Before we begin, please, no Christians post this "young Earth" bull crap unless you have enough evidence to prove it's the more logical conclusion than the Old Earth.

Question About Evolution


Well, first let me say what doesn't make sense to me.

It does not make sense how there could be this many successful species of living things today via evolution given the age of the Earth. I just don't get it.

Doesn't evolution usually take hundreds of thousands of years? Here's why I don't get it:

According to what I've read, evolutionists believe everything came from one thing. Well, how long does it take for that ONE thing to become a living organism? hundreds of thousands of years? If so, then that's already hundreds of thousands of years. Then that living organism must become another, and another and another. Taking hundreds of thousands of years for each new successful species. And then at that, not every species makes it, so some die off, meaning the numbers drop down AGAIN. So that's hundreds of thousands of years to create just a few species, then some die off knocking the number of species alive even lower. This happens repeatedly as some species don't get the chance to adapt and die off.

Here's another variable I thought of: What's the average length of time for a specific environment to change for whatever reasons? I ask this because: If it takes hundreds of thousands of years for a species to adapt and evolve so they can survive in a specific environment, doesn't that mean that the environment must stay the same for hundreds of thousands of years as well? Because if it changes while a species is slowly adapting/evolving to fit that environment, the species may die off, or have to begin evolving AGAIN in a different direction, meaning it'll take hundreds of thousands of years yet again.





Here's another question: Do we have any evidence to support that there WAS enough time for all of these species? And I'm not talking about answers like "Well, the species are alive now, so that's evidence in itself!". And not to mention, it's very unlikely that evoltuion began RIGHT after the Earth formed. So that means that evoltion probably took a fraction of the Earth's age to get to the point it is now.

That's kind of like asking me to prove that my dislike of vegetables is why I'm short and me answering by saying "Well I'm short, so that's evidence in itself!".


Sorry for rammbling, but I just woke up, looked at my ceiling and started thinking about evolution, lol. So I decided to hop on the PC and post this.

Note: I'm not trying to disprove evolution. I'm trying to get rid of my skepticism, so I ask these questions about the things I find illogical.


Also, if you're going to tell me I'm looking at it wrong, don't just say it, explain why as well. There's nothing that I hate more than someone saying "You're looking at it wrong" and then leaving the topic.

I think of the Hubble Untra Deep Field, when I think of christians that actually want to defend the Universe is only 6 thousand years old. Maybe if "evolution" was never coined as a term for change, it wouldn't be such a conflict in the minds of some that proudly espouse themselves to be fundamentalists.

Well, regardless of if the Earth's age is what the Chritians or what the Scientists believe, I still find it unlikely. I mean, look how many species we've found, and there are still tons being found all the time.

Actually Zero, you're looking at millions of years for organisms to evolve not hundreds of thousands which makes the questions you asked that much more interesting; except for the adaptation ones. I think you will see signs of adaptation within generations of an environmental change occurring because those organisms which do not have the ability to adapt to the environment die off and only those that do have the opportunity to mate and multiply.

Firstly evolution does not occur at a constant rate. Changes can occur in surprisingly few generations.

Secondly species don't evolve one at a time. If one species splits into two you have doubled the number of species. If each of those species then split into two, then the four become 8 and so on you have a lot of species in a lot shorter time than you think.

Thirdly life has had BILLIONS of years to evolve.

You should read what Dr. Mendel wrote about this. I find his work to be the most accurate.

Hang on a sec. Zero, didn't you bring up this idea a few months back?
If I recall correctly, you were dead set against evolution then, too.



And isn't that the nature of evolution in a nutshell?

Species changing, or adapting, to changes in their environment or food supply? If a species fails to adapt ( "evolve") to the environment around it, it will soon be competing against other species, or variants that have adapted. Species that are better suited to the new environment.

Dude, months ago I was Christian, now I'm not. So whatever I posted months ago has no relevance now at all.



I'm not talking about simple changes. I'm talking about changes into a different species all together.




But still, it won't pick up much speed untill evolution has been occuring for some time.



How long has it been happening exactly? How do we know for sure? And how do we know it's enough time?



I agree it's faster than it seems, but is it fast enough?

...

Never mind.

Also, what about my questions regarding the environments themselves?

In my opinion, there are just SO many variables at play that NO ONE can make a very accurate guess as to how it all worked out.

The Earth has been around for billions.

