Questions for biological macro-evolutionists

[Serenity595]

Anyway, the religious stereotype of "evolution=bad" is a thing because the majority of Christians (since I'm going to assume this is the religion you're talking about) believe the bible which says everything was created in 6-days. So naturally evolution challenges the very fabric of their beliefs.

Personally I don't believe evolution, however I also don't believe everything about the bible which gives me a unique stance of being able to say that evolution could possibly be a thing, I just don't think it is. It is my view that it is overly complex and not viable to actually produce what world we're living in now. I agree with you however in that adaption of a species is not the same as ending up something else (I mean, we have dogs from wolves, but I can't get behind the idea that one day dogs might become an entire different species just because "Hey look, they ended up another form of canine! That means they can become something that isn't a canine."

Well, I think many Christians think that way because they don't know exactly what evolution is. For example, there's micro evolution and macro evolution. Micro evolution simply cannot be denied; there are different types of dogs, cats, etc. Macro evolution, on the other hand, is when a cat becomes a dog (OK, I don't know if that's scientific, but you know what I mean). Micro evolution doesn't challenge the Bible because, well, it doesn't include animals becoming completely different animals. Macro evolution does challenge the Bible, but I'm not sure if a religious debate is the best thing for this forum honestly. xD

But, just curious: if creation or evolution didn't materialize and progress the world, what did?

As GreenEarth said and as I was trying to say, fossils require exquisite conditions in order to form. They don't just form randomly. I am uncertain of this, but I believe dinosaur fossils are prevalent as much as they are because of whatever theorized cataclysm you want to trust as to what killed them all and allowed the uprising of mammals in the world. As well, one has to take into account relative numbers of the transitionary species. To throw another wrench in, one should also think about how a single DNA mutation will not necessarily cause "subtransitionary" species to be evident to modern humans, however there are homo species that are considered to have existed before homo sapiens, among these are homo erectus and homo neanderthalensis. Some of which lived alongside modern humans but ended up dying off. However, it does follow that things with common traits will have a common ancestor. From this idea, it should be fairly obvious that both Neanderthals and modern humans share a common ancestor or one was the original and the other split off into a new species.

I realize that certain conditions are required for a creature to be fossilized. But what I don't understand is why we'd have fossils hundreds of millions of years old without a bunch of transitory species. I mean, isn't the evidence for macro-evolution supposed to be transitory species, correct? So if they are so rare despite the huge time differential, wouldn't the evidence point to an alternative?

If you want perspective on fossils, try considering this.

How many dinosaur fossils have we found? How many human fossils have we found?

Now consider the 500,000 years for modern humans and compare that to the fact that dinosaurs lived from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. This means that ALL of the dinosaur fossils we have found up till now came from a period of time roughly 165 millions years long. There are (and this is simply a generalization I gathered from multiple websites, as there is no exact answer) only a couple thousand complete skeletons of dinosaurs scattered throughout the museums of the world. You can hardly ask for hundreds or thousands of fossils from a 500,000 year period when we have only found a little more than that from a period of 165 million years.

This was not meant to be scathing or offensive, I think once the facts are laid out though you may see your perspective was a little off (something all humans are subject to, even myself). Fossils are a difficult thing to come by, and the dinosaurs were around long enough to leave some fossils for us, so you cant expect too many from the early humans, which is why scientists look else where for answers regarding early humans.

How many fossils of ancient humans have actually been found? I've heard estimates from 400-1600. Doesn't that seem extremely low? I mean, think about how many hominids there would be within 500,000 years. In contrast, I've heard that “in spite of the intense popular and scientific interest in the dinosaurs and the well-publicized efforts of generations of dinosaur hunters, only about 2,100 articulated dinosaur bones (two or more aligned in the same position as in life)” exist (Powell, 1998, p. xv, parenthetical comment in orig.; see also Dodson, 1990, 87:7608; Lewin, 1990). So why do we have as many if not more dinosaur bones uncovered compared to hominids?


Actually, let's go farther back. According to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

The first "animals" in the Homo genus lived 2.5 million years ago. 2.5 million. Surely we would have found hundreds of thousands, if not millions of these species of human already. The ground should be full of them. Again, I know fossils are pretty rare, but we need to just look at the sheer probabilities here.

Another thing I don't get is why do we have very old fossils near the upper strata such as dinosaurs, and yet species in the Homo genus, which are far more recent, seem almost non-existent?

 

[Kris]

Well, I think many Christians think that way because they don't know exactly what evolution is. For example, there's micro evolution and macro evolution. Micro evolution simply cannot be denied; there are different types of dogs, cats, etc. Macro evolution, on the other hand, is when a cat becomes a dog (OK, I don't know if that's scientific, but you know what I mean). Micro evolution doesn't challenge the Bible because, well, it doesn't include animals becoming completely different animals. Macro evolution does challenge the Bible, but I'm not sure if a religious debate is the best thing for this forum honestly. xD

But, just curious: if creation or evolution didn't materialize and progress the world, what did?



