Pax Christi everybody!
Why did the dinosaurs take the reigns after The Permian Extinction?
GIYF. . . .
1 Like
Dinosaurs becoming dominant really took until ~210 MYA. The main reasons would include Dinosauria being a very diverse group and well-adapted to conditions. Now why it was dinosaurs, and not (e.g.) a synapsid or pseudocrocodilian group that became dominant, would be impossible to determine.
1 Like
I canât help wondering why ask why? They could as @Paraleptopecten detailed, so they did. I donât think they were carrying out a plan. It is just what happened. So why âwhyâ?
1 Like
To be honest, Iâm not entirely sure. I guess I just wanted to ask the perspective of someone here.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Evolution, guided by the wisdom of God, created the dinosaurs as very well adapted to the environment of the earth at that time so they were fruitful. They were also very diverse groups so they adapted to many different niches and filled the earth.
They were carrying out part of Godâs plan, as the precursor for mammals.
Why? Because life is rational and purposeful.
1 Like
Weâll never agree about that. A more creative creator may work more like Jackson Pollock than a logistics engineer. Of course neither of us will ever know for certain. Besides I donât think is about turning out atoms, galaxies and cells. I think the world He creates is the one He holds together in our consciousness.
1 Like
@Paraleptopecten @Combine_Advisor
What do you have against engineers? On the other hand it seems to me that Jackson Pollock definitely had a plan.
If I read John 1:1 - 3 correctly one could say rightly that Jesus Christ, the Logos was the Fatherâs plan. We must be careful not to read our biases into Godâs mind.
It is not about only the physical, but the physical is the foundation of our world. We need the physical on which to build the rational and the spiritual, so it is very important also. It is Godâs Plan or Purpose, Jesus Christ, the Logos which holds together and gives Meaning to the world in our mind. Without Him we are lost.
1 Like
In Christian theology traditionally, the physical in not the foundation of our world. The spiritual is the foundation of our world - foundation meaning the upholding principle. This means the spiritual is necessary on which to build the physical and the rational. Within Christian theology, it is Godâs plan or purpose expressed in Jesus Christ who is physical but grounded in the spiritual as the foundation (as the creeds say: proceeding from the Father). The logos is the divine plan (thus spiritual) that gives form and meaning.
1 Like
Nothing at all. But when I imagine that which is greater than us I do not picture a cosmic watchmaker or accountant. I donât mean to disparage those occupations. I simply find them inadequate symbolically for what is most importantly greater than us.
2 Likes
How about âour Father Who reigns in Heaven?â
1 Like
Fine if it captures what it is for you. Iâll stick to âsilent partnerâ as it reminds me that I have to hold up my end of it too.
1 Like
The dinosaurs first appear in the mid to upper Triassic, but donât take over as the clear dominant forms until the late Triassic extinctions (multiple pulses) wiped out most of the possible competitors. Itâs possible that the dinosaurs had some specific physiological or behavioral features that helped them to make it through, perhaps the degree of efficient breathing that enables birds to fly well. But of course, one could simply go back a step and ask why were the dinosaurs the ones to have that, instead of the rauisucians or aetosaurs or dicynodonts or whatever.
1 Like
@paleomalacologist David, there are two important questions here.
-
Why did the dinosaurs take over? You say and I agree that they took over because they were better adapted to the environment of that time. This is very different from survival of the fittest which says that species survive because of their conflict with each other.
-
Why is there a succession of environmental changes and extinctions that have marked the natural history of the earth as we know it? This indicates a plan whereby the Creator of the universe setup a process whereby God was able to create an observer who is able to appreciate the structure of the universe.
We need to discuss these questions more.
1 Like
Sorry, no. You are still misunderstanding.
Where is the conflict between the two climbers? Their struggles are against their respective environments, not each other.
Maybe not.
1 Like
Nonsense! This doesnât follow at all and not what survival of the fittest means.
2 Likes
(There seems to be no tag associated with that reply â to whom did you mean to direct it?)
1 Like
Yes, the way it is set up, there is no conflict, but this scenario has nothing to do about real life and nothing to do about survival of the fittest. Climbing mountains has nothing to do about how real people live real life and survival of the fittest as defined by Darwin as the result of the struggle of members of a species for scarce resources.
Instead we need to examine how modern humans interacted with the Neanderthals in Europe during and after the Ice Age. I do not think they killed them off, but they did apparently squeeze them out because they were better adapted to the environment.
While doing research on the internet I came across this theory on a Smithsonian website: Environmental variability hypothesis: The hypothesis that adaptation to a variable environment, rather than a static environment or directional change, has characterized human evolution. It is a non-survival of the fittest natural selection model which seems to have much promise.
As I said Darwin defined natural selection as survival of the fittest in the Origin and said it was based on the struggle for survival. The problem is that this hypothesis has never been proven, although the statistical basis for it has not been disputed (although it does not follow.)
Dawkins, the defender of Darwinian fundamentalism, defends survival of the fittest. and many others seem to follow him, while others use the term without its meaning substituting chaos for science. BioLogos seems to follow Dawkins separating it from promising research that is going on as mentioned above. This is why we need to study natural selection instead of being satisfied with the status quo. .
1 Like
You might notice, nowhere did I say that the environment could not contain multiple members of the same species or others, including predators. You are insisting that âsurvival of the fittestâ denotes that more than one of any species in an environment inherently makes them enemies with every other creature. It does not and you remain mistaken. You also appear to preclude symbiotic relationships.
A creature and its fitness struggles first and foremost against its environment for survival, whether it is solitary in that environment or it includes multitudes of others. Some of those species and not necessarily all of which may be part of the environment against which it struggles, and others, also part of its environment, actually aiding it to survive, to their mutual benefit.
2 Likes
@Dale, for some r4eason you are not hearing what I am saying.
Darwin and Spencer said that that survival of the fittest is the struggle for scarce resources against others of the same species. I know that this is false. You know that this is false and many others do too, but there are still many scientists who still hold on to Darwinâs point of view.
If I were God and I am very glad I am not, might be able just to change this by fiat, but God does not work this way. What we need to do in my opinion is find a label for natural selection, such as survival of the better adapted, which both tells the story and differentiates it from survival of the fittest.
Also we need to point out that adaptation only works when we work with the environment and with others so we maximize the benefits for all. It is the opposite of the science of the Selfish Gene.
1 Like