Evolution? Yes. Whole story? No

I was just thinking about life here on Earth and it's origins, Evolution and extinction. A rather interesting thought accoured to me. I thought I'd share it.

As far as I know there have been several "ELE" Extinction Level events on Earth. Ok, maybe not Extinction Level events but several times in Earth's history of massive dies offs. I'll be referring to the main large ones.

Linky HERE

Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (End Cretaceous, K-T extinction, or K-Pg extinction): 66 Ma at the Cretaceous.Maastrichtian-Paleogene.Danian transition interval.[5] The K–T event is now officially called the Cretaceous–Paleogene (or K–Pg) extinction event in place of Cretaceous-Tertiary. About 17% of all families, 50% of all genera[6] and 75% of all species became extinct.[7] In the seas it reduced the percentage of sessile animals to about 33%. The majority of non-avian dinosaurs became extinct during that time.[8] The boundary event was severe with a significant amount of variability in the rate of extinction between and among different clades. Mammals and birds emerged as dominant land vertebrates in the age of new life.

Triassic–Jurassic extinction event (End Triassic): 200 Ma at the Triassic-Jurassic transition. About 23% of all families, 48% of all genera (20% of marine families and 55% of marine genera) and 70% to 75% of all species went extinct.[6] Most non-dinosaurian archosaurs, most therapsids, and most of the large amphibians were eliminated, leaving dinosaurs with little terrestrial competition. Non-dinosaurian archosaurs continued to dominate aquatic environments, while non-archosaurian diapsids continued to dominate marine environments. The Temnospondyl lineage of large amphibians also survived until the Cretaceous in Australia (e.g., Koolasuchus).

Permian–Triassic extinction event (End Permian): 251 Ma at the Permian-Triassic transition. Earth's largest extinction killed 57% of all families, 83% of all genera and 90% to 96% of all species.[6] (53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species and an estimated 70% of land species, including insects.[9] The evidence of plants is less clear, but new taxa became dominant after the extinction.[10] The "Great Dying" had enormous evolutionary significance: on land, it ended the primacy of mammal-like reptiles. The recovery of vertebrates took 30 million years,[11] but the vacant niches created the opportunity for archosaurs to become ascendant. In the seas, the percentage of animals that were sessile dropped from 67% to 50%. The whole late Permian was a difficult time for at least marine life, even before the "Great Dying".

Late Devonian extinction: 375–360 Ma near the Devonian-Carboniferous transition. At the end of the Frasnian Age in the later part(s) of the Devonian Period, a prolonged series of extinctions eliminated about 19% of all families, 50% of all genera[6] and 70% of all species.[citation needed] This extinction event lasted perhaps as long as 20 Ma, and there is evidence for a series of extinction pulses within this period.

Ordovician–Silurian extinction event (End Ordovician or O-S): 450–440 Ma at the Ordovician-Silurian transition. Two events occurred that killed off 27% of all families, 57% of all genera and 60% to 70% of all species.[6] Together they are ranked by many scientists as the second largest of the five major extinctions in Earth's history in terms of percentage of genera that went extinct.

If the theory of Evolution holds true then why doesnt life start over again and create the same types of animals? I understand birds supposedly evolved from Dinos etc. But again. Once the slate was practically wiped clean not once but several times why didn't the process simply start all over again in locations where there was complete collapse?

Another thing to consider. Could Panspermia be the reason why it didn't just reset so to speak? If Panspermia happens it wouldn't have just been possible once in the earliest days of Earth's history but could happen anytime.

It may be both the cause for the mass extinction as well as the source for the new forms of life. Given enough time the new life could evolve that is.

So, were massive amounts of life wiped out by a new microbe (Insert Proper technical term) from space leaving only those few around that could handle the influx and survive while the new ones evolved?

The only reason why I ask is that there seems to be huge differences and diversity in all the life that have ever lived on Earth and not all seemed to be related. Just variations on a theme.

Thoughts?

ETA: Sorry, I posted before editing it by mistake.

I think we are very similar (except insects) look at a fish two eyes five finger bones in their fins, two eyes a backbone etc.
Ever heard of embryology?
When we are first in the womb we look very similar here.



Maybe Panspermia does have something to do with it but until we see other animals on other planets we will not know.
Also I think after each event the environment changed so we evolved differently from the time before.

But what do I know Iam just an Ape

reply to post by boymonkey74


Yes, I've seen the similarities before and it makes sense that life on Earth would appear similar at those stages. But this is in reference to a much earlier point in the evolutionary chain. Once it's reached the point of your image it has already happened.

