How Do Evolutionists Explain Mass Extinctions in their Theories?

[sayak83]

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.

I would encourage you to read this piece below. Mutations are still random, but the cells weaken the machinery they use to remove mutations when they divide under stress, causing the overall mutation rate to go up. So the cell is in effect, throwing more dice throws in the hope of hitting a jackpot before going extinct. Also by pure mathematics it can be shown that in an evolutionary landscape that is non-optimal, a greater fraction of random mutations will be beneficial than if the cell is in an environment where its existing genes are very optimal.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140115-under-pressure-does-evolution-evolve/

"She and Foster independently spent the next few years hammering away at the molecular mechanism underlying the change in mutation frequency in E. coli. Under normal conditions, the bacteria employ an enzyme that carefully copies DNA. But Rosenberg and Foster found that when bacteria are under stress, amistake-prone enzyme takes over, bumping up the frequency of mutations."

This is not surprising after all. Depending on conditions, lots of species can decide how often to divide, whether to reproduce sexually or clonally or whether to have more males or more females. Each of these also have an impact on the rates of mutation per generation. Since mutations are the engine of both creation (beneficial traits) and destruction (harmful traits), it would be a falsification of natural selection if genes did not evolve that tried to gain control of the process itself and subvert it to the benefit of the living organism.

 

[fantome profane]

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.

You have to think about what natural selection actually does and how it does it. Natural selection acts as a limiting factor, individuals who can't compete, find food, avoid predictors, find a mate etc die off without passing on their genes. But what happens when we have one of those mass extinction events. Now suddenly there is a lot more space for those species that did survive. Now suddenly there is less competition, now suddenly there are fewer predators . The limited pressure of natural selection has been decreased and individuals are now branching out into different environmental niches. The are flourishing in areas and in ways that were impossible before. This allows for a relatively rapid evolution. It doesn't happen instantaneously or in a single generation, but on an evolutionary time scale it seems very rapid. The basic theory of Darwinian evolution predicts that this is what will happen, what must happen. And the evidence shows that it did happen.

 

[freethinker44]

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.

I didn't add it in, it was in there from the beginning. I calculated how many permutations a small gene pool can have, every random mutation and unsuccessful evolution would be one of those permutations. The gene pool on Earth has thousands of genes, and if 99% of Earth's species have gone extinct then that means Earth has only had less than 10 billion species, with thousands of genes to choose from. The diversity you can get from 10s of thousands of genes is so high it is almost infinite.

 

[Sapiens]

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.

In a way there is. Not in the sense that you say, "in our DNA" but rather in the sense that our DNA contains and produces diverse and competing solutions to the stresses of everyday survival.

"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?

No, the odds of two abiogeneitc events producing two identical biochemistry are to small to be worth consideration add to the that fact that either competitive exclusion would have resulted in the rapid extinction of one or some symbiogenetic mechanism would have joined the two into a single line (not unlike chloroplasts or mitochondria "joined" into a single co-dependent lineage later on). In any case, all life on Earth exhibits what you would expect where there a single common ancestor.

 

[Dante Writer]

I would encourage you to read this piece below. Mutations are still random, but the cells weaken the machinery they use to remove mutations when they divide under stress, causing the overall mutation rate to go up. So the cell is in effect, throwing more dice throws in the hope of hitting a jackpot before going extinct. Also by pure mathematics it can be shown that in an evolutionary landscape that is non-optimal, a greater fraction of random mutations will be beneficial than if the cell is in an environment where its existing genes are very optimal.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140115-under-pressure-does-evolution-evolve/

"She and Foster independently spent the next few years hammering away at the molecular mechanism underlying the change in mutation frequency in E. coli. Under normal conditions, the bacteria employ an enzyme that carefully copies DNA. But Rosenberg and Foster found that when bacteria are under stress, amistake-prone enzyme takes over, bumping up the frequency of mutations."

This is not surprising after all. Depending on conditions, lots of species can decide how often to divide, whether to reproduce sexually or clonally or whether to have more males or more females. Each of these also have an impact on the rates of mutation per generation. Since mutations are the engine of both creation (beneficial traits) and destruction (harmful traits), it would be a falsification of natural selection if genes did not evolve that tried to gain control of the process itself and subvert it to the benefit of the living organism.

Thanks and I will take a look at it!

"Mutations are still random, but the cells weaken the machinery they use to remove mutations when they divide under stress"

Is that random if it happens only under that condition or is it designed for the survival of the species?

"if genes did not evolve that tried to gain control of the process itself"

That is some damn smart genes that could predict a response to an event that has not even happened. Real prophet genes you might say!

If that is true then what might be the result of a major stressor on human evolution which we may face with rapid climate change?

 

[Dante Writer]

In a way there is. Not in the sense that you say, "in our DNA" but rather in the sense that our DNA contains and produces diverse and competing solutions to the stresses of everyday survival.

