Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Jan 23, 2021 15:14:00 GMT
Indeed! I cannot say I've given it any thought until now.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 23, 2021 22:46:06 GMT
It might be because "very suddenly" is still a pretty good length of time, geologically speaking?
Also I think we underestimate the speed at which speciation happens.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Jan 24, 2021 2:53:15 GMT
Well, I don't know if it makes any difference, but most plants are immobile.
And I think Darwin and more modern scientists would know how long it took for flowering plants to evolve, and how much longer most speciation takes, from the fossil record.
Or could it just be that Mother Nature loves a fragrant bouquet ... ?
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 24, 2021 21:04:07 GMT
Well, I don't know if it makes any difference, but most plants are immobile. And I think Darwin and more modern scientists would know how long it took for flowering plants to evolve, and how much longer most speciation takes, from the fossil record. Or could it just be that Mother Nature loves a fragrant bouquet ... ? Just for argument's sake, how would Darwin know that? He didn't even know the mechanism of evolution, since DNA wasn't discovered until the 1960's.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Jan 24, 2021 21:17:59 GMT
Well, I don't know if it makes any difference, but most plants are immobile. And I think Darwin and more modern scientists would know how long it took for flowering plants to evolve, and how much longer most speciation takes, from the fossil record. Or could it just be that Mother Nature loves a fragrant bouquet ... ? Just for argument's sake, how would Darwin know that? He didn't even know the mechanism of evolution, since DNA wasn't discovered until the 1960's.
Does it take knowledge of DNA to understand that living things generally evolve? I don't think so. The evidence is there without a chemical analysis.
DNA was first isolated back in 1869, although its role in genetics was not known at that time. Watson and Crick elucidated its double helix structure in 1953, using X-ray crystallography data provided by the unsung Roslind Franklin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2021 15:48:59 GMT
Since the discovery of DNA it has been established that the rate of mutation is practically constant, so much so that they can estimate how long two species have been differentiated just by how much difference there is in their respective DNA. Rapid evolution is caused by a drastic selection of the species. We in that respect are much much faster than nature. Look how different a chihuahua and a St Bernard are, yet 15, 000 measly years ago, the dog didn't even exist. Evolutionwise 15, 000 years is nothing!! It's all our doing. Nature is slow because there's no driver behind the wheel...
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 25, 2021 18:51:14 GMT
Just for argument's sake, how would Darwin know that? He didn't even know the mechanism of evolution, since DNA wasn't discovered until the 1960's.
Does it take knowledge of DNA to understand that living things generally evolve? I don't think so. The evidence is there without a chemical analysis.
DNA was first isolated back in 1869, although its role in genetics was not known at that time. Watson and Crick elucidated its double helix structure in 1953, using X-ray crystallography data provided by the unsung Roslind Franklin.
Irrelevant. I was responding to your claim that Darwin would know how long it would take. How would he know that?
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 25, 2021 18:52:53 GMT
Since the discovery of DNA it has been established that the rate of mutation is practically constant, so much so that they can estimate how long two species have been differentiated just by how much difference there is in their respective DNA. Rapid evolution is caused by a drastic selection of the species. We in that respect are much much faster than nature. Look how different a chihuahua and a St Bernard are, yet 15, 000 measly years ago, the dog didn't even exist. Evolutionwise 15, 000 years is nothing!! It's all our doing. Nature is slow because there's no driver behind the wheel... I don't believe mutation to be the only factor in evolution or change in DNA. But yes, 15,000 years is "nothing," geologically speaking. Which begs the question, how long is a "sudden appearance," geologically speaking?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2021 19:01:48 GMT
Since the discovery of DNA it has been established that the rate of mutation is practically constant, so much so that they can estimate how long two species have been differentiated just by how much difference there is in their respective DNA. Rapid evolution is caused by a drastic selection of the species. We in that respect are much much faster than nature. Look how different a chihuahua and a St Bernard are, yet 15, 000 measly years ago, the dog didn't even exist. Evolutionwise 15, 000 years is nothing!! It's all our doing. Nature is slow because there's no driver behind the wheel... I don't believe mutation to be the only factor in evolution or change in DNA. But yes, 15,000 years is "nothing," geologically speaking. Which begs the question, how long is a "sudden appearance," geologically speaking? I never said that!!! Besides I made it quite obvious that I didn't believe so, the wolf has been transformed into dogs but the mutation over such a small period of time was minimal, practically negligible. I don't get why you keep reading in my articles things that I never put there. Why is it in your opinion? This is a serious question and I await an answer. Don't dodge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2021 19:11:34 GMT
I don't think there is any mystery in the Cambrian explosion. It's due to a high rate of extinction, leaving niches to be filled. Giving opportunities to new species to express themselves. The same thing happened when dinosaurs went bye-bye it allowed the mammals up to that point confined into a smattering of species to develop dramatically.
