Short but sweet article … I was surprised to learn how long it took for oxygen to reach livable levels!
"Prof. David Catling (University of Washington Earth and Space Sciences), added: “Oxygen was like a slow fuse to the explosion of animal life. Around 635 Ma, enough oxygen probably existed to support tiny sponges. Then, after 580 Ma, strange creatures shaped like pizzas lived on a lightly oxygenated seafloor. Fifty million years later, vertebrate ancestors were gliding through oxygen-rich seawater.”
635 Million Years Ago … barely enough.
580 Million Years Ago … moderate levels.
530 Million Years Ago … highly oxygenated ocean supporting vertebrate ancestors…
The full paper.
Need I say anything more about the role of the environment and the development of life? This is the Achilles heel of neoDarwinism and the source of ecological evolution.
I have to say, Roger, I’m not quite following you. I completely agree with you regarding the importance of ecology in Evolution. But I’m a little skeptical that neo-Darwinists completely ignore ecology.
Could it be they just don’t find it as interesting as you do?
Question for you: I know of no neo-Darwinist that says ecology is unimportant or irrelevant. Do you?
New article about descent with modification. What do you think? http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-evolution-of-creationism-in-schools-20151217-story.html
Funny title to the article, Patrick!
Study tracks the evolution of pro-creationism laws in the U.S.
Reply: Yes. Please give me an example of how neo-Darwinists think ecology is important to evolution.
Virtually every comprehensive treatment of Evolution I’ve ever read acknowledges that Ecological factors are part of the equation.
Didn’t we just read a discussion of how oxygen levels affected the ability of diverse life forms to proliferate? I’m thinking you are trying to emphasize a point that no Evolutionary scientist would disagree with.
If you are going to continue to protest this suggestion, please list your top 3 examples of Ecological factors … your FAVORITE THREE if you like. And I will produce three commentaries that describe your three ecological factors in an evolutionary context.
You do not understand the difference between discussing evolution in general, and discussing it in relationship to Neo-Darwinian theory.
The oxygenation of the atmosphere created evolution of creatures with lungs. This is not an evolutionary factor. This is a meta-evolutionary factor that Darwin never anticipated. Dawkins is definitely anti-ecology in his understanding of evolution.
Please give me your three Darwinian explanations of how symbiosis produces evolution or if you can how evolution produces symbiosis.
I don’t either. I am well versed on the latest findings in fossils, genetics. I haven’t seen anything that go against the statement that evolution is a fact.
A better way of saying this is "the oxygenation of the atmosphere allowed the survival of creatures that developed lungs"
Darwin didn’t anticipate 20th and 21st century technology because he lived in the 19th century. Why is it important what Darwin understood about evolution? I had the original idea and published it in his origins of the species book. Do you really expect him to anticipate the fossil finds of the next 150 years as well as genetics, and technology that can scan and reconstruct a fossil with 3D printing?
Darwin’s been dead over a hundred years. Why don’t you ask Newton for three explanations of spacetime around a black hole event horizon?
Darwin did not discover evolution. The idea was alive before him. Darwin gave us a way to understand how evolution works. If that way is faulty, then Darwin theory e4as faulty.
Newton’s understanding of physics has been replaced by Einstein’s. Darwin’s ideas have not been replaced and scientists continue to argue that his model for evolution is still correct.
Darwin wanted his ideas to be accepted like Newton’s. Being accepted also means being replaced by better ideas. That is what I am trying to do so we can stop this senseless argument and get on with saving the planet.
Darwin divided evolution into two aspects, Variation and Natural Selection. He and his followers got Variation pretty well right. It is the Natural Selection which is the problem. Now if you have anything to contribute in the area of Natural Selection, please do so.
Roger, I’m definitely going to need your definition of for the difference between an “Evolutionary Factor” and a “Meta-Evolutionary Factor”. This would not be necessary if you just provided me your favorite three ecological factors.
But you apparently think it’s clever to “test” me. I give up. I have no idea what you mean by “Meta-Evolutionary”. Is this YOUR concept? It sounds like it might be.
Meta is a prefix which means “beyond.” Ecology is not an evolutionary factor, because it is beyond evolution. It is the cause of evolution, not a factor within it. That is what evolutionists like yourself refuse to understand and why their understanding is wrongheaded.
Roger, you do seem to be fairly stingy in this thread’s exploration of YOUR views…
I know what “meta” means… Defining meta doesn’t seem to be a good way to define what a “Meta-Evolutionary Factor” is. But let’s assume that’s the best you can do.
We have already identified Oxygen as one of these Meta-Evolutionary Factors; I asked for three.
So… please name two more for the three I was looking for … and I will see if I can find ordinary evolutionary scientists who happily INCLUDE these factors in their evolutionary discussions.
I think you will be delighted with how much smarter evolutionary scientists have become since Darwin…
You still don’t get it and I am tired of trying to explain it to you.
Roger, I think it is clear to most readers of this discussion that you are being evasive… intentionally mysterious.
I have asked you to name 3 of your favorite meta-evolutionary factors… so that we could see whether evolutionary scientists are REALLY ignoring these most precious factors … or if you just like to rage against a purportedly inadequate status quo of scientific views.
I have asked you for these 3 factors more than once. And yet it appears that you think if you don’t list them, then you can still post your complaints with impunity.
So, in the spirit of Christmas, why don’t I suggest the three factors on your behalf.
- Oxygen - we have already confirmed that this is a meta-evolutionary factor.
- Temperature - - temperature, like oxygen, is a basic ecological factor.
- Water Depth - - for marine-based plants and animals, water depth is also an ecological factor … it affects light availability, which affects food supply. This is definitely a bonus factor … since it has obvious influence on multiple factors.
Roger, how does this list sound? Unless I hear from you otherwise, I will assume that this list is adequate and I can proceed.
This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.