How long does it take to evolve?

Welcome to the fray, Lamden Not really a valid conclusion: if you don't know then you can't know or even suppose what the answer is.But maybe if we look at part of the picture and see what some of the evidence shows, we can get a better idea:Just a moment...

quote:

---

Results

​

We find that the maximum body mass of terrestrial mammals evolve at a near-constant rate from 70 million years ago (Ma), just before the K-Pg, until the appearance of the largest terrestrial mammal, Indricotherium, at about 30 Ma. ...

---

So that's about 40 million years to develop from a mouse to the largest known land animal.

quote:

---

Paraceratherium

​

Paraceratherium is an extinct genus of hornless rhinoceros, and one of the largest terrestrial mammals that has ever existed. It lived from the early to late Oligocene epoch (34—23 million years ago); its remains have been found across Eurasia between China and the former Yugoslavia. Paraceratherium is classified as a member of the hyracodont subfamily Indricotheriinae. ...

​

... The weight of Paraceratherium was similar to that of some extinct proboscideans, with the largest complete skeleton known belonging to the steppe mammoth (Mammuthus trogontherii).[28][30]. ...

---

Sticking just to elephants then ...

quote:

---

Steppe Mammoth

​

The steppe mammoth (Mammuthus trogontherii or Mammuthus armeniacus) is an extinct species of Elephantidae that ranged over most of northern Eurasia during the Middle Pleistocene, 600,000-370,000 years ago. It probably evolved in Siberia during the early Pleistocene from Mammuthus meridionalis. It was the first stage in the evolution of the steppe and tundra elephants and an ancestor of the woolly mammoth of later glacial periods.

---

So the largest Elephant took longer to reach the same approximate mass as the giant rhino, but still had time left over ... and the time to reach the size of a modern elephant would be less.With 70 million years available for such a transition to occur, not all the time was used to increase size.Also note that the growth in size is not necessary in every generation, so the fastest observed growth rate would necessarily be less than the maximum possible growth rate if evolution focused solely on size.From this I would conclude that the time available exceeds the time necessary in a minimum step-by-step track.And I see no reason not to expect a similar excess of time to reach any possible evolutionary position in the fossil and living organism catalog.Evolution is a drunken walk not a fast-track trade deal, it doesn't know where it is going or when it will get there. It certainly is not interested in any "goals" you may think are important.Enjoy

Good, you read it. The reason I went for "mouse to elephant" was that I recall some statement several years ago about how many genetic changes it would take, and an integrated time scale for increasing generation time with increasing size, to determine how long it would take if that happened at each generation (no stalling), and the result was significantly less than the time that had passed. Either Gould or Miller iirc, I'll see if I can find it.Enjoy

Well the other side of the question is how much time is available.If you are talking to Young Earth Creationists (YECs) the age of the earth is somewhere between 5,000 years and 12,000 years depending on the opinions of the people involved ... with the "Usher" date being perhaps the most popular.If you are talking to evolutionist/scientists, then you are dealing with the 4.55 billion year age of earth. How do we know and how do we validate what we know? A good starting point is Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.Enjoy.

That's why I switched to the time question. Blue-green (cyano) bacteria around 3.7 - 3.8 billion years ago on a 4.5 billion year old rock, in the oldest known strata of sedimentary rock. 6 million to 2 million years ago, depending on what you call "human being" ... (Homo or Homo sapiens sapiens?)Enjoy

If the Theory of Evolution is ever invalidated, it will be by a breakthrough in science, not be people adhering to certain beliefs, nor will it make those beliefs any more credible.Certainly when we come to the YEC people, we know that their model is false for the simple reason that the earth is old, very very old. The evidence for this old age is abundant, pervasive, and consilient.But we also need to understand just what the theory of evolution says.To start with we have the process of evolution: This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population. This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life. The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.This is what causes increased diversity of life forms.The process of anagenesis, with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.The process of cladogenesis, with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations). So the question of how long it takes to get from A to B is a little irrelevant: the ToE is there to explained what has already happened, and so far it is doing a bang-up job at it, imho.That is why we can look at the mouse to elephant question, measure the fastest rate of changes, extrapolate what time would be required, and find that about half the actual geological record was spent dilly dallying around before getting to the "finish line" -- that there was almost as much time to spare as there was used in the "race." This is of course due to the fact that the "end point" is not a goal to be reached but just a step on the path taken, the drunken walk path.Do this with any species and you will find a variety of times used but in each case that more time was available.This is particularly true when we look at species that go through punctuated equilibrium, with short periods of change and long periods of stasis.Enjoy