This is no mystery. It might have been considered by Darwin to be one because he didn't know most of the things we know now.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 26, 2021 0:24:33 GMT
I don't believe mutation to be the only factor in evolution or change in DNA. But yes, 15,000 years is "nothing," geologically speaking. Which begs the question, how long is a "sudden appearance," geologically speaking? I never said that!!! Besides I made it quite obvious that I didn't believe so, the wolf has been transformed into dogs but the mutation over such a small period of time was minimal, practically negligible. I don't get why you keep reading in my articles things that I never put there. Why is it in your opinion? This is a serious question and I await an answer. Don't dodge. Well, I never actually said that you said it. I didn't say, "In contradiction to what you said, I don't believe mutation to be the only factor in evolution or change in DNA." You only mentioned the rate of mutation; that's why I responded with that. It actually is possible to have a conversation without every response being a contradiction of what the other person said. Evolution is also accelerated by sexual selection and by epigenetics.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Jan 26, 2021 4:48:57 GMT
Does it take knowledge of DNA to understand that living things generally evolve? I don't think so. The evidence is there without a chemical analysis.
DNA was first isolated back in 1869, although its role in genetics was not known at that time. Watson and Crick elucidated its double helix structure in 1953, using X-ray crystallography data provided by the unsung Roslind Franklin.
Irrelevant. I was responding to your claim that Darwin would know how long it would take. How would he know that?
You are misinterpreting.
I said Darwin would know how long it took for flowering plants to evolve FROM THE FOSSIL RECORD.
Do you know what a fossil is?
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 26, 2021 19:02:23 GMT
Irrelevant. I was responding to your claim that Darwin would know how long it would take. How would he know that?
You are misinterpreting.
I said Darwin would know how long it took for flowering plants to evolve FROM THE FOSSIL RECORD.
Do you know what a fossil is?
Oh, I see what you're saying. Snarkiness is unnecessary. But apparently not. Because he is quoted as saying: "...why, when they appear, are they already so diverse?" A geological fossil record might not adequately reveal a relatively quick transformation.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Jan 26, 2021 21:21:18 GMT
You are misinterpreting.
I said Darwin would know how long it took for flowering plants to evolve FROM THE FOSSIL RECORD.
Do you know what a fossil is?
Oh, I see what you're saying. Snarkiness is unnecessary. But apparently not. Because he is quoted as saying: "...why, when they appear, are they already so diverse?" A geological fossil record might not adequately reveal a relatively quick transformation.
Duh.
And that is what is being said: the transformation of gymnospores into flowering plants is TOO QUICK, and unexplained.
It's not enough to say it's "relatively quick". It is unexplained.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 27, 2021 16:51:47 GMT
Oh, I see what you're saying. Snarkiness is unnecessary. But apparently not. Because he is quoted as saying: "...why, when they appear, are they already so diverse?" A geological fossil record might not adequately reveal a relatively quick transformation.
Duh.
And that is what is being said: the transformation of gymnospores into flowering plants is TOO QUICK, and unexplained.
It's not enough to say it's "relatively quick". It is unexplained.
Maybe. I think it might too quick to be explained by mutation being the only mechanism for evolution. How would we know? How long did it take? What's the number? How long should it have taken? What's the number? I'm betting Darwin would not have had any solid idea as to what those numbers would have been. How would he? *EDIT: Congratulations on reaching a nice pristine total of 10,000 posts. If you respond to this you will sully that number.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Jan 27, 2021 16:54:23 GMT
No doubt Mercy for all is a genius when it comes to evolution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2021 17:37:31 GMT
Duh.
And that is what is being said: the transformation of gymnospores into flowering plants is TOO QUICK, and unexplained.
It's not enough to say it's "relatively quick". It is unexplained.
Maybe. I think it might too quick to be explained by mutation being the only mechanism for evolution. How would we know? How long did it take? What's the number? How long should it have taken? What's the number? I'm betting Darwin would not have had any solid idea as to what those numbers would have been. How would he? *EDIT: Congratulations on reaching a nice pristine total of 10,000 posts. If you respond to this you will sully that number. He's sillied that number already.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2021 17:38:11 GMT
No doubt Mercy for all is a genius when it comes to evolution. Compared to you, everybody is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2021 17:46:40 GMT
Oh, I see what you're saying. Snarkiness is unnecessary. But apparently not. Because he is quoted as saying: "...why, when they appear, are they already so diverse?" A geological fossil record might not adequately reveal a relatively quick transformation.
Duh.
And that is what is being said: the transformation of gymnospores into flowering plants is TOO QUICK, and unexplained.
It's not enough to say it's "relatively quick". It is unexplained.
The complete diversification took about 150 million of years. That's almost three times as much as most mammals have been around. That's 750 times as long as homo sapiens has been around!!! What do you call quick?
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 27, 2021 21:09:46 GMT
No doubt Mercy for all is a genius when it comes to evolution. Well, now, look what you did! Now you have 10,007 posts...
|
|