How Do Evolutionists Explain Mass Extinctions in their Theories?

[Sapiens]

"Because you were specifically asking how evolution can take billions of years when there are extinction events "

I never asked that question. I asked how mass extinctions fit into your theories.

"It's simple: the species we see today evolved from the survivors of extinction events."

I'm not claiming that no species exist today that are the result of subsequent abiogenesis"

Those statements contradict each other.

Mass extinctions are setbacks for some lines and accelerants for others.

The species we see today evolved, some from extinction survivors and some, likely, from species that they caused the extinction of.

It is clear that there are no extant species that are the result of additional abiogenetic event.

 

[Sapiens]

"I do not deny the possibility of panspermia"

If that is as far as we get today in finding common ground I will take it!

Let's not pretend that you added to anything I had not reasoned out by the time I was in junior high school.

 

[metis]

There are endless possibilities of genetic change with no real limitations with the exception being the survival of the organism/s. It appears that everything changes over time, and genes are no exception.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A question has a question mark after it.

So your opening statements had no relevance whatsoever to your question? That effectively renders your question meaningless.

I was relating my experience from talking to amy people that claim to believe in evolution but has never understood that mass extinctions have happened that changes the odds greatly of that theory.

How do mass extinction events change the odds of evolution?

As you can see we got to the crux of what I was after which was a discussion of other mechanisms that may have been at play to account for the rapid evolution after one of these events.

Not really. Most people have simply agreed "there may have been more than one abiogenesis event", but even that is tenuous at best when you consider it would require evidence of an entirely distinct tree of life. Since all known life shares common genetic ancestry, we can so far only assume that all life evolved from a single abiogenesis event. There really isn't a need to "account" for these extinction events - none of them occurred in such a way that biological diversity couldn't recover.

By your own logic we also can not assume they are the decedents of the organisms that survived an event.

We can if all the genetic and archaeological evidence points to common ancestry. If all life (that we are aware of) shares common ancestry, it means we share a single abiogenesis event. If other abiogenesis events occurred, we either have not encountered any organisms which resulted from these events or else they are still so early in development that we can't meaningfully examine them.

Do you have any examples of organisms which share no genetic similarity to the rest of earth's population?

 

[Dante Writer]

The original question was pretty vague. You will have to forgive us for trying to figure out what you meant by it.

You will by nature draw conclusions of any question based on a preconceived bias.

That is evident in some of the posts.

Did I do that intentionally- well it got you talking right and who wants to sit around and discuss things only with people you agree with.

What would be the fun in that

 

[freethinker44]

I believe that with all those extinctions and limitation of gene pool you would not find the vast number of vary different life forms that we see on earth unless there was also evolution of life from other sources such as inorganic to organic or an outside source such as Seeding by intelligent design.

This can be disproven mathematically. Even if we only had 100 distinct genes to work with there would be 9.33 x 10^157 permutations, and that is just how many different orderings a 100 gene strand of DNA can have, it doesn't take into account embryonic development which also effects a species' identity, and also doesn't consider species missing some of those genes which would make it the sum of n!, and then you would have to add in sum of combinatorials, so the already ridiculously high number of distinct DNA strands you can get from just 100 genes is made even more ridiculously large.

Now, consider that humans alone have 20,000 genes, so the world has at least that much diversity to work with, and if put through the same calculations as above it would be so mindbogglingly high it is essentially infinite, especially considering 100 genes would allow for more genetic diversity than there are atoms in the universe. Think about that, if there were only 100 genes in the gene pool, this would allow for each individual atom in the entire universe to be a distinct species of animal (if atoms were animals, that is) and still have enough diversity left to fill another universe the same size with distinct species of atoms that are themselves distinct from every species in the other universe.

So yeah, there's plenty of diversity in the gene pool.

 

[Dante Writer]

There are endless possibilities of genetic change with no real limitations with the exception being the survival of the organism/s. It appears that everything changes over time, and genes are no exception.

"with no real limitations"

I would have to disagree. It seems that all successful evolution center on survival and reproduction. You could grow an eye where your bellybutton is if any genetic mutation was limitless but those mutations that seem to serve no real purpose are not passed on even though they cause no harm to the organism.