FWIIW I find this assumption presumptuous when it could be the product of our wonderful emasculated education system, particularly in certain states that feel they need to push the false dichotomy onto the students (and let them decide ...). So it could be just ignorance.Curiously I note that Alabama has turned away from that path (and I'm thinking that is in response to business wanting educated people).Certainly if that is the case then this site is a good place for some remedial education eh?

This type of language will just incite insults in return. Yes a lot of members are fed up with creationist pretenses, but they will debate if you offer something of substance instead of innuendo. So Jewish then? (based on your next message), but no matter: a fair number of members, myself included, are both religious and pro-science, as their faith does not preclude science and the pursuit of knowledge about reality. The real question comes down to how you validate your concepts. Indeed, and I would add that the "universe as the work of God/s" is there to correct any false conclusions reached from other sources -- a fact checking system. What is "natural"? If God/s created the universe, then didn't they create the "natural laws" that govern how the universe works?We can model evolution in computer simulations used to develop new products in a fast and efficient process. You can think of evolution as an immense trial and error problem solving mechanism. See Is ID properly pursued? for my take on ID, and also see Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... for some of the reasons it is wrong (also part of the false dichotomy two model issue)Also see Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I) and Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) -- they are both outdated by the march of science uncovering more information. "Feels wrong" is not a valid scientific argument, especially if one is not an expert in the field. As I have previously shown when you look at a specific sequence and measure the time available vs the amount needed for the most rapid and efficient evolution it shows that there is an over abundance of time: evolution could have occurred faster than the evidence says it did. Of course this also leads the argument into a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy of assuming that the currently observed "end" is a goal rather that just the result of what happened. Curiously scientists have been "writing home" for some time in the last 150 years since the Darwin\Wallace concept was first formalized, and the evidence is indeed rather overwhelmingly on the side of validating not just that evolution occurs, but that it truly can explain the natural history of this planet that is testified by the evidence.What do you think should have occurred in the last 150 years?Perhaps you are not understanding what the science actually says -- a common element of under-informed, under-educated people, especially those raised religious. The good news is that ignorance is curable by learning. For instance I can recommend: Evolution 101 -- a good on-line interactive website chock full of scientific information. No, we just need to consider random mutation and natural selection doing their "jobs" generation after generation. It's a feed-back loop that tends to adapt a breeding population to the current (but everchanging) ecological conditions. Like walking on first one foot and then the next. Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis. Natural selection has also been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesisSpeciation causes a division of breeding populations that can then evolve in different ecologies, and this has been observed to occur. If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.The question is: do you want to learn about real evolution instead of what appears to be a comic-book version? If so, all you have to do is ask.Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : updated Berkeley link

I'm just a curious guy, so I have to ask - is this the "Lakewood" you are from?

whewThen California, New Jersey or Ohio? S'okay, you don't have to say.ps your quote in the previous post is missing the s at the closing code: you can edit it to make [/qs]If you use preview before submitting coding errors are highlighted in red.Edited by RAZD, : .

