Evolving species.

1. 64

   aka-djposted 15 years ago

   Here's another one for you evolutionists. A "please explain" question. If the earth is only a few hundred million years old, (make that billion, no matter) how is it that we have not seen ANY substancial species arise within the known history of modern man. And I don't mean what might be termed "micro" evolution, but rather "maco".
   Now this question is intended to have you start your calculations from day "DOT", when the first spark of life appeared, and take it all the way to here and now. On the surface it looks simple enough, but given the number of species on the planet, there should have been a substantial number.
   One scource of estimates of species numbers is found here; http://www.wri.org/

   replyreport
2. 57

   Mark Knowlesposted 15 years ago

   
   
   OK - Age of earth = 4 billion years.
   
   Scientifically recorded history of man - 120 years?
   
   Just exactly how many were you expecting when you say "substantial numbers" ?
   
   Plus - we are still discovering new species all the time:
   
   http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2008/02/ … ant-shrew/
   
   How do you know this one didn't evolve last year?

   replyreport
   1. 78

      BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Is it a really new species or is it sub-species of a known creature?  It was hard to tell from the article?
      
      And to exactly answer your questions, we know it didn't evelove last year (2008) because it was discovered three years ago (2006)... meaning that the latest, the FSM caused it to evolve was in late 2005.
      
      EDITED FOR GRAMMER  - GOTTA QUIT MULTITASKING

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         LOL
         Figure of speech. Last year in evolutionary terms..........

         replyreport
   2. 85

      kerrygposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Even if we're being extremely generous, the recorded history of man only goes back about 4000 years and has been spotty at best even in the cultures with the most prolific written records. Science has been a major preoccupation in only a few relatively brief eras, including ancient Greece and Rome, medieval Islam, the Mayan civilization, Europe since the Renaissance, and scattered periods in Chinese history, and the primary focus of many of these periods has been astronomy, not biology.
      
      However, what you (aka-dj, not Mark, obviously) call "micro" evolution is observable all around us, so I don't really understand why the fact that it's "micro" is somehow a mark against the reality of "macro" evolution. Lots of little micro changes turned eohippus into a horse - the eohippi didn't just decide one day they wanted to be taller and prettier.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Well, according to dj - at least I think this is his point - We should have seen new species evolving before our very eyes. Although 4,000 years is only a millionth of the age of the earth, the very fact that we have not witnessed these new species emerge is proof. Of something.
         
         I am beginning to think it is the calling evolution into question rather than the getting of an answer that is important here.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            kerrygposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, that's my impression too. Personally I assume we as a species have seen many new species develop over the course of our existence, but simply have not had the knowledge to recognize it or the records to record it if we did. Very small changes that combine over time to make big ones are hard to recognize even over short periods of time. For a totally non-scientific example, I don't think my 2 year old daughter's appearance has changed much at all in the last year, but when I look at pictures from her first birthday I can see that it's really changed a lot. Over geologic time scales, when you're relying - at best - on word of mouth passed down from elders and occasional descriptions or paintings, I don't think it's any surprise at all that we haven't recognized the creation of new species from old. Actually, i would be surprised if we had.

            replyreport
3. 63

   RKHenryposted 15 years ago

   This is on the lines of evolution, but what of the Alien theory of creation?  Could it be possible that "God" is an Alien?  That Aliens brought us here.  That we are in no way connected to apes?  Its a theory that seems to be gaining lots of ground.  I'm not talking Scientology either.  I don't know to much about their creation story.  But what about Aliens?  What about the overwhelming scientific archeology connecting the Mayans and the habitants of Easter Island to Aliens?  Could Aliens be the source of creation?

   replyreport
4. 60

   knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

   "Could Aliens be the source of creation?"
   Has to be a possibilty don't it. The universe is a mighty big and old place.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Sufidreamerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Cannot write it off - I read too many Arthur C. Clarke books.

      replyreport