How Do Evolutionists Explain Mass Extinctions in their Theories?

[Dante Writer]

The evolutionists often defend their theories by saying it took billions of years for life to evolve into the forms we see today.

Actually, the majority of life forms we see today happened in the much much shorter space of less than 200 million years. That is a short space of time when you consider the massive amounts of evolution changes that would have had to occur. Modern humans are said to have evolved just 200,000 years ago.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

There have been 5 mass extinctions recorded in our history: https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth-sciences/big-five-extinctions

Your thoughts?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The evolutionists often defend their theories by saying it took billions of years for life to evolve into the forms we see today.

Actually, the majority of life forms we see today happened in the much much shorter space of less than 200 million years. That is a short space of time when you consider the massive amounts of evolution changes that would have had to occur. Modern humans are said to have evolved just 200,000 years ago.

How do these things contradict? It did take billions of years for life to evolve into the forms we see today. It's not as if the "evolution clock" somehow "reset" 200 million years ago and started anew - everything that evolved in the last 200 million or 200 thousand years is still the result of the billions of years that came before it.

There have been 5 mass extinctions recorded in our history:

End Cretaceous, 66 million years ago, 76% of all species lost
— Ammonite 15 cm length

The delicate leafy sutures decorating this shell represent some advanced engineering, providing the fortification the squid-like ammonite required to withstand the pressure of deep dives in pursuit of its prey. Dinosaurs may have ruled the land during the Cretaceous period but the oceans belonged to the ammonites. But volcanic activity and climate change already placed the ammonites under stress. The asteroid impact that ended the dinosaurs’ reign provided the final blow. Only a few dwindling species of ammonites survived. Today, the ammonites’ oldest surviving relative is the nautilus.

End Triassic, 200 million years ago, 80% of species lost
— Conodont teeth 1 mm

Palaeontologists were baffled about the origin of these toothy fragments, mistaking them for bits of clams or sponges. But the discovery of an intact fossil in Scotland in the 1980s finally revealed their owner – a jawless eel-like vertebrate named the conodont which boasted this remarkable set of teeth lining its mouth and throat. They were one of the first structures built from hydroxyapatite, a calcium-rich mineral that remains a key component of our own bones and teeth today. Of all the great extinctions, the one that ended the Triassic is the most enigmatic. No clear cause has been found.

End Permian, 251 million years ago, 96% of species lost
— Tabulate coral, 5 CM

Known as “the great dying”, this was by far the worst extinction event ever seen; it nearly ended life on Earth. The tabulate corals were lost in this period – today’s corals are an entirely different group. What caused it? A perfect storm of natural catastrophes. A cataclysmic eruption near Siberia blasted CO2 into the atmosphere. Methanogenic bacteria responded by belching out methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Global temperatures surged while oceans acidified and stagnated, belching poisonous hydrogen sulfide. “It set life back 300 million years,” says Schmidt. Rocks after this period record no coral reefs or coal deposits.

Late Devonian, 375 million years ago, 75% of species lost
— Trilobite, 5 cm length

Trilobites were the most diverse and abundant of the animals that appeared in the Cambrian explosion 550 million years ago. Their great success was helped by their spiky armour and multifaceted eyes. They survived the first great extinction but were nearly wiped out in the second. The likely culprit was the newly evolved land plants that emerged, covering the planet during the Devonian period. Their deep roots stirred up the earth, releasing nutrients into the ocean. This might have triggered algal blooms which sucked oxygen out of the water, suffocating bottom dwellers like the trilobites.

End Ordovician, 444 million years ago, 86% of species lost
— Graptolite 2-3 cm length
Graptolites, like most Ordovician life, were sea creatures. They were filter-feeding animals and colony builders. Their demise over about a million years was probably caused by a short, severe ice age that lowered sea levels, possibly triggered by the uplift of the Appalachians. The newly exposed silicate rock sucked CO2 out of the atmosphere, chilling the planet.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth-sciences/big-five-extinctions

Your thoughts?

About what, exactly?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why mass extinctions?
For various possible reasons, eg, massive vulcamism, meteor
strike, everyone had a really bad day....for many years.
Then, whoever was left recovered & persevered, often in new
directions because of altered environments & competition.

