  Species would see losses across the board in all times including times of stability.  I think in the end the big dinosaurs were just not good enough predators against something more efficient.  The Tyrannosaur gave way to packs of Velociraptor and these gave way to flighted birds stealing their eggs.  Evolution became about who was ultimately able to survive using their "devious niche".
If the earth is burning at temperatures where everything is like in a crematory it seems rather irrellevant how good a predator any organism may be or how excellent it is adapted to its "niche". If it cannotr somehow "hide"(or rather if it is not already in some shelter, since there is probably not time to hide) it is dead, and if all members of that species live exposed they are all dead and there is imediate extinction, regardless of how "succesfull" or "fit" that species was. If there is great tsunami waves, species living on coastal plains may go extinct while some higher species may survive. If there is practically no food for a long period, some species that hibernate may have increased chances of survival and so on.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1047
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Sep 2014 at 12:51
Quote
I don't think it has to do with disaster specifically but life in of itself.  Species would see losses across the board in all times including times of stability.  I think in the end the big dinosaurs were just not good enough predators against something more efficient.  The Tyrannosaur gave way to packs of Velociraptor and these gave way to flighted birds stealing their eggs.  Evolution became about who was ultimately able to survive using their "devious niche".


Actually predators were just not good enough to tackle the biggest herbivores. Note that as sauropods got bigger, so evolved larger carnivores, but the survival of the sauropod herds was probably not dependent on losses of adult specimens - they were just too big and heavy to take on - but the younger and smaller members. Paleontologists now believe that sauropods laid huge numbers of eggs, using the survival policy as the modern turtle, knowing full well that most wouldn't survive. The few that became adults eventually grew too big for predators though clearly nature wasn't giving them a free lunch. There's even some evidence that larger carnivores (T Rex among them) were social animals that hunted cooperatively. However, the existence of large carnivores demonstrates an availability of food. That requires larger dinosaurs to be successful.

Incidenitally most raptors were small - velociraptor was the size of a chicken, not the big merciless hunter of Jurassic Park. There was one huge raptor in what is now China, which looked more like a turkey with big claws. T Rex was around in America at the end of the Cretaceous, so raptors got there there first.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Sep 2014 at 20:39
There was such a creature.  I checked and it was actually Deinonychus.  Actually it doesn't matter.  The actual trend was speciation to smaller as species proliferated.  If the game changer happened to be your eggs were stolen by packs of turkey like Velociraptors while you were searching for bigger and bigger sauropods to feed yourself it doesn't matter how big you get in the end.  Incidentally birds would develop so as to hide their eggs on top of trees and they would rather have pickings in the ground than to hunt the eggs of other birds.  It's time you admit the inferiority of dinosaurs.  Dinosaurs had to begin mating with their more mutated counterparts until they could join the rest of the evolving gene pool.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Sep 2014 at 21:32
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

This is why this thread is a fool's errand.  My friend you are still talking within the same bounds of the original evolution.  The slow process whereby in the event of catastrophe there are those remaining whom must eke out a lonely existence and repopulate the planet in their name FOR WHICHEVER PHYLA OF ORGANISM THEY ARE.  When they do they are STILL EVOLVING AT THE SAME SPEED. Unless you want to override all the known evidence and suggest that during catastrophes the earth's time speeds up for no reason whatsoever.
Why the big letters? None of us have complained about being able to read. And why assume there is any "fixed speed"? It is not some "clockwork" process, and while some organisms seems to have changed much in "short" time, others appear almost unchanged from eons.


The big letters are for SPECIFIC EMPHASIS and I do it because it seems you keep trying to explain over what has been the matter of fact with speculation and other daring perceptions of the truth.  If the species of organism has remained in the same form for millions of years it means that it has found its niche and for it to continue remaining it would only be necessary for the species to maintain the fittest selection of its genes which may unnoticeably alter even after thousands of generations.  However out of that selective maintenance are those with significantly mutated aspects which may or may not find increased reproduction elsewhere.  Hence selective gene maintenance is the fundamental key for evolution to occurr from one species to the next.  Therefore you don't know what you are talking about when you use the example of a species which has been able to remain in its form for millions of years because you neglect to factor in the segment of the population which has moved on to another niche.  Your ultimate conclusion is of the old stereotype which tries to strike a low blow across different species, "If I exist how come apes still exist?  Aren't I smarter and more evolved so what of apes?  Why did they not evolve?"  Here famous theoreticist Richard Dawkins gives you your answer just as he did to a sisterhood of young muslim women learning science in a Islamic fundamentalist school "Apes are continuing to evolve just as humans are.  They are on the same level of evolution.  It's not that apes became human, they both came from a common ancestor which was common to the two in form."


Edited by literaryClarity - 13 Sep 2014 at 21:35
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Sep 2014 at 06:21
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

This is why this thread is a fool's errand.  My friend you are still talking within the same bounds of the original evolution.  The slow process whereby in the event of catastrophe there are those remaining whom must eke out a lonely existence and repopulate the planet in their name FOR WHICHEVER PHYLA OF ORGANISM THEY ARE.  When they do they are STILL EVOLVING AT THE SAME SPEED. Unless you want to override all the known evidence and suggest that during catastrophes the earth's time speeds up for no reason whatsoever.
Why the big letters? None of us have complained about being able to read. And why assume there is any "fixed speed"? It is not some "clockwork" process, and while some organisms seems to have changed much in "short" time, others appear almost unchanged from eons.


