Evolution? Yes. Whole story? No

reply to post by SLAYER69

...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?

Obviously. But methinks our resident "hybrid-deniers" would need to be redirected to consider the fact that complex organisms are best described as "supra-organisms," meaning the integrations and re-writes likely occurred prior to reproduction. Another heresy, requiring a total rethink of mechanisms.

Here, someone try to convince me how this works, good luck:

Opiliones

Despite their long history, few harvestman fossils are known. This is mainly due to their delicate body structure and terrestrial habitat, making it unlikely to be found in sediments. As a consequence, most known fossils have been preserved as amber.
The oldest known harvestman, from the 400 million years old Devonian Rhynie chert, already has almost all the characteristics of modern species, placing the origin of harvestmen in the Silurian, or even earlier.

The Dinosaurs supposedly died off like 60-65 million years ago.
This Spider has been pretty much the same for 400 million years?

Well if the environment changed so much, why does this spider not change at all?

What mechanism makes "Evolution" not happen in a creature like this for over 400million years?
Yet we have the additional claim that mutations and "selection" occurs all the time pretty regularly.

Someone's clearly got a wrench in their theories.
But who is it? ALL of us maybe? Yes????

reply to post by muzzleflash


I would guess that the dinosaurs had an aerobic respiratory system whilst the spiders have an anaerobic respiratory system meaning the spiders are much better placed to survive toxic air (mass sulphur due to extensive vulcanism). The exo skeletons probably help better withstand acid rain as well.

Not really sure though.........

reply to post by muzzleflash


I hear ya.

I've always wondered about the 'Living Fossil' Coelacanth. All this time and it hasn't 'Evolved'

reply to post by SLAYER69

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?

The process of evolution didn't stop. It isn't a strict progression from primitive to complex and there isn't any preferred form for organisms to evolve into. Any species fit enough to survive passes on its genes and evolution acts primarily upon that existing material, twisting it and occasionally adding entirely new information. So we wouldn't expect to see the same "kinds" of animals turn up again since the process is entirely natural. We wouldn't expect the surviving dinosaurs 65 million years ago, in a rapidly changed environment, evolving into the same forms they took in the past.

If Panspermia happens it wouldn't have just been possible once in the earliest days of Earth's history but could happen anytime.

This is actually an interesting hypothetical to consider. Some Martian microbes that hit the Earth might be evolving in some forgotten ecosystem somewhere on Earth right now.

not all seemed to be related.

Which ones seem disconnected from Earth biology?

SLAYER69
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

I hear ya.

I've always wondered about the 'Living Fossil' Coelacanth. All this time and it hasn't 'Evolved'

Some sharks species aren't that different either. I would suggest this is because they are pretty much at the apex evolutionary for what is required of them. Should conditions change on an unimaginable scale (as in previous mass extinctions) it may well kick start the next evolutionary leap, even for Coelacanth's.

Interestingly (to me) i have just been reading about organisms that have been identified 3 miles below the surface.....and how they are identical in colonies (for want of a better description) on other continents. Maybe life evolved underground and eventually leached to the surface? If this could be proved then it would be a huge pointy arrow in the direction of life being a result of chemical reaction rather than anything else......

We are missing something that is fundamental to the entire thing.
It's preventing us from understanding the simplicity of how everything went down.

All I know is that we are missing pieces.

... there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know. ”
—United States Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld

We must attempt to Identify an "Unknown Unknown", and convert it into "Known Unknown".
This is an exceptional challenge actually because we simply don't know what it is we don't know.

I do expect that eventually someone will have a spark of insight and figure out the missing piece(s) and say a few simple paragraphs and resolve all of the confusion. I don't know if that will be soon or in centuries though.

Titen-Sxull

The process of evolution didn't stop

I understand. But why didn't it start over? [considering the massive die offs] or did it with a new variety/spin/direction from outside Earth? Are my questions. I'm not arguing against the process but rather attempting to hit on the lesser discussed possible aspects.

Flavian

Some sharks species aren't that different either. I would suggest this is because they are pretty much at the apex evolutionary for what is required of them. Should conditions change on an unimaginable scale (as in previous mass extinctions) it may well kick start the next evolutionary leap, even for Coelacanth's.

Problems abound in these topics.

How do we define "Apex of Evolution", by what Criteria ?

How do we know we aren't viewing things from a bias standpoint?
What protects us from being misled?

How does it work? Do all creatures alive today represent the Apex?
What if one goes extinct, does that mean it is now inferior ?

The terminology is far too ambiguous and lacks explanation.
It reminds me of the old riddle "How do you define Life?".

