U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-29-2019, 08:29 PM
 
9,694 posts, read 9,434,843 times
Reputation: 12290

Advertisements

Hadn't thought of it this way before.


The Lost World
Extinction may be the first scientific idea that children today have to grapple with. We give one-year-olds dinosaurs to play with, and two-year-olds understand, in a vague sort of way, at least, that these small plastic creatures represent very large animals that once existed in the flesh. All of which is to say that extinction strikes us as an extremely obvious idea. It isn’t....
Much as Charles Darwin is often credited with having come up with the theory of evolution—his real insight, of course, involved finding a mechanism for evolution—so Cuvier can be said to have theorized extinction... Cuvier, though, is very nearly forgotten.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...e-lost-world-2
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-30-2019, 04:47 AM
 
1,050 posts, read 248,694 times
Reputation: 3780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cida View Post
Hadn't thought of it this way before.

The Lost World
Extinction may be the first scientific idea that children today have to grapple with. We give one-year-olds dinosaurs to play with, and two-year-olds understand, in a vague sort of way, at least, that these small plastic creatures represent very large animals that once existed in the flesh. All of which is to say that extinction strikes us as an extremely obvious idea. It isn’t....
Much as Charles Darwin is often credited with having come up with the theory of evolution—his real insight, of course, involved finding a mechanism for evolution—so Cuvier can be said to have theorized extinction... Cuvier, though, is very nearly forgotten.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...e-lost-world-2
That mechanism that Darwin proposed - natural selection - is the theory (of evolution). That term - the theory of evolution - is not some vague notion that all creatures are related and that change of species occurs, but that speciation occurs via specific means and that means has been subjected to rigorous testing to the extent that it presently warrants the label 'theory'. It was Darwin that first proposed such a testable hypothesis that then was validated by said testing.

That species change (ie, evolve) was an idea that long preceded Cuvier. The idea of common descent is to be found among the ancient Greeks, though the means of this were pretty scattershot. Muslim philosophers later mused on the notion that some survive to reproduce while others do not in a context of struggling for existence, and that humans may have descended from known (non-human) primates of the time. And, of course, there was Lamarck.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2019, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Mars City
5,289 posts, read 2,257,418 times
Reputation: 7767
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41 View Post
That mechanism that Darwin proposed - natural selection - is the theory (of evolution).
No, you're blurring two very different matters.

Natural selection is not a theory, but scientific fact. It's easily verified.

Evolution is something all together different, and which still remains a theory. There has been no scientific evidence to prove that species can become more complex on their own (the whole foundation of evolution). There is nothing in DNA that has creative and progressive intelligence or powers. DNA simply replicates what's there; it can't advance, learn, and become more complex. Evolution assumes that species/creatures can become progressively more complex over time, but no mechanism for that exists, or has been proven.

That Darwin mixed and combined natural selection and evolution shouldn't trip up people. Two different matters, one proven, one not.

As far as extinction goes, that can result from negative natural selection, and intrusive effects from other sources (human action, etc.) Extinction - like natural selection - can be seen and scientifically explained.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2019, 03:40 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
2,899 posts, read 1,126,024 times
Reputation: 6360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424 View Post
No, you're blurring two very different matters.

Natural selection is not a theory, but scientific fact. It's easily verified.

Evolution is something all together different, and which still remains a theory. There has been no scientific evidence to prove that species can become more complex on their own (the whole foundation of evolution). There is nothing in DNA that has creative and progressive intelligence or powers. DNA simply replicates what's there; it can't advance, learn, and become more complex. Evolution assumes that species/creatures can become progressively more complex over time, but no mechanism for that exists, or has been proven.

That Darwin mixed and combined natural selection and evolution shouldn't trip up people. Two different matters, one proven, one not.

As far as extinction goes, that can result from negative natural selection, and intrusive effects from other sources (human action, etc.) Extinction - like natural selection - can be seen and scientifically explained.

Darwin's "natural selection" is really just the special case applied to biology of the more general concept of Boltzmann (in probabilistic physics) that things exist they way they do simply because that's the most likely (mathematically speaking) status of things.