 

[metis]

"with no real limitations"

I would have to disagree. It seems that all successful evolution center on survival and reproduction. You could grow an eye where your bellybutton is if any genetic mutation was limitless but those mutations that seem to serve no real purpose are not passed on even though they cause no harm to the organism.

That's not the point as I'm just referring to the potential of mutated genotypes and not any assumed viability (or not) of the phenotypes.

 

[Dante Writer]

This can be disproven mathematically. Even if we only had 100 distinct genes to work with there would be 9.33 x 10^157 permutations, and that is just how many different orderings a 100 gene strand of DNA can have, it doesn't take into account embryonic development which also effects a species' identity, and also doesn't consider species missing some of those genes which would make it the sum of n!, and then you would have to add in sum of combinatorials, so the already ridiculously high number of distinct DNA strands you can get from just 100 genes is made even more ridiculously large.

Now, consider that humans alone have 20,000 genes, so the world has at least that much diversity to work with, and if put through the same calculations as above it would be so mindbogglingly high it is essentially infinite, especially considering 100 genes would allow for more genetic diversity than there are atoms in the universe. Think about that, if there were only 100 genes in the gene pool, this would allow for each individual atom in the entire universe to be a distinct species of animal (if atoms were animals, that is) and still have enough diversity left to fill another universe the same size with distinct species of atoms that are themselves distinct from every species in the other universe.

So yeah, there's plenty of diversity in the gene pool.

That is assuming that only micro evolution is happening. Add in the odds of random mutations, unsuccessful evolutions, life span and reproduction cycle of the organism and tell me what you get. Those are all increased in a smaller population.

 

[Dante Writer]

That's not the point as I'm just referring to the potential of mutated genotypes and not any assumed viability (or not) of the phenotypes.

Well the potential to happen is there but it does not seem to happen for some reason and that is the point I was trying to make.

 

[Dante Writer]

So your opening statements had no relevance whatsoever to your question? That effectively renders your question meaningless.


How do mass extinction events change the odds of evolution?


Not really. Most people have simply agreed "there may have been more than one abiogenesis event", but even that is tenuous at best when you consider it would require evidence of an entirely distinct tree of life. Since all known life shares common genetic ancestry, we can so far only assume that all life evolved from a single abiogenesis event. There really isn't a need to "account" for these extinction events - none of them occurred in such a way that biological diversity couldn't recover.


We can if all the genetic and archaeological evidence points to common ancestry. If all life (that we are aware of) shares common ancestry, it means we share a single abiogenesis event. If other abiogenesis events occurred, we either have not encountered any organisms which resulted from these events or else they are still so early in development that we can't meaningfully examine them.

Do you have any examples of organisms which share no genetic similarity to the rest of earth's population?

You are getting into argument and badgering mode again.

Take a break and we can try again tomorrow.

 

[metis]

Well the potential to happen is there but it does not seem to happen for some reason and that is the point I was trying to make.

There are always going to be some limitations of the phenotypes but, through time, those imitations tend to become less and less.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are getting into argument and badgering mode again.

Take a break and we can try again tomorrow.

Do you really have to revert to this again? My points have been perfectly reasonable and I've not been rude, dismissive or badgering at all. Could you just please respond to my arguments?

 

[sayak83]

The evolutionists often defend their theories by saying it took billions of years for life to evolve into the forms we see today.

Actually, the majority of life forms we see today happened in the much much shorter space of less than 200 million years. That is a short space of time when you consider the massive amounts of evolution changes that would have had to occur. Modern humans are said to have evolved just 200,000 years ago.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

There have been 5 mass extinctions recorded in our history:

End Cretaceous, 66 million years ago, 76% of all species lost
— Ammonite 15 cm length

The delicate leafy sutures decorating this shell represent some advanced engineering, providing the fortification the squid-like ammonite required to withstand the pressure of deep dives in pursuit of its prey. Dinosaurs may have ruled the land during the Cretaceous period but the oceans belonged to the ammonites. But volcanic activity and climate change already placed the ammonites under stress. The asteroid impact that ended the dinosaurs’ reign provided the final blow. Only a few dwindling species of ammonites survived. Today, the ammonites’ oldest surviving relative is the nautilus.