No?

reply to post by SLAYER69


I will have to come back to you on that 36 hours without sleep Iam dropping off, I can't think I need Bo Bo time
Continue this thoughtful chat tmr
night dude xxx

reply to post by boymonkey74


36 hours?

Good, that Cat needs a break I think it's clean.

SLAYER69
If the theory of Evolution holds true then why doesnt life start over again and create the same types of animals? I understand birds supposedly evolved from Dinos etc. But again. Once the slate was practically wiped clean not once but several times why didn't the process simply start all over again in locations where there was complete collapse?

I'm most familiar with the K-Pg event so I'm going to use that as a frame of reference so bare with me if I'm forced to take a liberty or 2. From everything I know and can remember as it's been a few years since I've worked in Anthropology so information I should probably be up to date on may be somewhat lacking, but what I understood and what made sense to me in relation to what I was studying is that the reason new dinosaurs did not emerge after this even had to do with massive environmental, ecological and niche changes. In essence, the first thing to be completely depleted and destroyed was the flora. with the loss of vegetation the animals dependent on such for nutrition did not last very long. With those large beasts taken off of the shelves at the local dino market the carnivorous fellas were also quickly lacking in food sources. How fast a process this was is open to debate but there is some evidence that at least some dinos held on for possibly a few million years. As we have seen in more recent geologic history, when resources become less so does the stature of the creatures dependent on those resources. One good example that comes to mind would be the pygmy mammoths found on the Channel Islands. Another possible example could be H. Floresiensis though that needs more data to back it up. It is possible that this further pushed remaining dinosaurs into a bottleneck situation similar to the Toba event leaving us with what became full fledged birds as well as some other anachronistic creatures like crocodiles and their ilk. With fewer predators period, let alone large predators this allowed the burgeoning mammals to fill some of the niches previously held firm by our reptilian friends. Just my take on things.

Another thing to consider. Could Panspermia be the reason why it didn't just reset so to speak? If Panspermia happens it wouldn't have just been possible once in the earliest days of Earth's history but could happen anytime.

I think that entirely ruling out multiple panspermic events could have the effect of science not looking into a perfectly good scenario because its flies in the face of current paradigms. It's not something I've given a lot of credence to in the past but it could certainly be that an incident like the K-Pg event brought something with it when it entered our atmosphere. It's clearly little more than speculation but a good hypothesis has to start somewhere. And even if it's an incorrect supposition, the data required to prove or disprove it could very well put us on the path that leads us to the real answer. Far too many keyboard warriors are content to rant on about how science doesn't know anything without understanding that oftentimes the process teaches us more when we find the wrong answer than when we start off with the correct hypothesis.

It may be both the cause for the mass extinction as well as the source for the new forms of life. Given enough time the new life could evolve that is.

So, were massive amounts of life wiped out by a new microbe (Insert Proper technical term) from space leaving only those few around that could handle the influx and survive while the new ones evolved?

It's certainly not outside the realm of possibility that some sort of biological entity became part of the new or emerging species and that it helped kill off the older remnants that survived the initial destruction. Though if some species survived for a few million years that would lessen the likelihood of such an event occurring though not entirely rule it out.

The only reason why I ask is that there seems to be huge differences and diversity in all the life that have ever lived on Earth and not all seemed to be related. Just variations on a theme.

Thoughts?

ETA: Sorry, I posted before editing it by mistake.

edit on 9-12-2013 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

It's something that has always been at the back of my mind... what if the K_Pg event had not occurred. Would a species like Velociraptor have evolved into the dominant life form on Earth? it's massive brain, ability to hunt in backs and vocalize/communicate puts it on par with some early members of the hominid family while being infinitely more deadly than any modern humans. it's a lot to think about and not as far out there as say the pig-chimp hypothesis for example.

Some really great questions you've posed and while there's not a lot in the way of "hard science" to back it up, it's certainly a unique insight that should be explored at some point.

reply to post by SLAYER69

If the theory of Evolution holds true then why doesnt life start over again and create the same types of animals?

'Cause the environmental conditions have to be exactly identical for the exact same species to evolve. And a massive perturbation, like the asteroid that wiped out the dinos 65 mya, radically changed niches (habitable hot spots) all over the globe. The small, shrewlike mammals that were relegated to the nooks and crannies of the planet managed to withstand this mighty deathblow and fill a wide variety of open niches (adaptive radiation!). If it were not for that extinction event 65 mya, we would not be here today (age of the reptiles -> age of the mammals -> what is next?).