I realize that certain conditions are required for a creature to be fossilized. But what I don't understand is why we'd have fossils hundreds of millions of years old without a bunch of transitory species. I mean, isn't the evidence for macro-evolution supposed to be transitory species, correct? So if they are so rare despite the huge time differential, wouldn't the evidence point to an alternative?



How many fossils of ancient humans have actually been found? I've heard estimates from 400-1600. Doesn't that seem extremely low? I mean, think about how many hominids there would be within 500,000 years. In contrast, I've heard that “in spite of the intense popular and scientific interest in the dinosaurs and the well-publicized efforts of generations of dinosaur hunters, only about 2,100 articulated dinosaur bones (two or more aligned in the same position as in life)” exist (Powell, 1998, p. xv, parenthetical comment in orig.; see also Dodson, 1990, 87:7608; Lewin, 1990). So why do we have as many if not more dinosaur bones uncovered compared to hominids?


Actually, let's go farther back. According to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

The first "animals" in the Homo genus lived 2.5 million years ago. 2.5 million. Surely we would have found hundreds of thousands, if not millions of these species of human already. The ground should be full of them. Again, I know fossils are pretty rare, but we need to just look at the sheer probabilities here.

Another thing I don't get is why do we have very old fossils near the upper strata such as dinosaurs, and yet species in the Homo genus, which are far more recent, seem almost non-existent?

This is no where near my expertise, and I'm probably entirely wrong in this, but it seems like humanoid bones would fair worse over the years than bones of large dinosaurs/mammals.

Yes, I know that there are ancient plant, bird, etc fossils, but those are less common than others right?

I don't even know.
Just food for though.

 

[Allimon]

I realize that certain conditions are required for a creature to be fossilized. But what I don't understand is why we'd have fossils hundreds of millions of years old without a bunch of transitory species. I mean, isn't the evidence for macro-evolution supposed to be transitory species, correct? So if they are so rare despite the huge time differential, wouldn't the evidence point to an alternative?

Not all species will be made into fossils and not everything will be found because of uncontrollable conditions like microbe growth that may decay the bones before they can fossilize. Regardless of that, there are still discoveries linking dinosaurs to modern day birds through the evidence of land dinosaurs having feathers and from there transitory species afterward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_birds

Read the primary paragraph all the way through to see what I mean.

How many fossils of ancient humans have actually been found? I've heard estimates from 400-1600. Doesn't that seem extremely low? I mean, think about how many hominids there would be within 500,000 years. In contrast, I've heard that “in spite of the intense popular and scientific interest in the dinosaurs and the well-publicized efforts of generations of dinosaur hunters, only about 2,100 articulated dinosaur bones (two or more aligned in the same position as in life)” exist (Powell, 1998, p. xv, parenthetical comment in orig.; see also Dodson, 1990, 87:7608; Lewin, 1990). So why do we have as many if not more dinosaur bones uncovered compared to hominids?


Actually, let's go farther back. According to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

The first "animals" in the Homo genus lived 2.5 million years ago. 2.5 million. Surely we would have found hundreds of thousands, if not millions of these species of human already. The ground should be full of them. Again, I know fossils are pretty rare, but we need to just look at the sheer probabilities here.

Another thing I don't get is why do we have very old fossils near the upper strata such as dinosaurs, and yet species in the Homo genus, which are far more recent, seem almost non-existent?

Your conception of numbers is a little bit off. Just because there is a species of human does not mean there will be millions of fossils due to the specific conditions required for fossilization to occur. In addition to this, it could be that these humans lived with a bacteria or lived in conditions that are not conducive to the production of fossils. Could be that as a thinking species, a culture developed in caring for the dead that involved spreading out the bones over a large area.

In regard to homo habilis, over the course of one million years (by archaeological standards), encephalization occurred and the distinction between homo habilis and homo erectus is made due to both the combination of both larger brain mass and erect posture. However, there aren't any distinctions made within homo habilis until a somewhat arbitrary measure is determined and a new species is said to be.

This may be the case when you look at macroevolution. There may simply not appear to be transitory species because they are not labeled as such by the scientific community.

By the way, there is a nice table toward the bottom in you link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution as it lays out just how many of each type of human has been found, where it has been found and bits of other information.

 

[Serenity595]

This is no where near my expertise, and I'm probably entirely wrong in this, but it seems like humanoid bones would fair worse over the years than bones of large dinosaurs/mammals.

Yes, I know that there are ancient plant, bird, etc fossils, but those are less common than others right?

I don't even know.
Just food for though.