What exactly are you saying takes 100s of thousands of years?



As I understand it, the biochemical evidence strongly suggests that all extant species share a single common ancestor.



The theory of evolution by natural selection has nothing to say about how, when, and where the first living thing or things arose. It only accounts for how one species can develop into many. The fact is, nobody knows how, when, or where Earth life started. I'd say nobody has even the slightest idea. There are hypotheses, but we just don't know.

That doesn't affect Darwinian theory, though.

For one species to become another. Or to split into another. Hey, I just realized something else that knocks down the number of species. Some species evolve into a new species, and those that do not evolve into this new species die off. So that means there was no gain.



Then what I said was right.



I didn't say it would affect it, I just have a few questions that I think are odd. Just wondering the answers. It's more to do with the "how" it ended up like it is today with this many species, and a few other things that can be left for other topics(Consciousness, etc).

I'm a Christian and don't believe in the 6 thousand year Earth To know the artist you must know the art, mkay?

That depends on several factors. Do a Google search for speciation rate. Mostly it's to do with rates of mutation, selection, and environmental change. I think all of these are variable.



I don't follow this.

I think good places to start reading about evolution are Adaptation and Selection by George C. Williams or The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Either book will give you a good idea of what Darwinian theory is, and we could go from there.

What about the coelacanth, which never evolved but other species evolved from it? And sharks? And alligators? And mice? They've been around, some since the dawn of Triassic Period, and they're still with us, although they have many descendants.

What do you mean how long has it been happening? It's always been happening. It's happening now.

The whole thing about everything coming from one organism is simple. The one organism flourishes in its environment, and eventually starts to migrate, causing different organisms that moved to different climates, ect. to make different adaptations. This does not mean the original has to die first.

The earth is thought to be 4.6 BILLION years old. There are one-thousand millions in a billion. There are one-thousand thousands in a million. That is alot of time.

Put it this way. Here's an example of what I meant:

You can't double the amount of species on Earth, if you start off with one, and they all become a new one. Then there is still only one species. Same happens if some of that one species evolves into a new one, but the old species dies off.





......

I mean, how long has it been since the very first spark which started evolution happened? I know that evolution is always happening, because life already exists.



I didn't say it did. You're not following the point of this topic. What I stated was that this happens in some cases of evolution. Some of one species may evolve into a new species, but if the old species dies off, instead of adding to the number of species in existence, it stays the same. Same happens if one entire species changes into a new one.

I'm talking about the amount of species in existence. In my opinion it seems hard to grasp that there could be THIS many species in existence in the ammount of timed assumed. Especially being that evolution is alot of trial and error.

The "old" species does not always die off.

Hypothetically:
Say there is a family of monkies in some moderate temperature climate. Doesnt get too cold, doesn't get too hot, and they are well adapted to this. Let's say some of the family goes to the north and lives in weather that is somewhat colder. Some of the ones that moved might die, but there might be small differences that help others survive, like slightly thicker fur. Monkies who survive will reproduce. Their offspring will recieve their genes, getting the thicker fur. The same will happen with this new generation as they continue to move to colder climates.

After all this, (hundreds of thousands of years later) the monkies that live in the moderate climate are still alive. The monkies that live in the cold climate are alive as well, the are just adapted to the weather. They have longer fur and other adaptations which help them to live in the cold. They are so different that they are considered a different species. There are now 2 species of monkies. (Remember, this is all hypothetical.)

Do you mean how did the frst life get to earth? Some scientists think it came in an asteroid, I forgot the other theories.

Life began on Earth relatively early in its history. The Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and the earliest reliable evidence of life is from 3.5 billion years ago (stromatolites from cyanobacteria). However eukaryotic organisms, which make up (nearly) all complex life we know of today, didn't arrive on the scene until 2 - 1.5 billion years ago.

For the sake of argument let's use 1.5 billion years. Also let's assume 10 million years to evolve the amount of difference you require between organisms. So you have 1 organism then 10 million years later you have that organism plus another that has evolved new traits. Maths will tell you that there are approx 1.43 x 10^45 possible different organisms (1.5 billion/10 million = 150, therefore you have 2^150 'evolutions'.)

There is easily enough time to evolve all the species currently on Earth and that have ever been on Earth even allowing for extinctions. Of course my example is very simplistic and evolution doesn't work so straightforwardly, but you get the idea that 1.5 billion years is a very long time (it would take you over 15* years to count to 1.5 billion - non-stop and without sleeping - at 3 numbers/second).