You can think of asteroids, for instance, as harbingers of widespread death and eventual diversification.

One thing that goes against your question regarding STARTING OVER, is Chemistry.

After each of the 5 major Extinction events, the Earth's chemistry was slightly altered.

Our most recent K-T Event that lost the dinosaurs gives us a thinner, less oxygen rich atmosphere.
Dragonflies with 3 ft wingspans couldn't fly today even if they still existed.

The largest most deadly Extinction Event; the Permian Triassic dying brought about by two Flood Basalts (imagine nothing but molten lava jets and fountains from horizon to horizon in what's now Siberia and China), some light bombardment by meteors, and massive Methane Hydrate Gassification which in turn created rapid Global Warming and depletion of oxygen in oceans.
We get a hotter, soupier atmosphere filled with higher Sulphur, Carbon Dioxide, and Methane content such the likes Humans today trying to breathe the stuff would have died in minutes.

All the events caused anywhere from subtle to major adjustments in atmospheric density and chemistry.

Different chemistries allowed for varieties of adaptations to rise in species supremacy each time.

Dinos had such an oxygen rich, thick atmosphere such that giant bodies weren't near as expensive to maintain as such would be now.
Atmospheric pressure and less oxygen made for the efficiency of smaller, warm blooded bodies to gain advantage.

It all, however, comes down to chemistry.

reply to post by peter vlar


Doesn't evolution, abiogenesis dictate that there is no source for life ?
That it occurs thru " processes of naturalisation"?

Evolution is the widely accepted scientific factual theory that explains life on
planet Earth. But does science have any other theories? Hypothetically, lets
say the complexity of the genome some how proved abiogenesis could not
occur thru naturalization and therefore proved beyond any doubt Darwinism
and evolution were impossible ? Is there no other theories in all of science
that could explain the origin of life ?

randyvs
reply to post by peter vlar

 

Doesn't evolution, abiogenesis dictate that there is no source for life ?
That it occurs thru " processes of naturalisation"?

First, we've got to separate evolutionary theory from abiogenesis. Abiogenesis deals with the hypothetical chemical processes thought to exist on the early earth prior to and up to the formation of the first biological self replicating cells where evolutionary theory deals with adaptive and morphological traits that can be traced both through genetic lineage and the fossil record. Even at that, abiogenesis doesn't so much make the claim that there is no source for life, otherwise we would have no life.

Evolution is the widely accepted scientific factual theory that explains life on
planet Earth.

no, again that's abiogenesis or conversely panspermia as Slayer mentioned in his OP

But does science have any other theories? Hypothetically, lets
say the complexity of the genome some how proved abiogenesis could not
occur thru naturalization and therefore proved beyond any doubt Darwinism
and evolution were impossible ? Is there no other theories in all of science
that could explain the origin of life ?

Yes, the other hypothesis gaining traction but as yet has as little evidenciary support as abiogenesis, is Panspermia or the hypothesis that life wholly or partially had an off world origin such as comets or meteors delivering additional ingredients to the prebiotic soup or even basic single celled organisms that gave earth a jump start. It doesn't prove evolution impossible though and while its common to refer to evolutionary theory as Darwinism it is a misnomer and evolutionary theory has progressed far beyond Darwin's initial postulations much as Darwin's went much farther than pre-Socratic thinkers like Empedocles. Either hypothetical scenario still leads to common ancestry and 100's of millions of years of evolution. It would piss off a lot of biologists, anthropologists etc. if this occurred( somehow disproving the possibility of common descent) but the end result would be a better understanding of our origins so the end result is worth the digging as long as the evidence is there. Far too often I come across people postulating something with little basis outside their imagination, which isn't necessarily a horrible thing because all good ideas have to start somewhere, but as long as it stays in the realm of interesting idea without any testable predictions it can't go any farther.

reply to post by peter vlar


Thank you for that. But if I'm not mistaken panspermia would still require
evolution, correct ? And forgive my total lack of experience in communicating
my question. Apologies. Try again.

Does science have any other theories in regards to the origin of life that do not
include Darwinism, evolution or abiogenesis ?

SLAYER69
I was just thinking about life here on Earth and it's origins, Evolution and extinction. A rather interesting thought accoured to me. I thought I'd share it.

