|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/28/2008 5:59:14 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 714
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Think I should just throw it out there and see if anybody bites?
If you throw a lamprey out there, I'd be more afraid of getting bitten.
As for your original question, I think stasis does present a challenge to evolution, but it's not a fatal flaw. And it appears to be an active area of debate among scientists - one that hasn't been settled.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/29/2008 9:04:27 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3170
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
As for your original question, I think stasis does present a challenge to evolution, but it's not a fatal flaw. There is no "fatal flaw" to anyone's dogmatically and irrationally held religious faith!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/29/2008 1:00:13 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 434
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
Well, there's not too much danger in getting bitten by a lamprey out of water. Watch out if you're a big fish, though. Those guys have been known to suck fish dry. But you know the funny thing is that... there were no big fish back when they appeared in the fossil record. There were only other lampreys and hag-fish. Quick question for you, why, if their diet has not remained the same (and therefore their niche has not stayed the same) have they remained the same? Exactly the same.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 4/23/2008 3:02:09 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 714
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
What evolution seems to fail to account for in this scenario is the extreme stasis of certain organisms over lengthy geological periods.
Since I'm not allowed to say this elsewhere...
Whatever legitimate challenge stasis poses for evolutionary theory, extended periods of stasis are only observed for some, not all, species. The many examples of non-stasis show, almost by definition, evidence of evolution. If it's not static, it's changing over time. Evolutionary theory may need to be modified in some way to better explain stasis, but stasis does not nullify the facts of evolutionary change-over-time.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 4/23/2008 3:55:37 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6728
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Whatever legitimate challenge stasis poses for evolutionary theory, extended periods of stasis are only observed for some, not all, species. The many examples of non-stasis show, almost by definition, evidence of evolution. If it's not static, it's changing over time. Evolutionary theory may need to be modified in some way to better explain stasis, but stasis does not nullify the facts of evolutionary change-over-time.
I never proposed the OP as a means of 'nullifying' the idea that organisms change over time, but rather, the idea that such change is the product of ordinary processes which occur as a regular course of life's history; the many examples of stasis suggest not.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 4/23/2008 5:08:06 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 434
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
What evolution seems to fail to account for in this scenario is the extreme stasis of certain organisms over lengthy geological periods.
Since I'm not allowed to say this elsewhere...
Whatever legitimate challenge stasis poses for evolutionary theory, extended periods of stasis are only observed for some, not all, species. The many examples of non-stasis show, almost by definition, evidence of evolution. If it's not static, it's changing over time. Evolutionary theory may need to be modified in some way to better explain stasis, but stasis does not nullify the facts of evolutionary change-over-time.
The fact that there is a great deal of stasis in the fossil record, that many species "appear", "stay the same", and are still the same animal today poses an interpretation that they are simply the same animals that we have today, just buried. Perhaps (that's a big perhaps) what needs to be reevaluated is how we interpret the fossil record itself because you would not predict hundreds of millions of years of stasis if we are all evolved from the same common ancestor.
I know I'm taking this in a different direction than Jhud is. I suppose he isn't suggesting that we reinterpret the fossil record.
< Message edited by DanJames -- 4/23/2008 5:15:18 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 4/23/2008 6:03:37 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 714
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
The fact that there is a great deal of stasis in the fossil record, that [bmany species "appear", "stay the same", and are still the same animal today poses an interpretation that they are simply the same animals that we have today, just buried.
Depends on how many 'many' is. There are also many examples of change-over-time. There are no austrolopithecenes alive today. No tyrannosaurs. No eohippi, trilobites, megatheria, ad infinitum. Some of these went extinct leaving no similar relatives, other things have modern relatives living today in a different form. Transitional fossils exist that connect the old forms to the modern ones.
quote:
Perhaps (that's a big perhaps) what needs to be reevaluated is how we interpret the fossil record itself because you would not predict hundreds of millions of years of stasis if we are all evolved from the same common ancestor.
I don't see how having a common ancestry necessarily means we would predict no stasis. If some branch of our giant family tree wandered into a comfortable niche, there's no selective pressure for that species to change.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 4/23/2008 6:30:59 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6728
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Depends on how many 'many' is. There are also many examples of change-over-time. There are no austrolopithecenes alive today. No tyrannosaurs. No eohippi, trilobites, megatheria, ad infinitum. Some of these went extinct leaving no similar relatives, other things have modern relatives living today in a different form. Transitional fossils exist that connect the old forms to the modern ones.
Well, they certainly all 'went extinct', which is a particularly unfortunate sort of change (especially eohippi, which would make particularly good pets) but whether they are particularly ancestral to anything is another question.
Indeed, one interesting thing about trilobites is not only did they 'go extinct', but the variability within the class seems to have decreased over time. Natural selection winnowed them, it didn't promote variety.
quote:
I don't see how having a common ancestry necessarily means we would predict no stasis. If some branch of our giant family tree wandered into a comfortable niche, there's no selective pressure for that species to change.
Well, if 'common ancestry' is a product of evolution, which is itself the product of gradual changes being acted upon by NS, then those organisms which weren't gradually changing and being acted upon by NS would seem excluded from that tree, or at least only a side note to it.
Indeed, considering those organisms that display stasis, like jellyfish, sponges, various arthropods, etc, major portions of the trunk of our presumed family tree would seem to have been 'comfortable' for some time.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 4/24/2008 9:42:53 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 487
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Depends on how many 'many' is. There are also many examples of change-over-time. There are no austrolopithecenes alive today. No tyrannosaurs. No eohippi, trilobites, megatheria, ad infinitum. Some of these went extinct leaving no similar relatives, other things have modern relatives living today in a different form. Transitional fossils exist that connect the old forms to the modern ones.
Well, they certainly all 'went extinct', which is a particularly unfortunate sort of change (especially eohippi, which would make particularly good pets) but whether they are particularly ancestral to anything is another question.
Indeed, one interesting thing about trilobites is not only did they 'go extinct', but the variability within the class seems to have decreased over time. Natural selection winnowed them, it didn't promote variety.
No one ever said that natural selection increases variety.
quote:
quote:
I don't see how having a common ancestry necessarily means we would predict no stasis. If some branch of our giant family tree wandered into a comfortable niche, there's no selective pressure for that species to change.
Well, if 'common ancestry' is a product of evolution, which is itself the product of gradual changes being acted upon by NS, then those organisms which weren't gradually changing and being acted upon by NS would seem excluded from that tree, or at least only a side note to it.
How do you know they were not gradually changing? Didn't we go over this earlier in this thread? You must have really bad memory.
quote:
Indeed, considering those organisms that display stasis, like jellyfish, sponges, various arthropods, etc, major portions of the trunk of our presumed family tree would seem to have been 'comfortable' for some time.
How is this a problem?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 4/24/2008 11:43:04 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6728
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
How do you know they were not gradually changing? Didn't we go over this earlier in this thread? You must have really bad memory.
I have always loved this argument -"Well, we talked about this earlier, therefore I'm right!"
Afraid not...
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