 

[Dante Writer]

How do these things contradict? It did take billions of years for life to evolve into the forms we see today. It's not as if the "evolution clock" somehow "reset" 200 million years ago and started anew - everything that evolved in the last 200 million or 200 thousand years is still the result of the billions of years that came before it.


"everything that evolved in the last 200 million or 200 thousand years is still the result of the billions of years that came before it."

No- when a species goes extinct there is no result (next generation) to continue that process.

It greatly limits the time frame allowed for a complex evolution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No- when a species goes extinct there is no result (next generation) to continue that process.

It greatly limits the time frame allowed for a complex evolution.

Sure, which is why the species which currently exist evolved from the species that didn't go extinct, which had been evolving since life first formed. So how is this an issue?

 

[Ouroboros]

6,000 year old Earth has been proven! Creationism is true! Why because evolution can't explain the 6 mass extinctions that happened billions of years before 6,000 years ago. Case settled. (/sarc)

Mass extinctions is not the same as complete annihilation. The largest mass extinction took out 90% of all life forms, but the 10% surviving flourished in the new conditions. Nothing strange here and not unexplainable at all.

 

[Dante Writer]

Sure, which is why the species which currently exist evolved from the species that didn't go extinct, which had been evolving since life first formed. So how is this an issue?

"the species which currently exist evolved from the species that didn't go extinct"

Now you are greatly limiting your gene pool which also reduces the number of different species that would result.

End Permian, 251 million years ago, 96% of species lost
— Tabulate coral, 5 CM

So all life on earth now as you claim came from that 4% that survived right?

Late Devonian, 375 million years ago, 75% of species lost
— Trilobite, 5 cm length

Again the species that all came from that 4% are reduced by 75% further limiting the gene pool right?

End Ordovician, 444 million years ago, 86% of species lost
— Graptolite 2-3 cm length


Again the species that all came from that 4% are reduced by 75% and then by 86% further limiting the gene pool.

Here you are promoting that no new evolution from inorganic material to organic life forms happened in that period?

I believe that with all those extinctions and limitation of gene pool you would not find the vast number of vary different life forms that we see on earth unless there was also evolution of life from other sources such as inorganic to organic or an outside source such as Seeding by intelligent design.

The question was just to see how you explained mass extinctions in your various theories of evolution- thanks!

 

[Dante Writer]

6,000 year old Earth has been proven! Creationism is true! Why because evolution can't explain the 6 mass extinctions that happened billions of years before 6,000 years ago. Case settled. (/sarc)

Mass extinctions is not the same as complete annihilation. The largest mass extinction took out 90% of all life forms, but the 10% surviving flourished in the new conditions. Nothing strange here and not unexplainable at all.

If you seen creationism in my post please quote it?

Do you see any evolution of life from inorganic life during that 200 million year period?

I believe that with all those extinctions and limitation of gene pool you would not find the vast number of vary different life forms that we see on earth unless there was also evolution of life from other sources such as inorganic to organic or an outside source such as Seeding by intelligent design.

The question was just to see how you explained mass extinctions in your various theories of evolution- thanks!

 

[Acim]

6,000 year old Earth has been proven! Creationism is true! Why because evolution can't explain the 6 mass extinctions that happened billions of years before 6,000 years ago. Case settled. (/sarc)

Creationism has become the 'devil' for proponents of evolution. Ask questions about evolution on open forum, and if they don't explicitly claim adherence to our religion er, I mean belief system, then they are the work of the devil, er I mean proponents of creationism. There is no other way to understand those who may show up as not 100% aligned with our understandings. Let's burn them at the proverbial stake, so that we may be even more righteous.

 

[Sapiens]

The evolutionists often defend their theories by saying it took billions of years for life to evolve into the forms we see today.

Actually, the majority of life forms we see today happened in the much much shorter space of less than 200 million years. That is a short space of time when you consider the massive amounts of evolution changes that would have had to occur. Modern humans are said to have evolved just 200,000 years ago.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

Your citation is rather out of date, it neglects to analyze, or even mention by name, save as an tacked on note, the critically important Denisovans. Science changes (as you have observed) so citing current work is critical.