As far as I know there have been several "ELE" Extinction Level events on Earth. Ok, maybe not Extinction Level events but several times in Earth's history of massive dies offs. I'll be referring to the main large ones.

Linky HERE

Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (End Cretaceous, K-T extinction, or K-Pg extinction): 66 Ma at the Cretaceous.Maastrichtian-Paleogene.Danian transition interval.[5] The K–T event is now officially called the Cretaceous–Paleogene (or K–Pg) extinction event in place of Cretaceous-Tertiary. About 17% of all families, 50% of all genera[6] and 75% of all species became extinct.[7] In the seas it reduced the percentage of sessile animals to about 33%. The majority of non-avian dinosaurs became extinct during that time.[8] The boundary event was severe with a significant amount of variability in the rate of extinction between and among different clades. Mammals and birds emerged as dominant land vertebrates in the age of new life.

Triassic–Jurassic extinction event (End Triassic): 200 Ma at the Triassic-Jurassic transition. About 23% of all families, 48% of all genera (20% of marine families and 55% of marine genera) and 70% to 75% of all species went extinct.[6] Most non-dinosaurian archosaurs, most therapsids, and most of the large amphibians were eliminated, leaving dinosaurs with little terrestrial competition. Non-dinosaurian archosaurs continued to dominate aquatic environments, while non-archosaurian diapsids continued to dominate marine environments. The Temnospondyl lineage of large amphibians also survived until the Cretaceous in Australia (e.g., Koolasuchus).

Permian–Triassic extinction event (End Permian): 251 Ma at the Permian-Triassic transition. Earth's largest extinction killed 57% of all families, 83% of all genera and 90% to 96% of all species.[6] (53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species and an estimated 70% of land species, including insects.[9] The evidence of plants is less clear, but new taxa became dominant after the extinction.[10] The "Great Dying" had enormous evolutionary significance: on land, it ended the primacy of mammal-like reptiles. The recovery of vertebrates took 30 million years,[11] but the vacant niches created the opportunity for archosaurs to become ascendant. In the seas, the percentage of animals that were sessile dropped from 67% to 50%. The whole late Permian was a difficult time for at least marine life, even before the "Great Dying".

Late Devonian extinction: 375–360 Ma near the Devonian-Carboniferous transition. At the end of the Frasnian Age in the later part(s) of the Devonian Period, a prolonged series of extinctions eliminated about 19% of all families, 50% of all genera[6] and 70% of all species.[citation needed] This extinction event lasted perhaps as long as 20 Ma, and there is evidence for a series of extinction pulses within this period.

Ordovician–Silurian extinction event (End Ordovician or O-S): 450–440 Ma at the Ordovician-Silurian transition. Two events occurred that killed off 27% of all families, 57% of all genera and 60% to 70% of all species.[6] Together they are ranked by many scientists as the second largest of the five major extinctions in Earth's history in terms of percentage of genera that went extinct.

If the theory of Evolution holds true then why doesnt life start over again and create the same types of animals? I understand birds supposedly evolved from Dinos etc. But again. Once the slate was practically wiped clean not once but several times why didn't the process simply start all over again in locations where there was complete collapse?

Another thing to consider. Could Panspermia be the reason why it didn't just reset so to speak? If Panspermia happens it wouldn't have just been possible once in the earliest days of Earth's history but could happen anytime.

It may be both the cause for the mass extinction as well as the source for the new forms of life. Given enough time the new life could evolve that is.

So, were massive amounts of life wiped out by a new microbe (Insert Proper technical term) from space leaving only those few around that could handle the influx and survive while the new ones evolved?

The only reason why I ask is that there seems to be huge differences and diversity in all the life that have ever lived on Earth and not all seemed to be related. Just variations on a theme.

Thoughts?

ETA: Sorry, I posted before editing it by mistake.

edit on 9-12-2013 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

we've had 5 global and countless local extinction events.

the mega fauna in north america, for example. how could it be hunted out? with spears? all of them? lol!

that volcano that gave rise to the mitochondrial eve, supposedly.

can't recall it's name.

why did neanderthal die out? or florensis?

was it their time? science assumes a lot of things.
amphibians survived, sharks too.

why?

My main issue with the theory is the so called Lazarus Taxon. I simply cannot figure it out and have no choice but to accept our "ideas on evolution" are highly flawed and have to be reevaluated closely.

I have had tons of people "explain" why they think the Lazarus Taxons doesn't get in the way of their "belief system", but none addressed the real issues nor did any make much sense. Usually it's emotionally driven, just like the stuff you get from the other side of the debate.