I'm not sure if size of the bones has a part in it, but yeah, tis food for thought. But if that was true... shouldn't we have tons of ancient mammal bones?

Not all species will be made into fossils and not everything will be found because of uncontrollable conditions like microbe growth that may decay the bones before they can fossilize. Regardless of that, there are still discoveries linking dinosaurs to modern day birds through the evidence of land dinosaurs having feathers and from there transitory species afterward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_birds

Read the primary paragraph all the way through to see what I mean.

But this seems to be more speculation rather than addressing the problem. Yes, fossils are rare but again, probability-wise, we should have tons of hominid bones if they've lived for so long. Now, I read somewhere as a counter-argument to this is that when millions of buffalo died because of well, man, there were hardly any fossils at all. But the problem with that example is that is over the course of a very short period of time. According to evolutionary theory, hominids have existed for about 2.5 million years (sorry if I sound like a broken record xD).

I read a few paragraphs on the evolution of birds and I just have to say: does correlation equal causation? Why or why not in your opinion? I mean, I've heard before that humans are actually quite related DNA wise to rats (different articles I've read range the number from 80-96% similarity in genes) but I'm sure people don't think we evolved from them. You see what I'm trying to say?

Your conception of numbers is a little bit off. Just because there is a species of human does not mean there will be millions of fossils due to the specific conditions required for fossilization to occur. In addition to this, it could be that these humans lived with a bacteria or lived in conditions that are not conducive to the production of fossils. Could be that as a thinking species, a culture developed in caring for the dead that involved spreading out the bones over a large area.

In regard to homo habilis, over the course of one million years (by archaeological standards), encephalization occurred and the distinction between homo habilis and homo erectus is made due to both the combination of both larger brain mass and erect posture. However, there aren't any distinctions made within homo habilis until a somewhat arbitrary measure is determined and a new species is said to be.

This may be the case when you look at macroevolution. There may simply not appear to be transitory species because they are not labeled as such by the scientific community.

By the way, there is a nice table toward the bottom in you link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution as it lays out just how many of each type of human has been found, where it has been found and bits of other information.

These are nice theories, but it still doesn't address the probability. If, for example, there had been several billion hominids live over the course of 2.5 million years, wouldn't we have many fossils of them? Yes, certain conditions are required for them to exist. But it seems you are only applying this to hominids, rather than to every species. I'd probably infer that you think there was some an ELE that caused many of the dinosaurs to be fossilized, whereas, this was not the case with hominids.

 

[Casey]

I'm not sure if size of the bones has a part in it, but yeah, tis food for thought. But if that was true... shouldn't we have tons of ancient mammal bones?



But this seems to be more speculation rather than addressing the problem. Yes, fossils are rare but again, probability-wise, we should have tons of hominid bones if they've lived for so long. Now, I read somewhere as a counter-argument to this is that when millions of buffalo died because of well, man, there were hardly any fossils at all. But the problem with that example is that is over the course of a very short period of time. According to evolutionary theory, hominids have existed for about 2.5 million years (sorry if I sound like a broken record xD).

I read a few paragraphs on the evolution of birds and I just have to say: does correlation equal causation? Why or why not in your opinion? I mean, I've heard before that humans are actually quite related DNA wise to rats (different articles I've read range the number from 80-96% similarity in genes) but I'm sure people don't think we evolved from them. You see what I'm trying to say?



These are nice theories, but it still doesn't address the probability. If, for example, there had been several billion hominids live over the course of 2.5 million years, wouldn't we have many fossils of them? Yes, certain conditions are required for them to exist. But it seems you are only applying this to hominids, rather than to every species. I'd probably infer that you think there was some an ELE that caused many of the dinosaurs to be fossilized, whereas, this was not the case with hominids.

I still feel like you aren't quite understanding the numbers here, and maybe I'm wrong and you do. The number of complete dinosaur bones we have ranges in the thousands. Keep in mind this refers to complete and near complete sets, so there is no telling what the number could be for bones and fossils in general that have been found. Secondly, and this is why I don't think you understand the numbers so correct me if it's just a misunderstanding; You keep saying we should have thousands of fossils for hominids, when they have only been around for 2.5 million years. Dinosaurs on the other hand roamed the earth for 165 million years and we only have a couple thousand complete sets from them. This means that we should, statistically speaking, only have a small amount of hominid fossils in comparison since they only "roamed" the earth for 2.5 million years. Keep in mind that that is only a couple thousand species from what surely ranged in the hundreds of millions of different species that lived during that 165 million year period (just me speculating, as we have thousands of species alive today, and the period of the dinosaurs went through a handful of ages with varying environments and different species)

Finally, and this is speculation on my part with no correlation to the amount of fossils above, but could the lack of fossils from transitional species simply be because we don't have a clear line drawn between what is a change in species to a change to new species. If there are no clear examples of macro evolution, maybe it's because we don't know where to draw that line, and maybe that because we don't have enough evidence from previous generations.