* Had to edit this as my initial calculation was for counting to 3.5 billion. Sorry.

Dude, you're saying the same thing that I am. I know it DOES happen. What I was pointing out was that I found yet another variable that comes into play when trying to calculate how evolution created all of the species alive today in the time given. One of those variables would be that some species do end up dying off. There's so many variables at play it's crazy. I'm starting to think it is impossible to know for sure how long evolution would have needed to create this many species.



WHAAAT? Lol, dude.. I clearly stated that what I wanted to know was "How long ago did evolution begin". Meaning, when exactly did life start on Earth. That way we know how long evolution has been at work on Earth.

EDIT: I'll post more tomorrow. Too tired to even think straight.

Zero of Deism,
I'm not on this site that often, so if you've already spoken to this just ignore me. You said you were formerly a christian. What changed that!? If I may be so bold.

You need to learn evolutionary theory before you try to critique it.

I was going to post this last night but Firefox decided to explode on me. So anyway...

Evolution is not evenly distributed. Nature doesn't go, "Now, all you monkeys and coelocanths have to make sure you evolve at the same rate or else I'll get really mad!" It happens in spurts, it happens slowly. One organism evolves while the other stays the same. The organism that evolves needs to evolve and adapt to survive, the one that doesn't survives just fine as is. Look at sharks. They are a very successful organism and have been around for millions of years. Because of their success, they didn't need to evolve much beyond what they already are. Same with most insects. Especially cockroaches.

And like boorite said, people really need to learn something about evolutionary theory before they critique it. It's just like if I told a structural engineer that his building is going to fall down when I don't know the first thing about engineering.

The evolutionary rates are never equal,and not all of the originating species die off once a new species (or *adaptation*) occurs.

The process of evolution is very much like a family tree.You start out with a common ancestor,and along the way you have the children marrying off with members of other families (and even sometimes mating within their own family...which also happens amongst the animal species).Some of these marriages result in a continuation of a family line directly,some produce offspring belonging to a different family line,while others do not produce any offspring...resulting in a "dead" branch.

Now...due to minor differences in genetic makeup,new offspring will carry bits of genetic traits from *both* parents,technically a new adaptation.This is a continuous process,and can easily be seen...just look around you the next time you're somewhere out in public with a lot of other people.Take a good look at all of the people you can see.You'll quickly notice how different some are from yourself and others.

Also,notice that genetic traits passed from parents to children can lead to the child having inherited immunities and/or disorders.

As others have stated,it doesn't always take hundreds of thousands of years before an adaptation in a species can occur.An adaptation can occur within a few generations and even decades.There are so many variables which can be involved in the leading to and process of an adaptation,that it can be a bit mind-boggling to attempt to understand the whole process of adaptation (evolution).

Truthfully,with all of the variables involved in the adaptation processes,I highly doubt that anyone will ever be able to figure out the exact moment that life began on Earth.All we can know is that it *did* happen,which is why we (and all of the animal and plant life) are here.

It would be an exercise in futility to attempt to figure out exactly when life started on Earth,since we currently do not know all of the possible variables involved or the exact time frames for each adaptation in each of the species.

So,it's probably best to just sit back and quit worrying about attempting to find the answer to that question for now.Science may not be able to explain everything at the moment...but given enough time,it just might.Chances are that it will not happen any time within our lives though.

But I do have to say this...in the above quote is two questions,not one."How long ago did evolution begin?",and "When did life start on Earth".The latter I gave an explanation for above,but for the former...the answer would most likely be "From the moment that life began".

Actually, eukaryotes and protists (slime molds) showed up 2.2 billion years ago and green algae (kingdom Plantae) showed up 1.7 billion years ago.

So yeah, you were right. I just am a bit nitpicky. Since I spent ten years on it. And I think the age of the life on earth has recently been increased by .3 billion years.

Zeestien you come up with the most interesting inquirys

You need to learn more about evolution. Seriously, it doesn't seem like anything anyone is saying is registering to you, you just keep repeating the same things over and over.

I know that. That is one theory.

No, it's because I keep repeating myself because when I ask a question, some of you give me an answer that has absolutely nothing to do with my question.

I'm not knowledgeful about evolution, but that's not why I repeated some of the questions.