End Triassic, 200 million years ago, 80% of species lost
— Conodont teeth 1 mm

Palaeontologists were baffled about the origin of these toothy fragments, mistaking them for bits of clams or sponges. But the discovery of an intact fossil in Scotland in the 1980s finally revealed their owner – a jawless eel-like vertebrate named the conodont which boasted this remarkable set of teeth lining its mouth and throat. They were one of the first structures built from hydroxyapatite, a calcium-rich mineral that remains a key component of our own bones and teeth today. Of all the great extinctions, the one that ended the Triassic is the most enigmatic. No clear cause has been found.

End Permian, 251 million years ago, 96% of species lost
— Tabulate coral, 5 CM

Known as “the great dying”, this was by far the worst extinction event ever seen; it nearly ended life on Earth. The tabulate corals were lost in this period – today’s corals are an entirely different group. What caused it? A perfect storm of natural catastrophes. A cataclysmic eruption near Siberia blasted CO2 into the atmosphere. Methanogenic bacteria responded by belching out methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Global temperatures surged while oceans acidified and stagnated, belching poisonous hydrogen sulfide. “It set life back 300 million years,” says Schmidt. Rocks after this period record no coral reefs or coal deposits.

Late Devonian, 375 million years ago, 75% of species lost
— Trilobite, 5 cm length

Trilobites were the most diverse and abundant of the animals that appeared in the Cambrian explosion 550 million years ago. Their great success was helped by their spiky armour and multifaceted eyes. They survived the first great extinction but were nearly wiped out in the second. The likely culprit was the newly evolved land plants that emerged, covering the planet during the Devonian period. Their deep roots stirred up the earth, releasing nutrients into the ocean. This might have triggered algal blooms which sucked oxygen out of the water, suffocating bottom dwellers like the trilobites.

End Ordovician, 444 million years ago, 86% of species lost
— Graptolite 2-3 cm length
Graptolites, like most Ordovician life, were sea creatures. They were filter-feeding animals and colony builders. Their demise over about a million years was probably caused by a short, severe ice age that lowered sea levels, possibly triggered by the uplift of the Appalachians. The newly exposed silicate rock sucked CO2 out of the atmosphere, chilling the planet.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth-sciences/big-five-extinctions

Your thoughts?

Hi, I will make a few points:-
1) Firstly evolution is quite rapid. Under strong selection pressure, a step as significant as unicellularity to multiucellularity can evolve in as little as 60 days.
http://www.wired.com/2012/01/evolution-of-multicellularity/
In multicellular organisms too, actual functional evolution speeds up dramatically when they go into a new environment. 10-20 generations is enough, which for many animals may be less than a few years or a hundred years.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150902134937.htm
https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/3387/environmental_change_triggers_rapid_evolution
http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/19-life-in-the-fast-lane

Darwin said evolution was slow in order to counter the objecion that animals do not appear to change over time. Problem was nobody thought about looking whether they do evolve quickly or not. Current answer is that they do when the environment changes and the genetic changes are very rapid.

2) This finding has been bolstered by experimental observation that the rates of beneficial mutation in both bacteria and multicellular organisms are far higher than previously thought 1-3% of total mutations (where earlier estimates were 0.1% or less) and they increase under stress.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140115-under-pressure-does-evolution-evolve/
The current rates observed and theories built on it support not a gradual but a rapid spread of a set of beneficial mutations through a population (soft sweeps) when environmental factor make the old set of traits unfit in some respects. It seems that Gould's model of punctuated equilibria has been more or less vindicated with the discovery of a rich repertoire of ways in which good mutations arise and are quickly fixed through cell-environment interactions.
3) This also ,means that regaining genetic diversity is not as much of a problem as once thought. Also since evolution works best in small populations (easier sweeps), small remnant populations are ideal to "speed up" the fixation of new beneficial genes and become the hotbed of new speciation and radiation events.

Life did evolved over billions of years but who said it was slow? It does not appear that life evolved slowly at all.

 

[Dante Writer]

We all have bias, but I am quite familiar with the works of Richard Dawkins. When I tell you that Richard Dawkins does not believe in intelligent design by aliens, that is a fact. I just want you to understand that.

Accusing me of being biased is not an argument.