I understand the questions you have about macro evolution as I did not even know that was a thing before today, but I honestly just don't understand your reasoning behind your idea of the number of fossils.

 

[Allimon]

But this seems to be more speculation rather than addressing the problem. Yes, fossils are rare but again, probability-wise, we should have tons of hominid bones if they've lived for so long. Now, I read somewhere as a counter-argument to this is that when millions of buffalo died because of well, man, there were hardly any fossils at all. But the problem with that example is that is over the course of a very short period of time. According to evolutionary theory, hominids have existed for about 2.5 million years (sorry if I sound like a broken record xD).

I read a few paragraphs on the evolution of birds and I just have to say: does correlation equal causation? Why or why not in your opinion? I mean, I've heard before that humans are actually quite related DNA wise to rats (different articles I've read range the number from 80-96% similarity in genes) but I'm sure people don't think we evolved from them. You see what I'm trying to say?

If you read the table in that link on human evolution, you can see that there are actually "many" homo habilis bones found and cataloged. There's no speculation in that regard. There are also current cultural effects (especially in China) that cause the grinding of fossils and bones to occur for use in medicine. This perhaps also happened during prehistory in other areas of the world.

Genes are a strange concept because quite honestly, even a small difference in genes can cause a large difference in phenotype. I would suggest speaking with GreenEarth upon genetic stuff. I do not know enough to even begin to explain the entirety of genetics properly.

If you really want to speak of genetics and genetic similarities between species, then I suppose you would have to speak to the common ancestor idea. This idea implies that we come from a common species. With regard to rats and humans, we obviously did not descend from the modern day rat as rats are very much dissimilar to us through our phenotypes, regardless of our genotypes. However, the similarity in genetic coding does imply we had a similar, common, ancestor but not necessarily that one species descended from the other.

I suggest reading about speciation here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

These are nice theories, but it still doesn't address the probability. If, for example, there had been several billion hominids live over the course of 2.5 million years, wouldn't we have many fossils of them? Yes, certain conditions are required for them to exist. But it seems you are only applying this to hominids, rather than to every species. I'd probably infer that you think there was some an ELE that caused many of the dinosaurs to be fossilized, whereas, this was not the case with hominids.

As I stated, look at that table and you can see that the more successful hominids are indeed fossilized in the "many" range.

I am using hominids because it's easier to connect ideas together within a single species before applying them to a broader spectrum. I do not mean to imply it is only hominids that these certain conditions must exist.

I actually do think a large portion of the dinosaurs were fossilized because of an extinction level event (ELE), but that doesn't exclude fossils formed through the necessary conditions, which should probably be stated at some point to clarify what we are speaking of.

 

[Serenity595]

I still feel like you aren't quite understanding the numbers here, and maybe I'm wrong and you do. The number of complete dinosaur bones we have ranges in the thousands. Keep in mind this refers to complete and near complete sets, so there is no telling what the number could be for bones and fossils in general that have been found. Secondly, and this is why I don't think you understand the numbers so correct me if it's just a misunderstanding; You keep saying we should have thousands of fossils for hominids, when they have only been around for 2.5 million years. Dinosaurs on the other hand roamed the earth for 165 million years and we only have a couple thousand complete sets from them. This means that we should, statistically speaking, only have a small amount of hominid fossils in comparison since they only "roamed" the earth for 2.5 million years. Keep in mind that that is only a couple thousand species from what surely ranged in the hundreds of millions of different species that lived during that 165 million year period (just me speculating, as we have thousands of species alive today, and the period of the dinosaurs went through a handful of ages with varying environments and different species)

Finally, and this is speculation on my part with no correlation to the amount of fossils above, but could the lack of fossils from transitional species simply be because we don't have a clear line drawn between what is a change in species to a change to new species. If there are no clear examples of macro evolution, maybe it's because we don't know where to draw that line, and maybe that because we don't have enough evidence from previous generations.

I understand the questions you have about macro evolution as I did not even know that was a thing before today, but I honestly just don't understand your reasoning behind your idea of the number of fossils.

Well, we're already going under many assumptions here many of which I'm only going under to see it from another point of view. You are right that, if dinosaurs lived far longer than hominids, then there should be more bones. But as I pointed out in an earlier post, the actual number of bones found from dinosaurs and early hominids is nearly the same. How would you explain this? I know there isn't any exact number that we could pin on how many hominid fossils have been found and how many dinosaur bones have been found, but I think it's safe to assume a rough estimate is fine.

I see where you're going with your speculation, but one could also speculate that, with the same evidence, and more likely so (in my opinion), that there was, in fact, no transitory species from one kind of animal to another in the first place.