Titen-Sxull
Which ones seem disconnected from Earth biology?

Never said "Disconnected" but rather could it explain why such a large diversion?

reply to post by muzzleflash


Very good questions Muzzleflash and the answers aren't simple (if they even exist). For me, in the context i was using, i meant apex as fit for the environment / geology of the time. So, with the case of sharks, for the last 100 million years or so we have had pretty stable oceans (obvious exceptions but bear with me!). Therefore the shark has had to evolve to the conditions that surround it, and as they haven't particularly changed, evolution has been kind of moribund.

Like i say, there are some gaping holes in this but it does make sense........

SLAYER69

Titen-Sxull

The process of evolution didn't stop

I understand. But why didn't it start over? [considering the massive die offs] or did it with a new variety/spin/direction from outside Earth? Are my questions. I'm not arguing against the process but rather attempting to hit on the lesser discussed possible aspects.

Just throwing this in the ring with absolutely no evidence to back it up but what if say the Jurassic die off asteroid was hugely rich in a certain type of mineral and the resulting impact explosion threw that all over the world.......would that then subtly alter the chemical composition enough for differing types of species to evolve as had been present before?

Whatever, i am firmly in the "life is the result of freak chemical reactions" camp!

Just putting my 2cts in no sources ok?

Didn't it evolve different because the conditions after a restart were different? I mean light climate acidity and so on? Just an empty planet isn't the same as another empty planet. Both are empty of life true. (If it was totally without life but mass extinction is different then total extinction)

muzzleflash
Here, someone try to convince me how this works, good luck:

Opiliones

Despite their long history, few harvestman fossils are known. This is mainly due to their delicate body structure and terrestrial habitat, making it unlikely to be found in sediments. As a consequence, most known fossils have been preserved as amber.
The oldest known harvestman, from the 400 million years old Devonian Rhynie chert, already has almost all the characteristics of modern species, placing the origin of harvestmen in the Silurian, or even earlier.

The Dinosaurs supposedly died off like 60-65 million years ago.
This Spider has been pretty much the same for 400 million years?

Well if the environment changed so much, why does this spider not change at all?

What mechanism makes "Evolution" not happen in a creature like this for over 400million years?
Yet we have the additional claim that mutations and "selection" occurs all the time pretty regularly.

Someone's clearly got a wrench in their theories.
But who is it? ALL of us maybe? Yes????

edit on 10-12-2013 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)

If an animal is perfectly adapted to the environment, even if it changes (temperature, atmosphere, etc), it may not evolve as much as others. Look at the cockroach, it's so well adapted to every type of climate that it has remained unchanged for millions of years.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Ok peeps, no secret that I'm a major skeptic among you all. I don't just play one
on ATS. I know that science and most of you scoff at the idea or the view, that I favor.
No home, no place in science for the supernatural, or superstitious or magic.
But it seems to me that what ever that " magic" is or even could be? It is the
negative hostility towards it that keeps you from finding or at least considering
it to have a part in all of this.

We are missing something that is fundamental to the entire thing.

Scoff if you like but that's what is missing. You're missing the magic.
Carry on.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Hey man,

I think you might be on to something here...

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 am pretty sure that the idea with panspermia is that the raw elements for life had been sprayed somehow all over, and that if they found the right conditions their component parts would somehow evolve over hundreds of thousands of years along with everything else in that environment that had provided the initially suitable conditions.

But what you have proposed is really interesting. Sort of like some sort of biological self-ordering self-assembling automaton.

I don't know what to do with the idea, but hey, it's sort of like "Transformers!, organic-life in disguise!" (theme song ).

I mean, if you have a mound of bread that you allow to become inhabited by mold, and bacteria and then you subject that system to an extinction-level event, the same critters will just inhabit the next mound of bread that provides an opportunity.

Anyhow, crazy thinking I know, but physical anthropology and geo-science are not my strong points, as you can see.

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?

Nature selects the genomes that are the most efficient in reproducing successfully in the given conditions. The variation from which nature selects, is in the end the product of random mutations. That's why.

reply to post by rhinoceros


Yes, no offense but I've read that version of events too.

I don't think there was a "clean slate" after major events. After a major event..some things survived..

at the same time certain branches divided and new branches formed due to a new environment.

A major event is nothing more than killing some and diversifying the existing ones..

reply to post by rhinoceros

...The variation from which nature selects, is in the end the product of random mutations.

A lot of epigenetic research suggests that mutations are not so "random." In bacteria at least, epigenetic responses that are successful can change the genetic code - unsuccessful ones tend to just 'disappear.'