There have been 5 mass extinctions recorded in our history:

...

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are that there have been five extinctions and we are hell bent on creating the sixth. What is your question?

It takes a long time to evolve a species, even longer to evolve an entire ecosystem, and all can be snuffed out in a moment by a change of sufficient magnitude. This creates a lot of empty niche space and each evolution is followed by comparatively rapid (still quite slow in absolute terms) expansion of the number of new species and the open, low pressure niche space permits novel experimentation with regards to novel species and adaptations.

Additionally, your assumption that an extinction of 96% means that not only the extant species died, but that it did so without the benefit of producing evolutionary decedents may be a dangerous assumption, even when viewed at higher taxonomic levels. For example, it is safe to say that within the next 200 years, despite the fact that the human population continues to expand, 100% of the extant human genotypes will have gone extinct.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Now you are greatly limiting your gene pool which also reduces the number of different species that would result.

But that doesn't change the fact that the species that survived those extinction events had still been evolving for billions of years, so the idea of life taking billions of years to evolve to the state it's in now isn't contradicted by mass extinction events.

End Permian, 251 million years ago, 96% of species lost
— Tabulate coral, 5 CM

So all life on earth now as you claim came from that 4% that survived right?

Actually, it's 96% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrates, for a total of 57% of all biological families. The loss of biological diversity can be made up for with overall increased survival rates among the remaining living populations, and took up to 10 million years to recover from.

SOURCE: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120527153810.htm

Late Devonian, 375 million years ago, 75% of species lost
— Trilobite, 5 cm length

Again the species that all came from that 4% are reduced by 75% further limiting the gene pool right?

Again, this 75% applies only to marine species. In total 19% of families and 50% of genera went extinct. [SOURCE: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/extinction/ ]. Again, this reduces the gene pool, but not so significantly that biodiversity couldn't recover in time.

End Ordovician, 444 million years ago, 86% of species lost
— Graptolite 2-3 cm length

Again the species that all came from that 4% are reduced by 75% and then by 86% further limiting the gene pool.

Again, the number you're quoting here relates strictly to marine species (and the number I'm finding is 85%, not 86%) [SOURCE: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.29.1.331?journalCode=earth& ]

What's more, you're acting as if all of these extinction events happened practically simultaneously. It took biodiversity 10 million years to recover from the worst of them, and since there is at least 69 million years separating each, they can hardly be portrayed as having a knock-on effect. Each extinction event has more than enough time to recover sufficient biodiversity before the next, so what is the issue?

Here you are promoting that no new evolution from inorganic material to organic life forms happened in that period?

Firstly, no, I didn't say that.

Secondly, there is no such thing as "evolution" from inorganic material to organic life forms. That's abiogenesis, not evolution.

Thirdly, you are talking about the species we see today and how they evolved over supposed billions of years in spite of mass extinction events. The species we see today DID evolve from the species that survived these extinction events.

I believe that with all those extinctions and limitation of gene pool you would not find the vast number of vary different life forms that we see on earth unless there was also evolution of life from other sources such as inorganic to organic or an outside source such as Seeding by intelligent design.

Where is your evidence for this? Do you think it should take more than 100 million years for biodiversity to recover? What is your basis for this? Do you have the exact figure on how many organisms survived these events?

The question was just to see how you explained mass extinctions in your various theories of evolution- thanks!

I wasn't aware it was an issue for evolution. The solution really is as simple as: evolution continued with the species that survived.

 

[Sapiens]

Creationism has become the 'devil' for proponents of evolution. Ask questions about evolution on open forum, and if they don't explicitly claim adherence to our religion er, I mean belief system, then they are the work of the devil, er I mean proponents of creationism. There is no other way to understand those who may show up as not 100% aligned with our understandings. Let's burn them at the proverbial stake, so that we may be even more righteous.

No, creationism is obvious fable and, were it not for the attempts of creationists to jam it into the science classroom it would be no more devilish than Egyptian, Greek, Norse, Roman, etc. mythologies. It is unfortunate that, at the moment (and speaking metaphorically) the only way to provide the light of knowledge is to burn creationism at the proverbial stake, not for religious righteous, but rather for logic, reasonableness and rationality.