Most of them are answered, but I also posted in another topic called "Mysteries of Evolution" if you can find it.

If you are referring to the Greenland 'sedimentary' rocks with graphite in then I would point you to this link and this article as well.
I know they are from 2002 and you might have more recent info (link please, if you have ) but the origin and age of these rocks is still in doubt. Not being nitpicky or anything...

Wherever life originated is still a mystery. It is here though, from what means is anyone's guess. It is theorized that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old.... I wouldn't doubt if it were trillions of years old. But even for billions of years, there would be ample time to evolve as the earth has, even with whole species being exterminated. The earth wastes no time doing its thing, life flourishes here. It takes an asteroid or comet to do some serious damage, but even that does not stop it. Evolution makes perfect sense to me, even if all life on earth was flown here from another planet, that life just evolved somewhere else. Evolution is just the nature of things, it is non-stop and it will never end, ever.

Zero of Deism - If you don't beleive that the World and life had had enough time to evolve, why do you suggest we are here like we are today. I'd be interested in hearing your suggestions as to why we "fast forwarded" in your eyes, through time.

I think you'll find that the earth is millions of years old not hundreds of thousands!

Zero, go to ExChristian.net - Dr Zach Moore is a member there and is a microbiologist specializing in evolution - he can probably answer any questions that you have - Da Wolf

One does not need an alternate explaination to question an explaination. My answer to you would be "I don't know", because I have no evidence in support of any ideas of why we "fast forwarded", if we even did.. I was just wondering how there were so many species in existence, when there are so many variables at play which can set evolution back a notch or two, and the fact that the Earth is only a few billion years old.(Though this may be long enough... -shrugs-)




When did I say it was hundreds of thousands of years old? Isn't it billions?

The variables would not necessarily mean that evolution would be set back,in fact,the variables would tend to push evolution ahead.

From what I've read of your posts,Zero,you tend to be of the mind that once a new adaptation happens within a species (i.e. a new species develops)...the old species dies off,leaving only the new species.This is far from the norm,although it has probably happened a lot over time.But,there would be plenty of cases showing that even though a new species developed from an older species (or two),the originating species *didn't* die off immediately.The originating species may have at a later point,due to factors such as being prey for some larger species,lack of food sources (even battling other species for the same food sources),or even a lack of breeding stock (a necessity for the continuation of a species).

I hope this helps explain things a little bit more.

Ahahahahahaha! *keels over laughing*

"Only" a few billion years old. That's great, really. I mean, I know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and the earth is "only" 4.6 billion years old, but...

* = one year

********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** **********

The above is a thousand years. Now multiply that by one million and you have less than 1/4 the age of the earth and less than 1/3 the age of life on earth.

As someone pointed out earlier, it doesn't necessarily take millions of years for a species to evolve. And "evolving" doesn't necessarily mean that they go from swimming to walking in one leap. It can happen with mutation, but in general, it's small steps over time. And the time is variable, it doesn't have to be exactly a certain number of years. Like I said earlier, nature doesn't go "everyone evolve at the same time!"

You can stop being an ass and making fun of people. And I'm not talking about one species. I'm talking millions of species, coupled with all of the set backs, like extinctions, etc... You make it out to be much more simple than it actually is.

It's too hard to calculate. It just SEEMED to me that with all of these setbacks, and exstinctions, etc, etc, etc.. it's odd that we have so many species.

With the amount of time involved,even with the many variables involved,the extinctions may have been fewer than you'd expect,the same goes for any setbacks.

Remember too,that all species will do what they can to continue their species...and at the same time,attempt to adapt to changing conditions.

There are so many influences and variables,yet I'd say these were more likely responsible for the acceleration of evolution rather than setting it back.

Also, we must note that the age of the Earth says absolutely nothing about how long evolution has been at work on this planet. Whatever started life on Earth may have even appeared when the Earth was 1/3 the age it is now. I seriously doubt it appeared right after the Earth formed. That would be a wild coincidence and abit lucky for planet Earth(That would give it the ability to become abundent with life at an Early age).

Dude, without you suggesting alternative possibilities for this mass evolution over thee billions of years, all that can be said is this -

Ofcourse it's possible cos we're all here.

I already stated while that kind of comment does not prove or support anything. Read my first page.