If you read the table in that link on human evolution, you can see that there are actually "many" homo habilis bones found and cataloged. There's no speculation in that regard. There are also current cultural effects (especially in China) that cause the grinding of fossils and bones to occur for use in medicine. This perhaps also happened during prehistory in other areas of the world.

Genes are a strange concept because quite honestly, even a small difference in genes can cause a large difference in phenotype. I would suggest speaking with GreenEarth upon genetic stuff. I do not know enough to even begin to explain the entirety of genetics properly.

If you really want to speak of genetics and genetic similarities between species, then I suppose you would have to speak to the common ancestor idea. This idea implies that we come from a common species. With regard to rats and humans, we obviously did not descend from the modern day rat as rats are very much dissimilar to us through our phenotypes, regardless of our genotypes. However, the similarity in genetic coding does imply we had a similar, common, ancestor but not necessarily that one species descended from the other.

I suggest reading about speciation here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

I did read the table and that was my big problem with it; its vagueness. What does "many" mean? What does "1 site" or "2 sites" means? "Many" is all a matter of relativity, as are the "sites" because one site could have many bones (ha, many...) while another site could have very few. They are still both sites, but not equal in measure, and with no basis on the amount of fossils that were actually uncovered. That's why I think that fossil record table is quite... inaccurate... for lack of better word.

I'm not an expert on genetics either, or really any science for that matter, so take anything I say with a grain of salt. But I would say, just for sake of clarification, that I don't think humans came from a common ancestor.

As I stated, look at that table and you can see that the more successful hominids are indeed fossilized in the "many" range.

I am using hominids because it's easier to connect ideas together within a single species before applying them to a broader spectrum. I do not mean to imply it is only hominids that these certain conditions must exist.

I actually do think a large portion of the dinosaurs were fossilized because of an extinction level event (ELE), but that doesn't exclude fossils formed through the necessary conditions, which should probably be stated at some point to clarify what we are speaking of.

Forgive my brevity, but what kind of ELE do you think caused the extinction of the dinosaurs? Also, to go along with said question: if an ELE did cause the extinction of the dinosaurs, how then did they evolve into birds? And more importantly, why would they?

 

[Casey]

Well, we're already going under many assumptions here many of which I'm only going under to see it from another point of view. You are right that, if dinosaurs lived far longer than hominids, then there should be more bones. But as I pointed out in an earlier post, the actual number of bones found from dinosaurs and early hominids is nearly the same. How would you explain this? I know there isn't any exact number that we could pin on how many hominid fossils have been found and how many dinosaur bones have been found, but I think it's safe to assume a rough estimate is fine.

I see where you're going with your speculation, but one could also speculate that, with the same evidence, and more likely so (in my opinion), that there was, in fact, no transitory species from one kind of animal to another in the first place.



I did read the table and that was my big problem with it; its vagueness. What does "many" mean? What does "1 site" or "2 sites" means? "Many" is all a matter of relativity, as are the "sites" because one site could have many bones (ha, many...) while another site could have very few. They are still both sites, but not equal in measure, and with no basis on the amount of fossils that were actually uncovered. That's why I think that fossil record table is quite... inaccurate... for lack of better word.

I'm not an expert on genetics either, or really any science for that matter, so take anything I say with a grain of salt. But I would say, just for sake of clarification, that I don't think humans came from a common ancestor.



Forgive my brevity, but what kind of ELE do you think caused the extinction of the dinosaurs? Also, to go along with said question: if an ELE did cause the extinction of the dinosaurs, how then did they evolve into birds? And more importantly, why would they?

I see what you mean, and it's a good point. Perhaps with dinosaurs being older, their fossils are buried much further below the ground, or encased in much larger rock. This could make their fossils more separated than hominods, with the continents being very different then than they are now, the world's land has changed much, which I would think disturbs many fossils locations and conditions. There are many possibilities, speculations, and proven ways. Personally, with the massive time gap since dinosaurs roamed the earth and today, there has been too much time for any one thing to be responsible.

As for an ELE, I personally think it was an asteroid, as does a lot of the scientific community. The large presence of iridium in the K-T boundary found all over the world is a strong push for that theory. Throw in the fact that there is tons of evidence that life everywhere started dying off from the ocean to palnts on the ground, also tells us that what ever wiped out the dinosaurs had to effect the atmosphere as much as it was physically devastating. This doesn't leave a whole lot of options left for an ELE, but that doesn't mean it is the only ELE option still plausible, just the most plausible in my opinion.