 

[Ouroboros]

If you seen creationism in my post please quote it?

When you're putting evolution in the knife's edge by asking these stupid questions, then yes.

How does evolution explain planets around other stars? How does evolution explain cigars tasting so good for cigar smokers but not for non-smokers?

What's the alternative in this situation? Oh, you're talking about that there's been 6 different creation events by God? Is that what you're contrasting to?

The fact is, if you do believe in theistic evolution and old earth, then extinction events aren't evidence for or against either one? There's no question to ask about how evolution explains extinction if you believe God just helped the natural process along.

Do you see any evolution of life from inorganic life during that 200 million year period?

Don't you see? You're doing it again. You're asking a strong question to disprove evolution in its fullest. What's the alternative that you would suggest?

I believe that with all those extinctions and limitation of gene pool you would not find the vast number of vary different life forms that we see on earth unless there was also evolution of life from other sources such as inorganic to organic or an outside source such as Seeding by intelligent design.

Sure.

Actually, one of the early extinction events are believed to have been re-seeded from our own planet's first life. Something like that. I don't remember the details, but that there was simple life, and Earth can struck by some meteor, parts got into space, planet died, and the meteors in the same revolution around the sun eventually made it back. Who knows.

The question was just to see how you explained mass extinctions in your various theories of evolution- thanks!

You didn't say various theories of evolution, but evolution, as in the totality of it. Some of the theories might explain it better, some not. If you feel alien implanted new variations, that's fine. Or even guided. But evolution in general, in its totality, doesn't have to explain it. Only the specific variations that you talk about have to each explain it differently.

 

[Acim]

No, creationism is obvious fable and, were it not for the attempts of creationists to jam it into the science classroom it would be no more devilish than Egyptian, Greek, Norse, Roman, etc. mythologies. It is unfortunate that, at the moment (and speaking metaphorically) the only way to provide the light of knowledge is to burn creationism at the proverbial stake, not for religious righteous, but rather for logic, reasonableness and rationality.

I was speaking about, at the moment (or inquiry) of this thread.

But I do thank you for supporting my rhetoric in a semi-indirect way.

 

[Dante Writer]

But that doesn't change the fact that the species that survived those extinction events had still been evolving for billions of years, so the idea of life taking billions of years to evolve to the state it's in now isn't contradicted by mass extinction events.


Actually, it's 96% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrates, for a total of 57% of all biological families. The loss of biological diversity can be made up for with overall increased survival rates among the remaining living populations, and took up to 10 million years to recover from.

SOURCE: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120527153810.htm


Again, this 75% applies only to marine species. In total 19% of families and 50% of genera went extinct. [SOURCE: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/extinction/ ]. Again, this reduces the gene pool, but not so significantly that biodiversity couldn't recover in time.


Again, the number you're quoting here relates strictly to marine species (and the number I'm finding is 85%, not 86%) [SOURCE: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.29.1.331?journalCode=earth& ]

What's more, you're acting as if all of these extinction events happened practically simultaneously. It took biodiversity 10 million years to recover from the worst of them, and since there is at least 69 million years separating each, they can hardly be portrayed as having a knock-on effect. Each extinction event has more than enough time to recover sufficient biodiversity before the next, so what is the issue?

Firstly, no, I didn't say that.

Secondly, there is no such thing as "evolution" from inorganic material to organic life forms. That's abiogenesis, not evolution.

Thirdly, you are talking about the species we see today and how they evolved over supposed billions of years in spite of mass extinction events. The species we see today DID evolve from the species that survived these extinction events.


Where is your evidence for this? Do you think it should take more than 100 million years for biodiversity to recover? What is your basis for this? Do you have the exact figure on how many organisms survived these events


I wasn't aware it was an issue for evolution. The solution really is as simple as: evolution continued with the species that survived.

" The species we see today DID evolve from the species that survived these extinction events."

Just to clarify- you are saying no abiogenesis was taking place during this period?

How do you explain that abiogenesis would just stop?