Extinction is usually (too simplistically) explained as being due to some extreme change in the environment, but it's really better illustrated by the mathematics programmed into the population equation for the species. On a fractal level, in the Gaia Hypothesis vein, that my well explain large die-offs too-- it's just "in the cards." https://www.springer.com/us/book/978...=9781475777093


Ever play the card game "War?" It takes awhile, but eventually someone will always lose all their cards. It's just chance. That's the real reason why two species can't occupy the same niche in the same biome.


If the sudden, giant meteor event at the KT boundary caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, why did it take the fossil record so many hundreds of thousands of yrs to become devoid of dinosaur bones?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2019, 07:24 PM
 
Location: Ohio
20,325 posts, read 14,453,925 times
Reputation: 16513
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41 View Post
That mechanism that Darwin proposed - natural selection - is the theory (of evolution).
It's only one facet of the theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424 View Post
Evolution is something all together different, and which still remains a theory. There has been no scientific evidence to prove that species can become more complex on their own (the whole foundation of evolution). There is nothing in DNA that has creative and progressive intelligence or powers. DNA simply replicates what's there; it can't advance, learn, and become more complex.
That's where you're wrong.

There's no requirement for DNA to be intelligent or possess special powers.

The primary mechanism of Evolution is mutation. Without mutation there can be no Evolution.

For every species existing now and in the past there is a rate of natural mutation unique to the species. If we relied solely on the rate of natural mutation, we wouldn't exist. The only thing on Earth would be single-celled organisms and perhaps some low order multi-cellular organisms.

Natural background radiation was the driver of Evolution. The amount of natural background radiation in the past was so intense you'd die after 20 minutes. Natural background radiation is the combination of decaying nuclear isotopes in Earth's crust -- including the sea floor -- and cosmic radiation from our Sun and stars --even distant stars 10s of 1,000s of light years away -- and consists of Helium atoms, electrons, fission fragments, protons, neutrons, hard and soft x-rays, hard and soft gamma rays and ultra-violet radiation.

With an energy of 1 MeV (1 Million electron volts) it will ionize 30,000 particles. More powerful particles in terms of MeV will ionize even more particles, and with energy less than 1 MeV fewer particles.

When one of those particles passes through a water molecule, it can eject an orbiting electron, so that H2O becomes HO- and H+. Those are ions and they have different properties and can combine with other atoms or molecules to form new chemical compounds.

The rate of natural background radiation has decreased over time due to stabilization of Earth's magnetosphere, the formation of the Ozone Layer and the decay of nuclear isotopes in Earth's crust and oceans to stable non-nuclear isotopes.

When DNA mutates, one of the following three things will happen:

1) The organism dies. That happens every single day of your life in your body. A cell in your liver, kidneys, lungs, bones, skin, whatever, mutates before cell-division or during cell-division and the two newly formed cells die.

For more complex organisms, like humans, we call it a miscarriage when it occurs during the 1st tri-semester, a spontaneous abortion when it occurs during the 2nd tri-semester and a still-birth during the 3rd tri-semester. Sometimes there is a live birth but the infant dies in hospital due to birth defects ---yes, mutations...that's what birth defects are, or dies before reaching sexual maturity and procreating.

2) No harm, no foul, because the mutation is benign.

We see that everywhere. There was a man named "J" and his son was a mutant, so we rename "J" to "J1" and name his mutant son "J2." Tens of thousands of years later, "J2" has a mutant son so we rename "J2" to "J-M172" and his mutant son to "J-441."

J-441 migrates to India and J-M172 migrates to Anatolia, so, yes, we can track not only human migration across Earth but plant and animal migration as well.

3) A new organism emerges. The mutation is beneficial and manifests itself internally or externally or both.

Only now does the process of Natural Selection begin.

The newly mutated organism will either survive in its ecosystem or carve out a niche to survive in its ecosystem, or it will not survive and die out.

An example of that happened 2 Billion years ago.

As Oxygen starts leaching from the ocean -- and there was only one ocean --into the atmosphere it started killing anaerobic bacteria en masse, because Oxygen is poison to anaerobic bacteria.

But, one anaerobic bacteria mutated to be able to tolerate Oxygen, and it survived and thrived.

Later, its progeny mutated to not merely tolerate Oxygen, but to consume Oxygen and incorporate it into its metabolism.

That's why we're here: All thanks to a mutation in bacteria.

There's a false paradigm that's been destroyed, and one you're apparently hung up on.