I really crave an entire new theory that takes a novel and unique approach to these questions. However with the attitudes of most people around these days I won't hold my breath, it's much more fun to stick with the established religions (church and science) and just regurgitate their unconvincing rhetoric.

And then the link goes on to explain all of these different caveats and such.

A zombie taxon is a taxon that contains specimens that have been collected from strata younger than the extinction of the taxon. Later such fossils turn out to be freed from the original seam and refossilized in a younger sediment. For example, a trilobite that gets eroded out of its Cambrian-aged limestone matrix, and reworked into Miocene-aged siltstone.

Now if a "Zombie Taxon" can exist, and creatures can "Get worked into OTHER levels of sediment", than what the hell is the purpose of using "Sediment layers" to date things? It could all be zombified we are just assuming it's not.

It's like every step through these topics fills me with deep doubts, and I come out nearly convinced that it's actually going to be impossible to "really know" the truth to any of these things with our current primitive technologies and methodologies.

Sigh...oh well.

The fossil record is inherently imperfect (only a very small fraction of organisms become fossilized, and an even smaller fraction discovered before destruction) and contains gaps not necessarily caused by extinction, particularly when the number of individuals in a taxon is very low.

The fossil record is incomplete because the conditions the create a fossil are very specific and don't occur a lot. In reality, if you follow the human evolution, for example, since the past 7 million years, you'll notice that you only get 1 or 2 examples of pre homo sapiens species every million of years or so. An incomplete fossil record doesn't mean that evolution needs to be closely followed, it just means that we don't have every argument available (and it's not expected that we do so).

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


Not to mention, part of what makes Evolution work is the randomness of the traits. As animals mutate over generations, these mutations are completely random. Some are beneficial, but most aren't. However, in a location that had plenty of life and post-extinction event is now barren, the beneficial traits that rise to prominence the second time can be completely different than the ones that were there pre-extinction event. And even if those same traits end up in prominence again, the evolutionary path that the animal took to get there could be completely different (again thanks to randomness). Therefore would look completely different.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Very interesting idea - and rational speculations. Just to clarify - Are you saying that the "seeds of life" (DNA?) are distributed throughout the universe and occasionally 'take hold' on Earth, depending on the environment? Also, these 'seeds' lead to different forms of life, some of which may dominate depending on the environment? And the differences in the 'seeds' and planet's environment explain the diversity in lifeforms that dominated during our planet's different periods?


Thanks again.

reply to post by peter vlar

...Would a species like Velociraptor have evolved into the dominant life form on Earth? it's massive brain, ability to hunt in backs and vocalize/communicate puts it on par with some early members of the hominid family while being infinitely more deadly than any modern humans. it's a lot to think about and not as far out there as say the pig-chimp hypothesis for example.

I can see it. In fact, was thinking that just before I read your paragraph about it. lol

reply to post by SLAYER69


Have you heard of the Urantia Book? It's a book about God, the Universe and our place in it. It is written from the perspective of the spiritual world. It is a very enlightening book on many levels, one being the origin of life on our planet. This book is universal in scope in how it describes the workings of creation. It tells us that there are Trillions of inhabited planets. It's called the Urantia Book because they say Urantia is the name of our planet.

Below are some links to chapters relevant to this topic. I would be happy to explain if you have any specific questions.

Life Carriers: (www.urantia.org...)
Life establishment on Urantia: (www.urantia.org...)
The first human family: (www.urantia.org...)
The evolutionary races of color: (www.urantia.org...)

reply to post by soficrow


Exactly, now the randomness is a given considering the environmental of the system at the time but could the newer organisms not only adapt and grow but also in the process rewrite *so to speak* those life forms already present and in the process increase the speed of evolution/selection advancement towards some and lead to extinction of others simultaneously?

reply to post by SLAYER69


What a great thread idea Slayer. Frankly, scientifically speaking, it is all a bit above me! That said, though, i will give it a crack!

Early life on Earth was thought to be a result of DNA coming together, then the theory was put back a bit and RNA was identified as crucial. Then there is this from January 2012.....

Before DNA, before RNA

It therefore appears that the chemical mix is crucial to the types of enzymes that then lead to the development of life. Therefore, i would guess that unless the chemical composition of Earth (at the surface) is significantly altered, there wouldn't be a wild new type of life created per say, it would instead be an evolutionary off shoot of other life forms.

Confused myself now!