No, the odds of two abiogeneitc events producing two identical biochemistry are to small to be worth consideration add to the that fact that either competitive exclusion would have resulted in the rapid extinction of one or some symbiogenetic mechanism would have joined the two into a single line (not unlike chloroplasts or mitochondria "joined" into a single co-dependent lineage later on). In any case, all life on Earth exhibits what you would expect where there a single common ancestor.

"solutions to the stresses of everyday survival"

OK but everyday survival stressors do not seem to trigger any rapid evolutions like we see after a major event. If it did we would all be rapidly evolving for climate change right now. That would involve a radical change to pump up that system I would think.

"producing two identical biochemistry are to small to be worth consideration"

Since the building blocks are still the same in any abiogenesis effect would that not produce organism that follow the same direction of evolution as those from a previous abiogenesis event which would appear to be from the same line?

Occam's razor says it would.

 

[Father Heathen]

If someone who accepts The Theory of Evolution is an "evolutionist", does that make someone who accepts The Theory of Gravity a "gravitationist"?

 

[Dante Writer]

If someone who accepts The Theory of Evolution is an "evolutionist", does that make someone who accepts The Theory of Gravity a "gravitationist"?

Gravity is a law. The science of evolution is made up of several theories.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation

 

[Sapiens]

"solutions to the stresses of everyday survival"

OK but everyday survival stressors do not seem to trigger any rapid evolutions like we see after a major event. If it did we would all be rapidly evolving for climate change right now. That would involve a radical change to pump up that system I would think.

You do not understand how evolution operates. Humans are extreme K-strategists, as a result they can no respond in real time to anything. Examples of stressors that have been shown to result in rapid evolution are drug resistant bacteria ... the result of an extreme stressor, a very short generation.

"producing two identical biochemistry are to small to be worth consideration"

Since the building blocks are still the same in any abiogenesis effect would that not produce organism that follow the same direction of evolution as those from a previous abiogenesis event which would appear to be from the same line?

Occam's razor says it would.

No Occam's razor argues quite the opposite. For example, optical isomers are a fifty/fifty question, yet life’s amino-acid preference for left-handedness is particularly puzzling because such molecules, when artificially produced in the laboratory, invariably show an equal mixture of left- and right-handed configurations. When a living organism dies and decays, thermal fluctuations change molecular shapes randomly, so that eventually an even left-right mixture results. Why terrestrial life employs only left-handed amino acids or right-handed nucleic acids is one of the great unsolved mysteries of chemical evolution but ... and this is important ... should a right-handed amino acid drift into a living organism, the catalysts that control protein production quickly destroy it. I take that as evidence that there was once a abiogensis event that resulted in competing right-hand preference life that lost the battle but left, in its wake, both vigilance and preparation for a future contender.

 

[fantome profane]

Gravity is a law. The science of evolution is made up of several theories.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation

Gravity is also a scientific theory. The law of gravity and the theory of gravity are different things, but both are part of the scientific body of knowledge.

 

[Milton Platt]

Not ALL species went extinct....what is so hard for you to understand about that??? The species that did not go extinct were still the result of all of those generations before them. It isn't like all life was wiped from the face of the earth. Your question is ridiculous.

 

[Sapiens]

Gravity is a law. The science of evolution is made up of several theories.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe using a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses but also inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. It is little more than a mathematical model that explains "what." General Relativity is a theory of gravity, it gets to the "why."

There is not such thing as the"Science of Evolution." There is, however, the Theory of Evolution, a theory that integrates a large number of tested hypothesis that are mutually supporting.

 

[Jumi]

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

Did all those fit in a boat?

 

[Desert Snake]

No, you just expose your intellectual Achilles's heel. Unlike Darwinian evolution there is no supporting framework for intelligent design, but even a cursory examination of the products clearly demonstrates that intelligence is lacking in the design process. It does not matter if you invoke God (who falls to the knife edge of parsimony, skewered by Occam's razor) or you advance panspermia which just begs the recursive question, you lack support for any such claim. Darwinian evolution, however, suffers from no such problem.

There is no ''problem'' for I.D., any more than there would be , for abiogenesis. The reason why we have space goop theory in the first place, is because there is a ''problem'', /your word/, with it,(abiogenesis); inherently. Space goop doesn't solve the problem with abiogenesis, any more than does it prove I.D.

 

[Dante Writer]

You do not understand how evolution operates. Humans are extreme K-strategists, as a result they can no respond in real time to anything. Examples of stressors that have been shown to result in rapid evolution are drug resistant bacteria ... the result of an extreme stressor, a very short generation.
No Occam's razor argues quite the opposite. For example, optical isomers are a fifty/fifty question, yet life’s amino-acid preference for left-handedness is particularly puzzling because such molecules, when artificially produced in the laboratory, invariably show an equal mixture of left- and right-handed configurations. When a living organism dies and decays, thermal fluctuations change molecular shapes randomly, so that eventually an even left-right mixture results. Why terrestrial life employs only left-handed amino acids or right-handed nucleic acids is one of the great unsolved mysteries of chemical evolution but ... and this is important ... should a right-handed amino acid drift into a living organism, the catalysts that control protein production quickly destroy it. I take that as evidence that there was once a abiogensis event that resulted in competing right-hand preference life that lost the battle but left, in its wake, both vigilance and preparation for a future contender.