Preferring one theory over another is not disbelieving. I find it hard to believe that a world famous evolutionists would proffer a theory he knew could not happen and he made it clear it was a possibility.

Whether he believes it is a strong possibility is irrelevant to the point that it is a possibility worth researching and he is not the only scientists that has proffered that as a possibility.

Being biased will skew you to defend instead of investigate for evidence.

 

[Dante Writer]

Hi, I will make a few points:-
1) Firstly evolution is quite rapid. Under strong selection pressure, a step as significant as unicellularity to multiucellularity can evolve in as little as 60 days.
http://www.wired.com/2012/01/evolution-of-multicellularity/
In multicellular organisms too, actual functional evolution speeds up dramatically when they go into a new environment. 10-20 generations is enough, which for many animals may be less than a few years or a hundred years.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150902134937.htm
https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/3387/environmental_change_triggers_rapid_evolution
http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/19-life-in-the-fast-lane

Darwin said evolution was slow in order to counter the objecion that animals do not appear to change over time. Problem was nobody thought about looking whether they do evolve quickly or not. Current answer is that they do when the environment changes and the genetic changes are very rapid.

2) This finding has been bolstered by experimental observation that the rates of beneficial mutation in both bacteria and multicellular organisms are far higher than previously thought 1-3% of total mutations (where earlier estimates were 0.1% or less) and they increase under stress.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140115-under-pressure-does-evolution-evolve/
The current rates observed and theories built on it support not a gradual but a rapid spread of a set of beneficial mutations through a population (soft sweeps) when environmental factor make the old set of traits unfit in some respects. It seems that Gould's model of punctuated equilibria has been more or less vindicated with the discovery of a rich repertoire of ways in which good mutations arise and are quickly fixed through cell-environment interactions.
3) This also ,means that regaining genetic diversity is not as much of a problem as once thought. Also since evolution works best in small populations (easier sweeps), small remnant populations are ideal to "speed up" the fixation of new beneficial genes and become the hotbed of new speciation and radiation events.

Life did evolved over billions of years but who said it was slow? It does not appear that life evolved slowly at all.

Thanks and I would agree there seems to be pressure that can cause rapid evolutions.

Now how can that be unless there was something in our DNA that responds to a dramatic pressure to speed up the process?

That then conflicts with the idea that evolution is random and a result of selection and mutations and would be front loaded with a plan to evolve under certain stressors.

 

[freethinker44]

That is assuming that only micro evolution is happening. Add in the odds of random mutations, unsuccessful evolutions, life span and reproduction cycle of the organism and tell me what you get. Those are all increased in a smaller population.

No, it accounts for every possible permutation you can get from the gene pool. Every random mutation, every unsuccessful species, everything. Any organism that could possibly be created with just 100 genes. The actual number is really hundreds or thousands of times larger than this because I needed to use a lower number just to be able do math on it. And since you're arguing that the gene pool wouldn't be diverse enough, I showed that even if the gene pool were several hundred times smaller than it really is, it would still be enough to create more distinct organisms than there are atoms in 2 universes.

 

[Dante Writer]

Mass extinctions are setbacks for some lines and accelerants for others.

The species we see today evolved, some from extinction survivors and some, likely, from species that they caused the extinction of.

It is clear that there are no extant species that are the result of additional abiogenetic event.

"It is clear that there are no extant species that are the result of additional abiogenetic event."

Why is that clear since the evidence for any abiogenesis effect would appear the same in a survivor of an event and one from a new abiogensis event?

You did say earlier that abiogenesis is probably still going on right?

 

[Dante Writer]

No, it accounts for every possible permutation you can get from the gene pool. Every random mutation, every unsuccessful species, everything. Any organism that could possibly be created with just 100 genes. The actual number is really hundreds or thousands of times larger than this because I needed to use a lower number just to be able do math on it. And since you're arguing that the gene pool wouldn't be diverse enough, I showed that even if the gene pool were several hundred times smaller than it really is, it would still be enough to create more distinct organisms than there are atoms in 2 universes.

Well- I don't see where you added in the effects I listed but you seem convinced and I am not in the mood to argue.

 

[Dante Writer]

Let's not pretend that you added to anything I had not reasoned out by the time I was in junior high school.

I know right