The big letters are for SPECIFIC EMPHASIS and I do it because it seems you keep trying to explain over what has been the matter of fact with speculation and other daring perceptions of the truth.  If the species of organism has remained in the same form for millions of years it means that it has found its niche and for it to continue remaining it would only be necessary for the species to maintain the fittest selection of its genes which may unnoticeably alter even after thousands of generations.  However out of that selective maintenance are those with significantly mutated aspects which may or may not find increased reproduction elsewhere.  Hence selective gene maintenance is the fundamental key for evolution to occurr from one species to the next.  Therefore you don't know what you are talking about when you use the example of a species which has been able to remain in its form for millions of years because you neglect to factor in the segment of the population which has moved on to another niche.  Your ultimate conclusion is of the old stereotype which tries to strike a low blow across different species, "If I exist how come apes still exist?  Aren't I smarter and more evolved so what of apes?  Why did they not evolve?"  Here famous theoreticist Richard Dawkins gives you your answer just as he did to a sisterhood of young muslim women learning science in a Islamic fundamentalist school "Apes are continuing to evolve just as humans are.  They are on the same level of evolution.  It's not that apes became human, they both came from a common ancestor which was common to the two in form."
I think what You write here has little relevance to my posts, save for the headline and the word "Doubts" in particular.  And I don´t agree at all that I conclude anything that has to any "old stereotype" of me being evolved "above" apes or not, and it is not about "higher" or "lower" levels.
The topic will become more and more pointless if we are not discussing the same topic. If You dot "put words in my mouth I never said" it seems to me You read something I did not give any opinion about.


Edited by fantasus - 14 Sep 2014 at 06:22
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Sep 2014 at 10:25
The writing is on the wall so to speak.  Your concerns about evolution aren't doubts at all which was what I was after in saying there's no justification for doubting evolution.  Such a shame I've had to listen to your and other's runaround first with firestorm catastrophes marking the end of life on earth, then with bigger dinosaurs being the best of what nature has to offer during the Cretaceous and other ages, then with species which have long remained for millions of years which would somehow fault the paradigm of natural selection in the theory of evolution.

Edited by literaryClarity - 14 Sep 2014 at 10:33
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1047
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Sep 2014 at 11:54
Quote There was such a creature.  I checked and it was actually Deinonychus.  Actually it doesn't matter.  The actual trend was speciation to smaller as species proliferated.

No, there was no general trend toward smaller dinosaurs. They covered the entire range of sizes - one has been found that was the of a chihuahua. Sometimes there were enviromental reasons for small size, such as Hatzeg Island (now in Romania), where the restricted territory induced a trend toward dwarf dinosaurs (although the big pterosaur Hatzegopteryx also lived there)

Quote If the game changer happened to be your eggs were stolen by packs of turkey like Velociraptors while you were searching for bigger and bigger sauropods to feed yourself it doesn't matter how big you get in the end.

That's all part of nature - the Rabbit and Foxes graph - it all balances out in one way or another, or wobbles occaisionally. The ecological forces acting on species on the Cretaceous were no different than today.

Quote Incidentally birds would develop so as to hide their eggs on top of trees and they would rather have pickings in the ground than to hunt the eggs of other birds.

Some birds might have adopted such a lifestyle. others would have laid eggs on the ground - and still do. It makes little difference as ground breeders defend or distract their nests from predators. Those in trees are not immune to predation or competition. These are all survival games that have gone on since the beginning of life on this planet.

Quote   It's time you admit the inferiority of dinosaurs.  Dinosaurs had to begin mating with their more mutated counterparts until they could join the rest of the evolving gene pool.

Inferiority of dinosaurs? They utterly dominated life on Earth for a very long time, and arguably, still occupy a significant niche today.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Sep 2014 at 12:40
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

The writing is on the wall so to speak.  Your concerns about evolution aren't doubts at all which was what I was after in saying there's no justification for doubting evolution.  Such a shame I've had to listen to your and other's runaround first with firestorm catastrophes marking the end of life on earth, then with bigger dinosaurs being the best of what nature has to offer during the Cretaceous and other ages, then with species which have long remained for millions of years which would somehow fault the paradigm of natural selection in the theory of evolution.
I think I already gave an outline of what I meant in the OP, and I suspect You made up Your mind after reading the headline, and hasted through the rest of that post.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Sep 2014 at 16:10
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

If dinosaurs got killed off then how did we get lizards and birds.  People need to think before speaking.


Well, birds are a branch of dinosaurs that survived, and lizards are not dinosaurs at all but other bunch of reptiles that survived with our mammal ancestors (another non-dinosaur family of reptile).
When people speak about the extinction of dinosaurs usually mean the extinction of the dominant and giant species of reptiles of that time, most of which were dinosaurs.
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Sep 2014 at 03:15
I think my mate has got a bit confused here, there are lizards still existing, which science says haven't changed much in form over the millenia-and they are/were of the Dinosaur families.
 
One only need look at some of the large Monitor Lizards and the lizards on Galapagos to see a resemblance.
 
But surely, the debate doesn't come down to one on dinosaurs alone. Everything that is life on this planet has evolved over the millenia, and will continue to do so.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.