I am just trying to understand your personal theory of evolution. It does not match all theories of evolution but that is OK.

 

[Ouroboros]

Creationism has become the 'devil' for proponents of evolution. Ask questions about evolution on open forum, and if they don't explicitly claim adherence to our religion er, I mean belief system, then they are the work of the devil, er I mean proponents of creationism. There is no other way to understand those who may show up as not 100% aligned with our understandings. Let's burn them at the proverbial stake, so that we may be even more righteous.

The creationism vs evolution has become a false dichotomy. Especially when someone tries to put the whole evolution on task, and questions "evolution" without specifying any nuances or variations, it becomes a situation where one has to pick sides. I think the truth lies in between. So it's not "evolution is false, unless you can prove x, y, z!!!" Because that only shows that a person doesn't want to even allow a single small part of evolution to be true. And if they mention different alternative versions of it, then they need to be specific to which one they are arguing against.

 

[Dante Writer]

When you're putting evolution in the knife's edge by asking these stupid questions, then yes.

How does evolution explain planets around other stars? How does evolution explain cigars tasting so good for cigar smokers but not for non-smokers?

What's the alternative in this situation? Oh, you're talking about that there's been 6 different creation events by God? Is that what you're contrasting to?

The fact is, if you do believe in theistic evolution and old earth, then extinction events aren't evidence for or against either one? There's no question to ask about how evolution explains extinction if you believe God just helped the natural process along.


Don't you see? You're doing it again. You're asking a strong question to disprove evolution in its fullest. What's the alternative that you would suggest?


Sure.

Actually, one of the early extinction events are believed to have been re-seeded from our own planet's first life. Something like that. I don't remember the details, but that there was simple life, and Earth can struck by some meteor, parts got into space, planet died, and the meteors in the same revolution around the sun eventually made it back. Who knows.


You didn't say various theories of evolution, but evolution, as in the totality of it. Some of the theories might explain it better, some not. If you feel alien implanted new variations, that's fine. Or even guided. But evolution in general, in its totality, doesn't have to explain it. Only the specific variations that you talk about have to each explain it differently.

Wow- you sure are defensive!

"Some of the theories might explain it better, some not."

We agree on that.

"But evolution in general, in its totality, doesn't have to explain it. "

I did not say you had to explain it. Just wondering if your personal theory of evolution did account for those events- thanks!

 

[Ouroboros]

" The species we see today DID evolve from the species that survived these extinction events."

Just to clarify- you are saying no abiogenesis was taking place during this period?

How do you explain that abiogenesis would just stop?

I am just trying to understand your personal theory of evolution. It does not match all theories of evolution but that is OK.

This response wasn't to my post, but I'll butt in anyway. Of course abiogenesis might happen in parallel. No one denies that. I'm not sure why that would make evolution false?

We do know that there are biological matter in space, ethanol, methanol, and even amino acids. So the building blocks are obviously produced naturally, constantly.

 

[Ouroboros]

Wow- you sure are defensive!

"Some of the theories might explain it better, some not."

We agree on that.

Good.

"But evolution in general, in its totality, doesn't have to explain it. "

I did not say you had to explain it. Just wondering if your personal theory of evolution did account for those events- thanks!

Alright. Fair enough.

Personally, I do believe there's abiogenesis happening. And it might have been part of re-seeding the planet during those mass extinction events. Today, we don't see it because most matter that's usable is already taken by the organic life populating the planet.

And... I also believe that the structure of the universe, physics, etc, all are primed to produce life. Is it because there's a God behind it or not? Can't say. God would be also alive, so perhaps "life" is the true God of all things.

 

[Dante Writer]

Creationism has become the 'devil' for proponents of evolution. Ask questions about evolution on open forum, and if they don't explicitly claim adherence to our religion er, I mean belief system, then they are the work of the devil, er I mean proponents of creationism. There is no other way to understand those who may show up as not 100% aligned with our understandings. Let's burn them at the proverbial stake, so that we may be even more righteous.

The defensiveness of some of the members is quite overboard. I am trying to bridge a gap so that we can discuss other theories of the origin of life but as soon as you mention intelligent design even without a God some of these guys go nuts.