It's like saying the toothfairy is real because money appeared under my pillow. I don't need an alternative before I can say "I doubt it's the actual toothfairy". You're looking at it BACKWARDS.

For instance, we're now questioning the big bang theory. We don't need an alternative right off the bat, and I don't think we even have one yet.

Life seems to have begun on Earth almost as soon as conditions permitted, i.e., just after the era of cosmic bombardment (ECB). That is indeed a remarkable "coincidence." It leads me to think that something occurred other than a trial-and-error process of atoms and molecules bumping into each other until the first peptide chains formed by chance and somehow assembled themselves into proteins. Here are some ideas that could explain how Earth life took hold so quickly.

1. Life first formed at submarine volcanic vents during a time when cosmic bombardment made conditions at or near the surface unsuitable for life. As soon as the ECB was over, submarine life spread to the surface. This idea is consistent with the fact that organisms thought to be most similar to the oldest forms of life on Earth are still found at submarine volcanic vents.

2. Life or its rudiments first formed elsewhere in the universe and was deposited on Earth aboard cosmic debris during the ECB. This is called the Panspermia Hypothesis.

3. Some sort of "self-organizing" principle exists which makes the "random" assemblage of self-replicating molecules far, far likelier than it seems.

One, all, or any combination of these possibilities would explain how life arose so quickly on Earth. Or maybe something else will explain it. Right now it's simply unknown.

I'm not trying to be an ass. I just find it ridiculous that you're saying billions of years is possibly "not enough time" for so many species to evolve. I'm getting sick of repeating myself over and over when I say that for a species to evolve, it doesn't necessarily HAVE to take millions of years. It can happen in one generation. And the life of other species doesn't follow human life cycles either. Look at the fruit fly, for crying out loud! They only live about one day. Cats live for 15-20 years. Some tortoises live hundreds of years. There is no set time interval for evolution to occur. And despite your claims of all the "set backs" like extinctions and the millions of species on the planet, evolution is a not as convoluted as make it out to be. It can be just as simple as it is.

And I was only trying to point out that your "only a few billion years" is like saying there's "only a few people" in Singapore. There's more than enough time for species to arise, evolve, branch off from each other to become new species (one branches to two, two to four, four to eight, eight to sixteen, etc), and die out only for new species to fill the niche and arise, evolve, branch off, etc.




The earth is 4.6 billion years old. The age of life on earth is 3.3 billion years old. 1/3 the age of the earth is less than the age of life on earth. The sooner you realize the actual time involve and realize what I said above, as well as what boorite and others have said, the sooner you'll be able to accurately theorize on earth's age and evolution. Because as I see it right now, you can't even get the fundamentals down.

I will post with this, and this only.


Considering how long we know and understand that it takes for a geographical and astronomical event to take place, we can very well age the earth. We can also age the earth based on radioactive decay..which isn't a theory by the way.


The one problem I have with religion is that all they have to say is something along the lines of: God did it!

They expect science to prove itself when they have to say three simple and ignorant words.


The Earth is billions of years old, and human life on Earth has been for maybe 5,000 of those. Humans are insignificant in the geographical evolution of Earth. INSIGNIFICANT!

Now the dinosaurs..wooo!... also insignificant

No one asked you to repeat it. I got it the first time. AGain I repeat, with all of the variables at play, I've come to realize that NO ONE can say for sure if there was enough time. Not even you. I can't say there wasn't enough time either. I just pointed out that it seemed ODD TO >ME< that we have so many species on Earth. Accuse me of not being able to grasp the fundamentals when you can't even grasp this topic and the meaning behind it. It's so obviously right in your face. Not only that, but I mentioned and even showed evidence in my posts that I knew what you were talking about. Yet you ignored that and still pretended.

When is someone going to answer my questions about the environments themselves?



This topic has nothing to do with religion. Please keep it to a minimal. We'll end up getting crazy debates about pointless topics such as the bible(Just an opinion).

Not from what I'm reading.



Except the fact that life on earth exists and has existed in all its diversity seems to say otherwise.



And I'm saying you shouldn't try to poke holes in a theory and discipline you seem to know nothing about. It would be like me trying to prove that the Empire State Building is going to collapse tomorrow when I have no knowledge of structural engineering.

I grasp the topic all right. Not to mention the subject material. And I have yet to see anything more from you other than conjecture that doesn't really say anything and only shows that you haven't even studied evolutionary science enough to be able to say what you're saying.