"You do not understand how evolution operates."

If you mean I do not agree with your rigid black and white version of evolution you are right!

" Humans are extreme K-strategists,"

If that were the case they would seem to be the least likely of any organism to survive and are doomed however we have the intelligence to adapt, build, migrate at will, and change our environment. Hence my response: " If it did we would all be rapidly evolving for climate change right now. That would involve a radical change to pump up that system I would think."

I know- that probably went over your head but I tried.

" I take that as evidence that there was once a abiogensis event that resulted in competing right-hand preference life that lost the battle"

Interesting but a single deviation from that does not change Occams razor and would result in any abiogenesis following along a close path of any previous abiogenesis.

I should state for the record: I am in no way promoting or agree with any theory of abiogenesis and just using you own theories to to explore possibilities.

 

[Sapiens]

There is no ''problem'' for I.D., any more than there would be , for abiogenesis. The reason why we have space goop theory in the first place, is because there is a ''problem'', /your word/, with it,(abiogenesis); inherently. Space goop doesn't solve the problem with abiogenesis, any more than does it prove I.D.

The only problem with abiogensis is that, like the Big Bang, we are unlikely (for different reasons) to ever be able to examine the phenomena prospectively. Retrospectively, however, we see where the vector is headed. Space goop has not effect on the theory of abiogeneisis, it just begs the question and gets lost in the morass of what planet did it occur on? I believe that the ID concept being flogged here is that aliens (ala the Asgard of Stargate SG-1) manipulated and then planted life here (and perhaps came back from time to time to nudge it along).

 

[Dante Writer]

Gravity is also a scientific theory. The law of gravity and the theory of gravity are different things, but both are part of the scientific body of knowledge.

Yes but evolutionary theories are not also laws so to compare the two is ridiculous in my opinion.

 

[Dante Writer]

Not ALL species went extinct....what is so hard for you to understand about that??? The species that did not go extinct were still the result of all of those generations before them. It isn't like all life was wiped from the face of the earth. Your question is ridiculous.

You might want to read through the comments before you call things ridiculous as we have had a good discussion on that subject.

Do you believe abiogenesis was still occurring or happened after these events?

 

[Dante Writer]

The only problem with abiogensis is that, like the Big Bang, we are unlikely (for different reasons) to ever be able to examine the phenomena prospectively. Retrospectively, however, we see where the vector is headed. Space goop has not effect on the theory of abiogeneisis, it just begs the question and gets lost in the morass of what planet did it occur on? I believe that the ID concept being flogged here is that aliens (ala the Asgard of Stargate SG-1) manipulated and then planted life here (and perhaps came back from time to time to nudge it along).

" I believe that the ID concept being flogged here is that aliens"

That is one possibility and why would that be so far fetched since humans have only developed the technology to fly since 1903 and in just over a 100 years we can now travel to other planets.

Why then would an advanced race on another planet that has existed possibly billions of years before humans not have technology to visit other planets?

Now that is just one way it could happen. The seeds for life could have been sent out into space as a last ditch effort of a dying planet and humans right now are storing vast quantities of seeds and DNA samples in the event a massive extinction happens and we have to start over.

Both are possible and logical based on humans intelligence which is really just in it's early infancy of evolution.

 

[Sapiens]

"You do not understand how evolution operates."

If you mean I do not agree with your rigid black and white version of evolution you are right!

No, I mean that you have demonstrated a significant lack of knowledge concerning Evolutionary Biology and should not betaken seriously on the subject,

" Humans are extreme K-strategists,"

If that were the case they would seem to be the least likely of any organism to survive and are doomed however we have the intelligence to adapt, build, migrate at will, and change our environment. Hence my response: " If it did we would all be rapidly evolving for climate change right now. That would involve a radical change to pump up that system I would think."

I know- that probably went over your head but I tried.

Exhibit A, that is exactly why you do not try to measure microwaves with a sea surface recorder, the mismatch between actual wavelength and the detector's response curve makes it impossible. Same/same for climate change having an immediate effect on human evolution.

" I take that as evidence that there was once a abiogensis event that resulted in competing right-hand preference life that lost the battle"

Interesting but a single deviation from that does not change Occams razor and would result in any abiogenesis following along a close path of any previous abiogenesis.

I should state for the record: I am in no way promoting or agree with any theory of abiogenesis and just using you own theories to to explore responsibilities.

You need to look up Stochastic Process before you proceed any further.