|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution - small to big? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hoju Inactive Member |
Doesnt evolution say that modern day animals evolved from smaller animals, just to put it in basic terms at the start there were small things and they became larger more complex things due to evolution
Then why is it in the past, animals tended to be...well bigger? ExamplesGiant Sharks: Megalodon bout 60 ft. Now sharks are smaller. Giant Crocodile: Deinosuchus about 50 ft long now crocs are smaller. and giant mosquitoes, giant sloths.... [This message has been edited by hoju, 09-02-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
Evolutionists have an explanation I am sure.
My thoughts, Animals were bigger due to the pressure of the oxygen, and the oxygen content. I am not sure, but this is what I think caused the animals to be so big. And also humans. Many Giants... ------------------Psalm 14:1 The Fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Animals were bigger due to the pressure of the oxygen, and the oxygen content. Why would that matter? Oxygen doesn't do that to animals. Here's an experiment you could do. Take some animals and raise them in oxygen tents of various concentration. Try and grow giant animals. If it's oxygen that makes them bigger, then why aren't emphasemics giants? They breathe pure oxygen. Or deep-sea divers? If all you have to do is breathe more oxygen to be a giant, why don't people do that? The evolutionary explanation is simple. In the past, there was a selection pressure on those animals for largeness. Now, there's a pressure for smaller sizes. It works the other way, too. because of artifical selection, our livestock are getting larger and larger. You wouldn't believe how small pigs used to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Evolution doesn't HAVE to always go from small to large or large to small. It will go with whatever is most advantageous at the time of that particular population.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
Ok lets take one of your Examples Giant sloths.
who said Giant Sloths where the ancestor to modern day tree Sloths?Yes they may have shared a common ancestor but thats about it. look at house cat and lions. we know they shared a common ancestor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5224 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
hoju,
Doesnt evolution say that modern day animals evolved from smaller animals, just to put it in basic terms at the start there were small things and they became larger more complex things due to evolution Your premise is false. Evolution doesn't say things get have to get larger, or more complex, for that matter. It is a general observation that after mass extinctions the fauna that survives grows larger, probably due to ecological release. There are horse lineages that get smaller whilst others are getting larger, in contradiction of your statement. Mark ------------------"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6." [This message has been edited by mark24, 09-02-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mike Holland Member (Idle past 512 days) Posts: 179 From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia Joined: |
Evolution doesn't necessarily lead to larger species. If you start with a middle-sized species back a few million years ago, you would find it just as likely to have evolved larger or smaller, or branched in both directions (this research has been done, I read it somewhere, but cannot give references). The apparent 'direction' to evolution is simply because things started off small and couldn't evolve smaller.
Remember that most of the biomass is still bacteria, and us few giants are exceptions. Mike.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6504 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
giant ground sloths? Nothrotheriops shastensis was about the size of a brown bear whereas Mylodon darwinii was about the size of an elephant...they lived at the same time...and at the same time there were sloths (also now extinct) that were the same size or smaller than living tree sloths such as Bradypus or Choloepus. Mammoths on the channel islands were dwarfs and a close relative (now extinct) of the Asian elephant was about the size of a very small bear....there is no apparent trend in size increase or decrease during evolution except that often, species on islands tend to be smaller than their mainland relatives...though this is also not absolute...as to a correlation between size and complexity....do you believe then that elephants are the most complex land mammals and whales the most complex animals period?...they are after all the biggest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
I hope to get back to this topic later, with further comments, but for now I'll pick on a Crashfrog message a bit.
I (even as a non-biologist) strongly suspect that Crash's science in the message this is a reply to, is seriously flawed.
quote: I think this statement is much akin to if a creationist made the challenge "Put a reptile into a laboratory, and induce it to evolve into a mammal". Evolution does not happen like that, in such a short time frame. I suspect that higher oxygen concentrations, over a geologicly long time period, could be an aid to the evolution of larger life forms. I now drop this concept into the laps of the biologists present. I intend to get back to the history of oxygen concentration variations over geologic time, and the possible relationship to life form evolution, in a later message. Cheers,Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Wouldn't that depend on whether the original idea was based on evolution or the idea that higher oxygen levels would in themselves cause animals to grow larger ? Crashfrog's idea is a perfectly sensible test of the latter idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
It seems to me that it is the latter. The creationists position, as it looks to me, is that the dinosaurs et al are just really BIG animals of the same kinds we see today. Thus, raising geckoes in oxygen tents would indeed test the theory.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
While Crashfrog may not be wrong, I find his argument to be significantly flawed by incompleteness.
Regardless of what the YEC perspective is, the evolution perspective is that the large animals became large animals through evolutionary processes - a response to a change in environment. I think that a higher atmospheric oxygen concentration may sometimes have been a significant factor in the changing environment. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
But crash was challenging the YEC perspective. Complaining that it doesn't challenge the evloutionary perspective doesn't make sense.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I think this statement is much akin to if a creationist made the challenge "Put a reptile into a laboratory, and induce it to evolve into a mammal". Evolution does not happen like that, in such a short time frame. But of course I wasn't challenging the perspective that greater oxygen levels could cause populations to adapt by increasing in size. I was challenging the YEC perspective that exposure to oxygen causes normal individuals to grow to immense size - no adaptation needed. It's ridiculous, of course - oxygen doesn't have that kind of effect on animals. It's not a magic life-gas. It's simply an avaliable reactive gas that animals can take advantage of to metabolize sugars to a greater degree of efficiency. Now, maybe it could be that, in an oxygen-rich world, animals would adapt by becoming large. I don't know why, but maybe they would. However it would be slow, and take geologic time. Hardly a YEC perspective, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
To me, message 1 sure seems to be from an old earth evolution perspective. Message 2 falls under the influence of Carl Baugh, with a vague hint of a YEC perspective.
I see the topic as a whole, as being one of old earth evolution. Moose
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024