As for what you mentioned regarding humans coming from a common ancestor and your mention of the lack of transitory species I can only surmise you do not believe in macro-evolution. I am in no way attacking this view, as it is your view, but it got me curious. What is your take on humans and all the other species currently on the planet, Where do we all come from, where are we going. Do you simply believe we are stuck like this, ro do you think humans have the ability to evolve beyond humans? If we changed our genetics enough, do you think we could pull a synthesized force in macro-evolution (not necessary evolution, but similar end product)?

Just curious as to your take on this.

 

[Serenity595]

If dinosaurs really did live hundreds of millions of years ago, they should be very deep in the strata, yet the ones that have been found are at the top layers. Why is this so?

As for ELEs, I did quite a bit of research on Wikipedia (very interesting topic) and I came across what scientists call the "Permian–Triassic extinction event", Earth's largest known ELE that "killed 57% of all families, 83% of all genera and 90% to 96% of all species." In other words, it killed "53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species and an estimated 70% of land species, including insects." That is HUGE. I'm surprised the Earth had any complex life at all after such a catastrophic event.

The most common explanations for the ELE are as follows:

• An impact event - Basically, an asteroid or some large stellar object collided with Earth and caused mass extinction across the globe

• Volcanism - A super volcano(s) that may have sent large dust clouds and acid aerosols into the air. This would have blocked out sunlight, disrupted photosynthesis, and cause entire food chains to utterly collapse.

• Methane hydrate gasification - I really don't understand this one. If anyone is good at science out there, it would be nice to hear some input on this theory. Just from the name, I assume it means large amounts of methane poisoned the water, which in turn caused mass extinction.

• Sea level fluctuations - This can range from sea level regressions to openings in the Earth to an ancient atmospheric cloud layer rich in water that may have broken and caused extensive rains

• Anoxia - Similar to the methane hydrate gasification, the water would be "poisoned" but this time because of the absence of oxygen rather than the addition of a new element.

• Hydrogen sulfide emissions - A type of anoxic event where sulfate-reducing bacteria would have thrived and cause the oceans' sulfide levels to drop to deadly levels.

• Combination of events - Many people think it was a combination of several of these events that caused the mass extinction.

From first impressions, I'm thinking a combination of volcanism and sea level fluctuations may have been the cause of the ELE.

Moving on, you are correct that I do not believe in macro-evolution. I personally don't think it is supported by science, unlike micro-evolution (I think it's very important to make a distinction between the two). Without wanting to cause a flame war, I think that every creature was created by an omnipotent being outside of time and space (a.k.a. "God"). Each creature was created with the base species in mind regarding their DNA structure. Through the process of micro-evolution, each kind of animal evolved into other species of the same kind of animal because the original genes gave it the capability to do so.

I don't think humans have the capability to become another kind of animal as that is macro-evolution, and I don't think macro-evolution is true in any case. This includes your proposed "synthesized evolution". I think life is far too complex and intricate to ever be properly replicated by man.

 

[StTheo]

I don't think humans have the capability to become another kind of animal

Not one reputable scientist is saying that, because that is a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works. One species doesn't just "become" a new species. If one group of humans, maybe after colonizing another planet or something, can one day no longer breed with another group, like it or not, the two groups are separate species. That is how species are determined. That is not up for debate.

 

[Serenity595]

If you read what I was responding to, you'd see that I was answering Casey's question: "Do you simply believe we are stuck like this, or do you think humans have the ability to evolve beyond humans?" You shouldn't be jumping to conclusions so quickly.

I think you misunderstood my answer. I never said that they wouldn't slowly evolve into different transitory species to become another animal; I said that I don't believe that those transitory species can happen in the first place, hence "humans [don't] have the capability to become another kind of animal". xP

 

[Audi]

If dinosaurs really did live hundreds of millions of years ago, they should be very deep in the strata, yet the ones that have been found are at the top layers. Why is this so?

Digging
Erosion
Seismic events
Basically any of many things that affect the strata

It's not necessarily by chance that people find fossils; they look for them.
If looking for fossils was easy, we would have lots of examples of them.

 

[Serenity595]

I know there are variables but it seems so unlikely that if dinosaurs lived that long ago that we'd find thousands of bones in the top layers.

 

[Casey]

I know there are variables but it seems so unlikely that if dinosaurs lived that long ago that we'd find thousands of bones in the top layers.

Keep in mind that erosion and seismic activity do a lot, especially over a certain amount of time. Look at the grand canyon, as it took around 40 million years to form (that fact varies depending on source and what the source examines, as some part of the grand canyon formed 500 million years ago, and they didn't surface until the erosion process began). The Dinosaurs died off roughly 65 million years ago, so there has been plenty of time from seismic activity, erosion, and any other violent events (i.e. asteroid impacts) that could disrupt the strata layer. This is why I believe we have found what we have found, as there is a mix of millions of years to bury a lot of the dinosaurs, but also millions of years to uncover them. I am sure most of the dinosaur bones and fossils that exist are still buried (speculation on my part, not fact), the numbers we have just don't make sense otherwise and the amount of time that has passed points quite heavily to the fact that they would be buried deep. With this much time involved, I don't think it is safe to say any one thing is responsible, I think that there are many events, circumstances, and variables to consider. I am not an expert on this, and even if I was I am always open to the possibility that I am wrong. However, as of right now it makes the most sense to me that the number of fossils we have match up statistically to the amount of time that the dinosaurs were alive, the possible amount of dinosaurs, the amount of time since the dinosaurs were alive, the amount and varying types of geological events that have taken place in that time period, and our engineering and scientific capabilities for predicting and digging potential locations for fossils.

 

[Serenity595]

But we have to sit back and just look at the evidence. What do you think the evidence points to?

From what I see...

Premise: Almost all (if not all) dinosaurs fossils found in the upper strata
Premise 2: Equal amount of "hominid" bones found in the same upper strata
Conclusion: Dinosaurs lived relatively recently alongside ancient humans

The only way I think that the evolutionary take would be supported is if the premises were as follows:

Premise: Countless dinosaurs fossils found deep in the strata; very little to zero fossils found in the upper strata
Premise 2: Large amount of hominid bones found in the upper strata and a few in the mid strata
Conclusion: Dinosaurs lived a long time before hominids

Seeing as both premises are wrong (mainly the first one), I don't think the evidence points towards said conclusion.

 

[Casey]

But we have to sit back and just look at the evidence. What do you think the evidence points to?

From what I see...

Premise: Almost all (if not all) dinosaurs fossils found in the upper strata
Premise 2: Equal amount of "hominid" bones found in the same upper strata
Conclusion: Dinosaurs lived relatively recently alongside ancient humans

The only way I think that the evolutionary take would be supported is if the premises were as follows:

Premise: Countless dinosaurs fossils found deep in the strata; very little to zero fossils found in the upper strata
Premise 2: Large amount of hominid bones found in the upper strata and a few in the mid strata
Conclusion: Dinosaurs lived a long time before hominids

Seeing as both premises are wrong (mainly the first one), I don't think the evidence points towards said conclusion.

But that is where you are wrong, as the only dinosaur bones found in the upper strata layers are the ones pushed there through seismic activity and erosion, most of the dinosaur bones should be much much further down, in lower layers of the strata that humans don't often encounter.
For some reason you think all or most of the dinosaur bones should be in one place, and since we don't know how many potential ones there are, that could still be the case. However, the earth changes too much for a lot of dinosaur bones not to be uncovered and brought to the surface. When the dinosaurs roamed the earth, it was one big continent, and now we have seven. The earth experiences too much change over that large amount of time for it not to expose what's beneath its surface, albeit an undetermined amount.

 

[Serenity595]

"Should be". That's speculation, not hard evidence. We can speculate that there are millions of dinosaur fossils deep in the strata, but it's still only speculating.

I never said that all dinosaur fossils should be in one place. Also, the "supercontinent" is just a theory.

 

[Audi]

"Should be". That's speculation, not hard evidence. We can speculate that there are millions of dinosaur fossils deep in the strata, but it's still only speculating.

I never said that all dinosaur fossils should be in one place. Also, the "supercontinent" is just a theory.

There are three things wrong with this post.

1. It's also speculation - rather, personal opinion / doubt that you think it's unlikely that bones would appear in top layers of the strata.
(which in itself is a falsehood)

2. The supercontinent did exist and there's pretty significant proof that it did

3. Why is your avatar a dinosaur? Like, in this context, I find it tricky.

 

[Casey]

"Should be". That's speculation, not hard evidence. We can speculate that there are millions of dinosaur fossils deep in the strata, but it's still only speculating.

I never said that all dinosaur fossils should be in one place. Also, the "supercontinent" is just a theory.

I know it is speculation, but it is speculation based on educated guesses. Think of it this way, if we have found ~1600 hominid fossils on upper layers of strata, than imagine, statistically speaking, how many would be below. Again, and you are right, it is speculation. It is not, however, a baseless speculation.

Also, Pangea is a widely accepted theory heavily supported by plate tectonics. If you want to call that a theory, than remember the true way scientists look at everything. Nothing in science is absolute; it is simply a theory waiting to be disproved. This is something for a different discussion (which I am glad to discuss in another thread or PM, but not here), but religious people tend to think the opposite of this, nor realize that all science is in fact a collection of theories waiting to be disproved. We simply accept those well founded theories until someone has a better supported one. Not saying this is you, nor any specific religion or person, and again, a conversation for another place (I only bring it up here because it is related and I wished to express my interest to those that may also be interested in debating it).

