I found this on a web site and thought you guys would find it interesting. Also could you explain how this works in the context of gradualist evolution.

"The punctuated reality of the fossil record is best exemplified by the "Cambrian explosion." Virtually every animal phyla (including chordates and many phyla now extinct) appeared during the short geological moment called the Cambrian explosion (13). This period of time is now known to have covered a period of time of less than 10 million years (1415). The diversity of life and the variety of body designs has led Stephen Jay Gould to make the following statement:"


"We have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their appearance at that time."16

Dr. Stephen Jay Gould

Views: 240

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Interesting. I might owe my bones to underwater volcanoes!
That being said there is no evidence suggesting that ecology influences speciation so that is just a theory (non scientific kind)
So it is unconfirmed ... whats your point
On the other hand studies have shown that species "evolve" independent of their ecology
"Recent studies have shown that climate and ecology, supposedly the most influential driving forces of evolution, have had minimal effect on speciation. According to Richard Kerr, "But the best compilation of fossil evidence on mammal evolution to date now shows that climate had little effect on most of the evolutionary churning of the past 80 million years." Even the paleontologist who did the study, Dr. John Alroy said, "This is counterintuitive; I wanted to find a connection" (54). Paleontology tells us that there was a major change in the climate of Africa between 2.8 and 2.5 million years ago. Evolutionists have suggested that this change promoted early human evolution and a turnover of mammalian species at this time. However, a thorough study of mammalian fossils (over 10,000 specimens) from the period of 3.0 to 1.8 million years ago reveals that there was "no distinct turnover pulse between 2.8 and 2.5 Ma." Instead, the most significant period of change in mammalian species occurred between 2.5 and 1.8 million years ago (55)."
"I think they do,"

He can think it all he wants its not going to produce evidence.
"That being said there is no evidence suggesting that ecology influences speciation so that is just a theory (non scientific kind)"

Have you heard of the Nylon Eating Bacteria? The bacteria that could survive on the nylon prospered. Nylon wasn't produced until the last century so the speciation due to the mutation came from the environment. It's not a question of the mutation being caused by the environment, it's a question of it being selected after the mutation.
Next time i will be more specific that is my fault and I apologize I was referring to the theory of macro-evolution not micro-evolution.
Oh no
How about Lemurs. Madagascar is a continental island and is the only place where we find Lemurs. Since none have survived elsewhere, and the fossil record of them on Madagascar begins around 60 mya and Madagascar is 160 million years old, it's safe to say they got there via ocean currents. There are skeletons of Lemurs as large as Gorillas from as recent as 2000 years ago and are a different species from the current Lemurs. If they can't procreate with each other, then we have a different species. If this isn't "macro-evolution" I think that we are going to have to define what you are looking for in order for us to satisfy your desire for an example.
Or they are similar species that are ancestral ARENT i meant arent
Brother. Not this whole macro versus micro crap again.
We need a "fast" evolving animal who's evolution was selected for due to environment that is certainly a different species. Well, Whales are Mammals, they lived on land at one time, had legs and we see these vestigial appendages in skeletons. Pakicetid is a 53 million year old fossil that appears to be the ancestor of whales. The design of the ear is for land, and we see the same in whales today. The design of the teeth, is similar in whales. Fossils show transitions from Pakicetid through two other phases right into modern whales all in 53 million years.

I assume that you'll accept that they aren't the same species and this certainly addresses Macro-Evolution. Again, you'll have to set the parameters if you reject this as Macro. You'll accept that the environment was the selection driver. So you are left with refuting the idea that whales evolved from Pakicetids.

I'm going to go to an idea that I know through Jerry Coyne. Why is it when you look at Continental Islands, you find native Mammalian predators, but when you look at Oceanic Islands you find no native Mammalian predators? As a result you see many flightless birds because they aren't preyed upon. Certainly that's influence of environment. Why waste energy with flight if no one is going to eat you on the ground? It's a great example of surviving in your environment versus attaining the "highest level of evolution".

There are countless examples. You need to lay out what would convince you. If you are just going to refute each example with a new objection, we are going to lay out 20 examples that refute your position and you are going to waste a lot of time just to learn that you are simply rejecting that the sky is up. I'm happy to keep going, but in the end we have addressed your points and you'll have cherry picked ours and thrown the baby out with the bath water. I mean we are down to fast speciation driven in a direction by the environment with actual fossils and they correspond to today's examples living creatures. Please don't tell me that you need more. But if you do, let's hit it. Lay out the parameters.


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service