That false paradigm stemmed from the incorrect observation that species cannot interbreed and should they manage to do so, their progeny is sterile and cannot reproduce. Think horse and donkey and their progeny the sterile mule.

Because of that false paradigm, scientists were falsely misled for decades believing that Homo Neanderthalis and Homo Sapiens could not and did not interbreed.

The DNA evidence totally disproves that. Neanderthals and early Humans can and did interbreed and their progeny were not sterile.

In light of that, it's likely that inter-species breeding was far more prevalent in the past and could certainly account for morphological changes.

Even if that would not be true, DNA mutations can result in morphological changes in species.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
If the sudden, giant meteor event at the KT boundary caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, why did it take the fossil record so many hundreds of thousands of yrs to become devoid of dinosaur bones?
It didn't. Sedimentation is not an exact science. It's only a ball-park figure.

The rate of sedimentation is not now nor has it ever been uniform throughout Earth's history.

That should be more than obvious, since the rate of erosion has never been uniform across Earth.

Not only is the rate of erosion and sedimentation not uniform, the rate at which their states are altered are not uniform, so in one part of world you have chalk and another part you have limestone. Sandstone formations do not accrete at the same rate. No formations on Earth accrete at the same rate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2019, 12:18 AM
 
3,251 posts, read 2,303,679 times
Reputation: 3629
I sometimes wonder if Humans have a self destruct built into us at some point we either damage the earth so much no longer habitable, or we get into a nuclear war. We think we can change before it's too late, but reality is everything we do is mostly reactionary that's human nature. We are incapable of planning for a future meaning can only put so much junk into the air before something blows up in our face. Do you really think we all stop using combustion engines, or fossil fueled electric power plants just shut down. We argue about it until it's too late maybe already too late now.

We can't seem to get along we spend lot of time building weapons to kill one another eventually those weapons be used. At some point this world will reset and stamp out life new life will be born over the old.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2019, 01:09 AM
 
Location: San José, CA
3,378 posts, read 5,857,896 times
Reputation: 3501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424 View Post
No, you're blurring two very different matters.

Natural selection is not a theory, but scientific fact. It's easily verified.

Evolution is something all together different, and which still remains a theory. There has been no scientific evidence to prove that species can become more complex on their own (the whole foundation of evolution). There is nothing in DNA that has creative and progressive intelligence or powers. DNA simply replicates what's there; it can't advance, learn, and become more complex. Evolution assumes that species/creatures can become progressively more complex over time, but no mechanism for that exists, or has been proven.

That Darwin mixed and combined natural selection and evolution shouldn't trip up people. Two different matters, one proven, one not.

As far as extinction goes, that can result from negative natural selection, and intrusive effects from other sources (human action, etc.) Extinction - like natural selection - can be seen and scientifically explained.
My jaw dropped at this response. I recommend taking an introductory evolutionary course because this is rife with misunderstandings of what a theory is and how mutations themselves work. Where did you get this idea that DNA needed to be intelligent or creative?

A truly bizarre take on science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2019, 06:50 AM
 
Location: Maryland
2,025 posts, read 659,736 times
Reputation: 4485
This might be stating the obvious but I find confusion about this often arises in these types of conversations. For those not that familiar with science, please be aware of the following.

“A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:56 PM
 
Location: western East Roman Empire
6,738 posts, read 10,798,212 times
Reputation: 5979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cida View Post
Hadn't thought of it this way before.


The Lost World
Extinction may be the first scientific idea that children today have to grapple with. We give one-year-olds dinosaurs to play with, and two-year-olds understand, in a vague sort of way, at least, that these small plastic creatures represent very large animals that once existed in the flesh. All of which is to say that extinction strikes us as an extremely obvious idea. It isn’t....
Much as Charles Darwin is often credited with having come up with the theory of evolution—his real insight, of course, involved finding a mechanism for evolution—so Cuvier can be said to have theorized extinction... Cuvier, though, is very nearly forgotten.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...e-lost-world-2
Maybe, but about two thousand years ago Marcus Aurelius wrote about extinction of the human race, and there were many others centuries, perhaps even millennia, before him who contemplated it: it was obvious in the nature they observed.

Each generation, impressed with itself like so many narcissists, loves to think it has discovered the wheel.

It's like a cycle.

What?!?!?!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top