Anywho, Pangea is a widely supported theory that has not had an opposing theory that is equally or better supported presented in its stead. While I am not going to look up the sources, I am sure we can agree that, through basic statistics, the amount of dinosaur fossils is much larger than what we have found via hominids, and that basic geology explains why there are a couple thousand up here. Again, this is simply a theory, but until a better supported one is brought up that I can not counter, then it is what I believe. I can look up the sources, and do the math, but I do not wish to put in the hours and hours that would take, as I feel we are all familiar enough with math and geology to at least understand the basic principle, nor picky enough to ask for more exact numbers. If you are confused, or just want more clarification, I would be glad to do my best, but I am not about to put hours on end building an educated estimation of the number of dinosaur fossils in existence. If you simply do not believe it, or wish to take my educated guess based off of common knowledge we are taught in public school, then I understand that too as I know that is a vague idea I expressed, and in order to understand it it would need to be communicated properly.

Either way, I don't want to fill this wall of text any more with speculation or any other vague beliefs or poorly supported theories, so I leave it to you and look forward to the next conversation/debate, as long as we can keep it as civil as these last few injections.

Thank you though, as I learned a lot from this thread, as before hand I didn't even know about macro-evolution, just evolution in general.

 

[Serenity595]

There are three things wrong with this post.

1. It's also speculation - rather, personal opinion / doubt that you think it's unlikely that bones would appear in top layers of the strata.
(which in itself is a falsehood)

2. The supercontinent did exist and there's pretty significant proof that it did

3. Why is your avatar a dinosaur? Like, in this context, I find it tricky.

What I've been saying is more supported by what is observed; the opposite viewpoint is mainly support by the unobserved. I think that bones would appear in the upper strata, because I think they only naturally exist in the upper strata.

One question: were you there? We're delving into observable science vs unobservable science. I do think that our continents looked different back then, but I doubt it was one single super continent. Maybe several large continents (like 3 or 4), but not one super continent.

My avatar has been philosoraptor for a long time. xD lol

I know it is speculation, but it is speculation based on educated guesses. Think of it this way, if we have found ~1600 hominid fossils on upper layers of strata, than imagine, statistically speaking, how many would be below. Again, and you are right, it is speculation. It is not, however, a baseless speculation.

Also, Pangea is a widely accepted theory heavily supported by plate tectonics. If you want to call that a theory, than remember the true way scientists look at everything. Nothing in science is absolute; it is simply a theory waiting to be disproved. This is something for a different discussion (which I am glad to discuss in another thread or PM, but not here), but religious people tend to think the opposite of this, nor realize that all science is in fact a collection of theories waiting to be disproved. We simply accept those well founded theories until someone has a better supported one. Not saying this is you, nor any specific religion or person, and again, a conversation for another place (I only bring it up here because it is related and I wished to express my interest to those that may also be interested in debating it).

Anywho, Pangea is a widely supported theory that has not had an opposing theory that is equally or better supported presented in its stead. While I am not going to look up the sources, I am sure we can agree that, through basic statistics, the amount of dinosaur fossils is much larger than what we have found via hominids, and that basic geology explains why there are a couple thousand up here. Again, this is simply a theory, but until a better supported one is brought up that I can not counter, then it is what I believe. I can look up the sources, and do the math, but I do not wish to put in the hours and hours that would take, as I feel we are all familiar enough with math and geology to at least understand the basic principle, nor picky enough to ask for more exact numbers. If you are confused, or just want more clarification, I would be glad to do my best, but I am not about to put hours on end building an educated estimation of the number of dinosaur fossils in existence. If you simply do not believe it, or wish to take my educated guess based off of common knowledge we are taught in public school, then I understand that too as I know that is a vague idea I expressed, and in order to understand it it would need to be communicated properly.

Either way, I don't want to fill this wall of text any more with speculation or any other vague beliefs or poorly supported theories, so I leave it to you and look forward to the next conversation/debate, as long as we can keep it as civil as these last few injections.

Thank you though, as I learned a lot from this thread, as before hand I didn't even know about macro-evolution, just evolution in general.

I didn't say it was baseless speculation; rather that it is speculating on the unobserved rather than the observed. For example, all "beginning of the universe" theories would be considered unobserved science because it's science we can't observe or test. This is the same with the beginning of the Earth. From my point of view, the ~1600 hominid fossils all in the upper strata suggest that the hominids are a very young species; far younger than 2.5 million years.

As for Pangaea, I like to equate it to black holes. Granted, that's another very widely believed entity, but it's still not "hard" science. Black holes are still technically theory, and are only a suggestion to explain the gravity fluctuations we see in the universe. I really don't feel like arguing either as I don't see how we'd get anywhere, so yeah.

Also, just because something is taught commonly in public schools doesn't make it more true. You'd be surprised how widely inaccurate history books can be, for example.