Those that are able to survive and reproduce will do so, and those that survive longer and successfully reproduce longer or more often (mate selection) will pass more of their genes on to the next generation, increasing those alleles within the population, and hence the population will evolve. Dominance is not a necessary result as several different beneficial mutations could be operating in different individuals. Again, this assumes that the crow intends to fly from (A) to (B), that the end result observed is the goal.But there is no "intention" in evolution to reach any goal other than a breeding population that adapts to the changing ecological challenges by the process of evolution. And I am suggesting that the level of knowledge you have thus far displayed about evolution shows that you do not have a valid basis to make that judgement. I'm sure you feel strongly that your opinion on this is valid, but I suggest you look at the Dunning—Kruger effect, where the unwitting cognitive bias of an under-informed person leads them to poor decisions and erroneous conclusions, but their lack of competence also makes them unable to realize their mistakes.This is not intended to be an insult, just a warning that we all need to be wary of our opinions and feelings and be cognizant of our own level of understanding. Take all the time you need, and certainly don't restrict yourself to just those links.A question for you to keep in mind during your research is: "What is Macroevolution?" Creationists and evolutionary scientists tend to use this term entirely differently, and so this aspect of evolution can only be discussed clearly if we know what each other means.You can add MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? and "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? to the list.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrty

Actually if we are going to model evolutionary biology and the rise of more complex species from simple species via mutation and selection, what we should look for is any word.Wouldn't you agree that the probability of getting any word is considerably higher than getting a specific specified word?Consider a lottery: the probability of a single ticket being the winning ticket is very low, but the probability that *a* ticket will win the lottery is very high. Evolution doesn't have a goal so any winning ticket is good.Also see the old improbable probability problem for some information on probability calculations on putting together a specific string.You'll have to wade through some non-topic information to find the good stuff. Sorry bout that. Consider an eye spot that just sees light and dark -- is there an advantage over organisms without it?Think of your skin and feeling sunshine with it -- can you find the direction of the sun with just this feeling?Then being able to discern objects would be an improvement, yes? Once predator and prey have that, then the "arms race" begins, the predator to see (and catch) the prey, the prey to see (and avoid) the predator.Enjoy

Remove any stone in a roman arch and the arch falls -- irreducible complexity. As far as I know these are pretty good designs, having withstood several thousand years ...Enjoy

Irrelevant -- the definition of "irreducible complexity" is that the removal of any one piece renders the (process/organ/etc) unable to preform.The idea being that it can't occur naturally. See Mutation, Message 101

quote:

---

What has acted on the stone arch to make it assemble? Natural selection can not account for it, as natural selection can only take away thing.

​

you tell me eh?

​

The Bridge of Ross is situated in County Clare in the west of Ireland. Photo by Ray Millar.

​

Notice the appearance of a bridge assembled from smaller stones ... the appearance of an intelligent

---

Enjoy

Nor that nature cannot erect the scaffolding and then remove it -- as seen in Message 105.ie their failure is two-fold: (1) the systems function in some way (the mousetrap becomes a tie holder) and (2) nature can and has erected scaffolding and then removed it in any number of systems, physical and biological.Enjoy

I suggested the eye because this is an old issue that has been discussed many times (also called a "Point Refuted a Thousand Times -- a PRATT):

quote:

---

This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).

​

• photosensitive cell
• aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
• an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
• pigment cells forming a small depression
• pigment cells forming a deeper depression
• the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
• muscles allowing the lens to adjust

​

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

​

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.

​

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

---

Oh look, they talk about how long, how many generations it would take ... and it's a lot less than 4 billion years (not 14).And as I noted before that a photosensitive cell isn't necessarily the starting point -- just a cell that can detect solar radiation, such as a skin cell sensing heat, and being able to use that sensation to know which direction the sun is. Which can evolve as the sensors evolve. But let's take a step back and ask what are criteria for something to be considered "living" ... see Message 25 on the Definition of Life thread for discussion. Here's the critical part from Life - Wikipedia:

quote:

---

6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.

---

So the ability to react to stimuli is a beginning condition of life, and thus it is something that can evolve as the ability to sense stimuli evolves. Or more directly, the brain evolves as the senses evolve as they are entertwined in the mechanism\process of sensing. Actually that would be where NS would shine ... those that perish don't pass on their genes, while those that survive to breed succeed in passing on their genes to the next generation.Think of evolution as a massive trial and error computer. See CB301: Eye complexity above. Curiously I think you should investigate from start to finish, and certainly finish one before you start the next.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .