Home » Paleontology
Category Archives: Paleontology
Despite the snow, we didn’t get a chance to have any other posts this week other than the Monday Mystery fossil. We did, however, have three different school trips in the past couple of weeks to talk to kids about fossils, dinosaurs, and the skeletal system, as well as giving talks on the fossils telling us about the origins of crocodiles and dinosaurs, as well as attending a talk on the origins of birds. So a lot of paleo work, just not much showing up here. Fortunately, some of you had some time to examine our mystery fossil and congratulations to Laurenwritesscience for coming up with the correct answer.
It is indeed a stromatolite. Bruce Stinchcomb has a video on Youtube showing several examples of Ozark stromatolites and providing a good explanation of what they are.
Essentially, stromatolites are microbial ecosystems, built up of layer after layer of microbial mats. The general description is that of blue-green algae, which forms a sticky layer over the surface of a rocky surface in a shallow marine or coastal environment. Blue-green algae are not actually algae and are better referred to as cyanobacteria. These bacteria are photosynthetic, just like plants, so they need sunlight, thus limiting the depth at which they can be found. Actually, they are typically found right at the water’s edge in the tidal zone. This sticky substance, while maintaining their hold on the rock, also tends to collect sand, clay, and organic debris. Over time, all the stuff that sticks to the mat blocks the sunlight from the cyanobacteria and they migrate above the layer and build another mat, which collects more debris, which causes them to build another mat, etc. Stromatolites form much the same way as piles of laundry. By the time you finish washing one set, there is another pile forming in a neverending stream. The life of a cyanobacteria in a stromatolite is a depressing condition of always digging themselves out from under a pile just to get dumped on again. I am sure most people can empathize.
The sticky mucus (properly referred to as extrapolymeric substance, or EPS for short, but we can go with mucus here) forming the mat does more than just cause things to stick to it. The mat protects the bacteria in from ultraviolet radiation. It also allows the bacteria to control the microenvironment around them, keeping such things as pH levels in a good range. It also has an unfortunate aspect for the bacteria. The mucus allows the levels of calcium and carbonate ions to build up until they precipitate out of the water as calcium carbonate, also known as calcite (when referring to the mineral), or limestone (when referring to the rock). So not only are the poor bacteria constantly getting buried, they are getting turned to stone in their very own medusa nightmare. Life is hard as a cyanobacteria. But just wait, it gets worse.
These microbial mats are not just cyanobacteria, though. There are lots of other organisms that live in and on them. There are many other types of bacteria. There are sulfate reducing bacteria, which use sulfur like we use oxygen, only they release hydrogen sulfide instead of carbon dioxide, causing a nice rotten egg smell. There are purple sulfur bacteria that eat the hydrogen sulfide, as well as colorless sulfur bacteria that eat both the hydrogen sulfide and the oxygen released by the cyanobacteria, thus free-loading off of everyone. In addition to bacteria, there are plenty of prokaryotes (organisms without nuclei that holds their DNA) and eukaryotic (with nuclei) single-celled and multi-celled organisms living in the mat. Diatoms, single-celled photosynthetic organisms that grow their own shell, live on top, while nematodes burrow through the mat. In addition to all this, a wide variety of animals love to chow down on the mats. Everything from snails, sea urchins, crabs, crawfish, and just regular old fish happily eat them. As a result, there are not a lot of places left in the world you can find stromatolites growing. The Bahamas and Shark’s Bay, Australia are the best areas to find them.
They may be rare now, but at one time, they ruled the earth. As some of the oldest living communities in the world, they have been around for at least 3.5 billion years (that’s 3,500,000,000, or roughly 600,000 times the length of human civilization) and for more 2/3 of that time, they were the only game in town and in all probability served as the cradle for all eukaryotic and multi-cellular organism on the planet. These days, if you live in Arkansas, the only places you can find them are as fossils in the Cambrian age Cotter Formation and Ordovician age Everton Formation in the Ozark Plateau.
For further information (and the source of the images shown here), check out the stromatolite page at the Arkansas Geological Survey and the Microbe Wiki stromatolite page, as well as the Microbes.arc.nasa.gov site, which supplies a nice teacher’s guide to teaching all about microbial mats, designed for grades 5-8.
Between classes and school appearances, I have not had the time to write up as complete a description as I would like, so I will do a more complete description of the fossil later. But for now, did any of you think you saw crinoids in the face? If you did, you are correct! This photo was originally published on the Arkansas Geological Survey‘s blog. If you haven’t checked them out, I encourage you to do so.
Crinoids are perhaps the most common fossil found in Arkansas. They can be found in many of the Paleozoic rocks in northern Arkansas in the Ozarks and Ouachitas, although they are most common in the Mississippian age limestones of the Ozarks. All those white rocks along Highway 65 towards Leslie and Marshall are good candidates, although watch out for cars along the highway, please.
Crinoids are often called sea lilies because of their resemblance to plants, but they are actually animals that are related to sea urchins and starfish, so they are far more closely related to you than to any plant. Even though they lived in shallow marine environments during the Paleozoic Era, you can still find them today in deep water along what is called the continental slope. If you swim out into the deep water a long way away from shore and you get to the edge of the continent, you will see a cliff or steep slope descending all the way down to the abyss of the absolute bottom of the ocean. Congratulations, you have reached the continental slope and the last refuge of the crinoids.
It’s another Monday! You know what that means, right? The end of the weekend, an extra dose of coffee to get the day started, and a new fossil for Mystery Monday. Today’s fossil is a very common fossil in Arkansas. Some people think these fossils form a kind of spooky face. Bonus points if you can say where the picture came from. Once I tell you what it is, you should check out all the other cool info they have.
On Monday, we posted this picture of an Arkansas fossil. Were you able to figure it out?
This is a fossil of Calamites (watch your spelling, we want to avoid any calamities). Calamites was a relative of the modern-day horsetails, Equisetum. But unlike today’s horsetails, which are generally only a meter or so in height (although some giant horsetails can grow up to 7 meters or more), Calamites grew up to 30 meters (100 feet).
Equiseta often grow clonally, spreading the rhizomes widely through the surrounding ground, forming large clumps of plants that are essentially the same plant, connected via their roots. Assuming Calamites did the same thing, it has been estimated “they may have been the largest organisms that ever lived.” This group of plants is unique in the incorporation of silica into their stems, giving rise to one of their common names being scouring rushes.
This group of plants first appeared in the late Devonian, but really had their heyday in the Carboniferous Period, although they died out soon after in the Permian. The Carboniferous is so named because most of the world’s coal was formed during this time. The reason for this is because of the difficulty in digesting plant matter. Cellulose, the primary ingredient in plant cell walls and what we call “dietary fiber.” Even today, other than fungi and some bacteria, there is precious little that can break it down. Lignin, the other main component of plant cells walls, otherwise known as “wood,” is even harder to break down.
The only thing that can really digest it is white rot fungi. Back then, there was little to nothing that could eat it. As a result, dead plant matter tended to sit around for a very long time, making it much more likely to accumulate and form coal. Once the enzymes needed to break down lignin evolved, white rot fungi found themselves with a hugely abundant food supply and acted like teenaged football players after a game at an all-you can-eat buffet. And thus ended the Carboniferous Period, in a massive bout of white rot.
Like modern horsetails, Calamites preferred wet soils around rivers and lakes, cropping up all over the world. While they avoided the standing water of the swamps, they flourished any place that regularly got wet, so levees and floodplains were good environments for them. There were no angiosperm trees at that time, what was there were forests of giant Calamites and ferns. Plants called lycopods, most commonly Lepidodendron, dominated the swamps along with the ferns, which were pretty ubiquitous.
Calamites’ modern counterparts are all herbaceous perennials, so Calamites is unique in the group for having a woody trunk. They form extensive underground rhizome networks, growing large clumps of clones from the rhizomes. The leaves form regularly spaced whorls around the stem, creating the horizontal lines breaking up the ridges running vertically up the trunk on Calamites. Inside, the xylem forms rays running from the exterior to the pith in the center. Oftentimes, the pith rots away, leaving a cavity that gets filled with sediment, forming an internal cast, or steinkern.
As a plant fossil, anyone can legally collect Calamites fossils as long as they are not on National Forest property (nothing is allowed to be collected in National Parks and Forests). Good places to look for Calamites would be among the Pennsylvanian (Late Carboniferous) rocks in the Quachitas and Ozarks. While Calamites may be found in rocks of Mississippian (Early Carboniferous) age, the rocks in Arkansas from that age are primarily marine. Good for finding sea shells, but land plants like Calamites are going to be rare, only there as a result of being washed in by a storm or some such. You will be much more likely to find them in rocks like the Atoka Formation on both sides of the Arkansas River Valley. Most of the Ozarks is Mississippian, but much of the Ouachitas is Pennsylvanian, so are much more likely to have them. You might find them in the Hartshorne sandstone (seen best capping Petit Jean Mountain), but plant fossils are rare and fragmentary. You would have better luck in the McAlester Formation overlying the Hartshorne. You can also try the Savanna and Boggy Formations, which are also of Pennsylvanian age.
It’s time for Mystery Monday! Here is a fossil that can be found in Arkansas, but is completely different from anything I’ve put up here before. Let’s see if you have the paleontological fiber needed to solve this puzzle, or do you lack the stomach for it?
It’s Friday again. Were you able to get the answer to Monday’s fossil?
The skull shown in the picture belonged to Arctodus simus, the giant, short-faced bear (the not-so-giant short-faced bear, A. pristinus, was smaller and lived in more southerly areas than A. simus). Arctodus lived in Arkansas and much of North America during the late Pleistocene, from less than 1 million years ago up to about 12,000 years ago, when most of the large North American Ice Age fauna went extinct. Arctodus was the North American version of the European cave bear, Ursus speleaous. While the European cave bear was a close relative of most modern bears, Arctodus was more distantly related, its only living relative being the spectacled bear, Tremarctos ornatus. It is sometimes considered possibly the largest terrestrial, mammalian carnivore that ever lived, standing over 3.5 m ( 11.5 ft) tall. Even on all fours, it was almost 2 m (6.5 f) at the shoulder. You would have to get at least 4.5 m (almost 15 ft) up a tree to avoid its reach, assuming it didn’t just tear the tree down or shake you out of the tree. It weighed in at a full ton and could run 40 mph (over 60kph). However, that is also the top range of modern Kodiak brown bears, otherwise known as Alaskan grizzly bears. In the wild, the bears don’t usually get over 1500 pounds (although they can), but the largest ever known was a bear in the Bismarck, ND zoo that weighed 2130 lbs at his death and previously weighed possibly close to 2400 lbs, although he was a very fat bear. There is another bear pelt on display at Space Farms Zoo and Museum in New Jersey that is claimed to be from a bear over 12 ft. tall and over 2,000 lbs, but those claims remain unverified are considered by most to be exaggerated. There is another bear that may have been even bigger. Arctotherium angustidens lived in South America about three million years ago and stood almost 3.5 m tall, so similar to Arctodus and the largest of extant bears, but was much more robust, weighing in the neighborhood of 3,500 lbs.
Arctodus is generally known for its long legs and short face. However, research in the past decade has indicated that its legs were neither longer than expected, nor was its face all that short. It was simply big. Like other bears, it is thought to be fairly solitary most of the time. Contrary to many depictions, it was not particularly adapted to running quickly, considering that modern grizzlies can run 30 mph. What may have made people think they were unusually fast is a combination of their size giving them long legs and tracks that have indicated they used a pacing gait, with the legs on the same side of the body moving in unison, rather than in opposition like most other animals. This sort of gait is typically used in animals with longer legs or at faster trots. Camels use it and dogs and cats, among others, do it when maintaining a trot before they break into more of a gallop. However, the pacing gait is not indicative of a fast-running animal, but of an animal that maintains a quick pace for long distances, it bespeaks of endurance, not speed.
Like most bears, Arctodus is thought to have been omnivorous, eating both plants and animals. There have been several hypotheses concerning its diet, from mostly scavenging to hypercarnivorism. It was certainly capable of bringing down large prey, although its limbs were not as flexible as most high level predators, nor were they particularly robust for their size, leading some to think they scavenged, although they would be hard-pressed to compete with giant vultures in scavenging and recent work indicates the tooth structure was not sufficient for chomping through bone. They may have been better suited for foraging plant material with their unusually flexible wrist giving them an almost semi-opposable thumb, much like pandas. This suggests possible tree-climbing to some workers, although Arctodus was a very large animal to be climbing trees. Besides, it typically lived in more open, grassland environments the majority of the time, so it is unlikely to have been adapted for tree-climbing.
They went extinct roughly 11,000 years ago, along with a large number of other large species. A reduction in rich food supplies is thought to have caused the extinction of the large herbivores. This would have placed a great deal of stress on the carnivores, causing increased competition. The dire wolves lost out to the modern grey wolves during this time, chiefly thought to be a result of the gray wolves being able to hunt and subsist on smaller and fewer prey than the larger dire wolves. This same reasoning would apply to Arctodus as well, which had to compete against both wolves and other bears, for a greater percentage of the share to fuel its larger body. On the other hand, evidence for this hypothesis has been lacking in analyses of tooth wear.
If you want to see more of Arctodus, make your way to the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles. many bones of this bear have turned up from the tar and are on display at the Page Museum.
Mastodon bones have been found throughout Arkansas, although almost all have been found either in northeast Arkansas between Crowley’s Ridge and the Mississippi River or along the Red River in Southwest Arkansas. According to the Arkansas State University Museum in Jonesboro, Arkansas has more mastodon finds than any other state in the mid-south region, with at least 20 different skeletons. Most of the work on them has been done by Dr. Frank Schambach and others of the Arkansas Archaeological Survey, headquartered at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, along with members of the Arkansas State University Museum. This particular mastodon was excavated by Dr. Schambach with the help of the Arkansas Archaeological Society along the Red River in Southwest Arkansas, I think in 1987, although I am not sure of the date yet.
Mastodons were related to elephants, although not as closely related to modern elephants as mammoths. Mammoths have also been found in Arkansas, most notably the Hazen mammoth, found in 1965. That specimen was a Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi), a less hairy version of the wooly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius). They lived across much of North and Central America during the Miocene and Pliocene, although they are known mostly from the Pleistocene in Arkansas, the heyday of the Ice Age, which is when people traditionally think of them living. They were similar in size to modern elephants.
The teeth of mastodons, mammoths and modern elephants tell an interesting story. Modern elephants have a wide diet of vegetation from grass to fruit and tree limbs. The Asian elephant has teeth that are more plate-like in form, making a series of ridges that create an excellent grinding surface. African elephants spend more time in forests and bush lands, with a corresponding higher amount of bushy vegetation in their diet. Their teeth are large, multi-rooted teeth with a series of ridge-like cusps. Mammoths take the plate-like grinding surface to an extreme as an adaptation to the grasslands they frequented. Mastodons, on the other hand, specialized in the opposite direction, with large, prominent cusps suited to a more forested environment and diet. Thus, mastodons and mammoths formed a bracket surrounding elephant ecology.
Work that has recently come out has shed new light on why they went extinct. People have long argued over whether climate change or humans wiped out the megaherbivores at the end of the last ice age. The Overkill hypothesis postulated that early humans hunted them to extinction. There is also the alternative that other actions by early humans contributed to their extinction. However, while there has been plenty of evidence indicating humans did hunt mammoths (e.g. the Clovis people at the Dent site in Colorado), the hypothesis has come under fire for the lack of widespread hunting evidence and timing issues, with research indicating the megaherbivores were already going extinct before humans appeared on the scene. The other hypothesis, climate change, has gotten more support from a study of plant fossils. According to the new data, the early tundra environments were dominated, not by grass, but by forbs, weedy herbaceous plants with more nutrients than grasses. An earlier glaciation 20-25,000 years ago dramatically reduced the abundance of these plants. When the weather warmed up, the forbs increased again, but never approached their previous levels. When the next glaciation hit, the forbs mostly died out, allowing the less nutritious grasses to take over, which greatly reduced the amount of herbivores the land could support. Of course, this does not mean that humans had nothing to do with the extinctions, but it does mean they were likely not the primary cause, more likely simply throwing the last spear into the coffin of the great herbivores.
That’s it for this week. Check back Monday for a new mystery fossil. Have a good weekend.
One of the questions I get often is what should you do if you find a fossil. I have been meaning to write a post discussing that, but I found that someone else had already written a very nice discussion on that very topic. I thought why duplicate the efforts of someone else who has done a fine job already? So instead of writing my own post, I am just going to refer you to their blog post. So without further ado, may I present…
Bill Nye the Science Guy debated Ken Ham, a young earth creationist who runs Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, Tuesday at the Creation Museum in Kentucky. The question they debated was “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era?” I won’t get into the debate itself, you can watch the debate in many places, such as here and here and decide for yourself who won or lost and whether or not they presented convincing arguments. What I do want to get into here is an article I saw called “22 messages from creationists to people who believe in evolution.” It illustrates why paleoaerie was created in the first place. When I read these statements from creationists, the lack of comprehension of really basic science concepts was highly discouraging. This isn’t even just about evolution, it’s about basic science understanding and logical thought processes. If one doesn’t even understand what a theory is, how can that person be expected to make a rational decision about anything? Life becomes nothing more than random guesses. We are blind men in a watch tower. “Blinken! What are you doing up there?” “Guessing? I guess there’s no one coming.” That’s no way to run your life, much less the whole of society.
So I thought I would provide at least some sort of answer to these questions. Many of them are questions that are quite commonly raised, so it is worth at least attempting to answer them. The first thing to address, though, is the title of the article itself. Scientists do not “believe” in evolution. It is not a religion or ethical/moral code. Scientists accept evolution because of the staggeringly huge amounts of evidence that supports the theory, not because some scientific leader told them they must believe it or go to science hell.
1. Bill Nye, are you influencing the minds of children in a positive way?
I’m not Bill Nye, but for me, I would say yes. Any attempt to teach children how to think rationally, to question how the world works and to use evidence to attempt to answer those questions, is a positive influence. Teaching children to obey and believe simply because they are told to without question is a bad influence. That is how horrific atrocities are committed and accepted by a blind populace. Every great discovery, invention, or acheivement came about because someone asked a question (more likely several questions) and trying to figure out the answer beyond just accepting what they were told. The bow and arrow, agriculture, medicine, computers, basic housing, nothing man-made would exist if we never asked questions and strived for answers. Creationism the way Ken Ham and others formulate it, is telling people to NOT ask questions, the only answer you need is “God did it.” That sort of thinking not only denies the reality of our shared experiences, but dooms civilization to failure and would have kept us in the trees. We would never even have made it to the caves. That is why this is important.
2. Are you scared of a Divine Creator?
There are two (more than that actually, but two is what I am sticking with here) ways to answer that question. If one starts with an atheist point of view, one cannot truly be afraid of something you don’t believe exists. But this question falsely assumes that evolution and religion are mutually incompatible, that one cannot believe in evolution and a Divine Creator at the same time. This is wrong. Pope Benedict stated that evolution is true, even calling the idea they are incompatible an absurdity. Pope Pius XII endorsed evolution, as did Pope Paul II, and Pope John Paul II called evolution “an effectively proven fact.” Surely no one could call these leaders godless or lacking in Christian religion. Billy Graham, an influential Baptist Evangelical leader, was not opposed to evolution. Pat Robertson, leader of the 700 Club, has called Creationism a joke and that a 6,000 year old earth is ridiculous. He has no problems with theistic evolution, only nontheistic evolution. In other words, he accepts in God-guided evolution. Truth be told, there is NOTHING in evolutionary theory that denies God. God is not a necessary part of the theory, but it does not claim God did not guide it. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institute for Health, is well known to be a devout religious man, yet also firmly accepts evolution.
3. Is it completely illogical that the earth was created mature, i.e. trees created with rings…Adam created as an adult…?
Yes. I think it is illogical. For that to be true, you have to admit that God is intentionally lying to you. Why would God create an earth that gave all appearances of being much older if God did not expect you to accept the evidence God provided? Is it logical to assume God lies to you? If so, why would you worship a God that is a liar?
4. Does not the Second Law of Thermodynamics disprove evolution?
No. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that 1. Heat will not flow from a cold object to a hot object. 2. Any system which is free of external influences becomes more disordered with time, which can be expressed as entropy. 3. You cannot create a heat engine which is 100% efficient in converting heat to useful work. For example, a (working) refrigerator is clearly colder on the inside than on the outside. It maintains this temperature by pulling heat from the inside and dumping it outside. One might say that this violates the 2nd law, but it doesn’t because it uses the fact that pressure and temperature are intertwined. It pumps a coolant that absorbs heat from the interior, thereby becoming less dense. It then takes that coolant and compresses it, releasing the heat so the coolant than then start the cycle over again. This requires energy to do this. The refrigerator uses electricity to add energy into the system, which is lost through this process. Overall, the entropy goes up, despite the refrigerator becoming less entropic on the inside, that disorder is simply moved outside. In the same way, the earth is collects a vast amount of energy from the sun. That energy is absorbed by plants, which then gets (very inefficiently) converted to work energy by themselves and everything that eats them. Overall, the process is extremely inefficient. Without the sun, no life could exist on earth, entropy could not be fought. But the sun supplies so much energy, it is simplicity itself to create order in some areas even while disorder of the whole increases.
5. How do you explain a sunset if there is no God?
Disregarding the spelling mistake (English teachers, where are you?), this question doesn’t even make sense. Sunsets happen because the earth rotates on its axis. Stand in front of a light with a little Lego person on your forehead and turn around. That Lego person on your forehead will experience a “sunset” for every revolution you make. Now imagine that process as you standing on the earth and the light being the sun.
6. If the Big Band is true and as taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?
They don’t. See above. Both evolution and the Big Bang Theory are formulated with the laws of thermodynamics in mind and are fully compatible with them. If they weren’t, no scientist would take them seriously. They are, so we do.
7. What about Noetics?
To be honest, I’ve never heard of Noetics. One minute while I perform Google-fu…According to Wikipedia, “noetics is a branch of metaphysical philosophy concerned with the study of mind and intellect. Noetic topics include the doctrine of the agent/patient intellect (Aristotle, Averroes) and the doctrine of the Divine Intellect.” What about it? This has nothing to do with evolution. If you are asking where consciousness comes from, one first has to define what you mean, as there is no universally accepted definition. However you define (presuming one is using a rational definition), humans are hardly unique in being “conscious”. The idea that we are the only animal that is conscious is simply a conceit to make us feel special. There are gradients of consciousness exhibited by a wide range of animals that are not human. Therefore, it seems to have evolved. If one is talking about the idea that you can know the universe simply via self-examination, there is abundant evidence that shows just how fallible human perception is. There are entire fields of study devoted to the topic. It is how magicians perform their craft, why marketers are so successful. As helpful, beneficial, and worthwhile it is, self-examination without reference to the outside world cannot even accurately teach you about yourself, much less the universe.
8. Where do you derive objective meaning in life?
Again, this has nothing to do with evolution. Meaning in life is a personal decision, not an objective part of the universe. The meaning of life is what you make of it. Thus, an objective meaning of life is a non sequitor as it is subjective by definition.
9. If God did not create everything, how did the first single-celled organism originate? By chance?
Yes. There are a lot of hypotheses about how that happened, but we don’t honestly know. At any rate, the question has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, only what happened to it after it was here. If you want to understand the physical processes that led to the origin of life, I suggest you talk to a biochemist and biophysicist. That is in their bailiwick, not in evolutionary theory. But let’s ask that question in a different way. If God created everything, how did God get created? Did He create himself? And sorry, but the answer of “He always existed” is simply a copout. The other problem with this question is the assumption that there are only two possible mutually exclusive answers, that it is either evolution or God. What if it were aliens? No, I’m not seriously suggesting that, if for no other reason than it only pushes the question back to where the aliens come from and so answers nothing. I am simply saying that other possibilities exist. They are also not mutually exclusive. You can accept evolution AND God if you wish. You may as well ask how can a pilot fly if he didn’t invent airplanes. One is not dependent on the other, nor does one being true rule out the other.
10. I believe in the Big Bang Theory…God said it and BANG it happened.
That’s not a question, just a statement of opinion. It also has the serious flaw in that it indicates the person refused to even consider the question, going on nothing more than blind faith. That’s ok in a religion, but is a horrendous failure in science. That sort of thinking also fails the reality test, in that reality does not care what you believe. You may believe you can fly and jump off a tall building, but unless you have brought along a parachute or hang glider or some such object, the ground will still kill you. Personally, I would rather someone tested the parachute before I staked my life on it.
11. Why do evolutionists/secularists/huminists/non-God believing people reject the idea of their being a creator God but embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terrestrial sources?
First off, English teachers, help this man. Second, almost no one does, so this question makes no sense. It lumps a whole lot of people into a very strange category. Most people who “embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens” are generally considered whackjobs and not taken seriously, so it both has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with a very incorrect view of people who accept evolution. The accepted scientific thinking on life originating from aliens is that there is no proof or any real evidence for that idea, so it is not considered at all scientific and is therefore unaccepted. There are a few people that support the idea, but as far as I know, no one, not even them, really consider it a scientifically supported hypothesis.
12. There is no inbetween…the only one found has been Lucy and there are only a few pieces ot the hundreds necessary for an “official proof.”
First off, there is no “official proof” of anything in science. There is either evidence supporting it or not supporting it. Secondly, there are far more fossils than of just Lucy. There are multiple species of Australipithecus, as well as Ardipithicus, Sahelopithicus, Paranthropus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, etc. May I suggest you spend some time perusing the Smithsonian site on human origins? They have quite a nice discussion of human origins and present far more than just Lucy.
13. Does metamorphosis help support evolution?
Yes, it does. Careful study of how different animals undergo metamorphosis has helped to elucidate the relationships between a large number of different animals. The study of amphibian and insect relationships requires a detailed examination of how those processes play out and they have been exceedingly helpful in understanding the evolutionary pathways in these groups. There are still plenty of unanswered questions, but that is why we do research, to try to answer those questions. Moreover, research on those topics is an important part of medical research on regeneration, in the hope that if we can fully understand it in other animals, we may be able to bring that knowledge to bear on helping humans do it to, so that we may one day grow back lost limbs and organs and not have to depend on prosthetics.
14.If evolution is a theory (like creationism or the Bible) why then is evolution taught as fact?
If evolution were indeed a theory like creationism, it would not be taught as fact, it wouldn’t be taught at all because it would be only fit for a religion class. But it is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. There is no law of gravity, there is a Theory of Gravity that explains the mathematical relationships and how it works in the universe. A scientific theory is not simply a guess. It is a scientific concept that explains a large array of observable facts, a concept that has been tested and retested and tested again by lots and lots of people. Scientific theories are constantly being revisited to see if new observations still support it. The simple fact of the matter is that no one has been able to provide any better hypothesis that explains the observable data. Sorry, but “God did it” is not a verifiable hypothesis. One cannot even proof or disprove God exists, God is a concept that falls outside of science. If someone can come up with a way to either proof God exists that can be objectively tested or can come up with a better hypothesis that disproves evolution, again, with objective, verifiable facts, they would become famous and would win the Nobel Prize. That hasn’t happened, so until it does, we will stick with evolution.
This question not only misunderstands what a scientific theory is, but it misunderstand what the theory of evolution is. Here then is the essence of evolutionary theory: everything changes. Specifically, living organisms change. Even more specifically, we can observe those changes in the genetic distributions within populations. If we see genetic changes in populations, we have proven evolution happens. Basically, if you can agree that you are not a clone of your parents, you accept evolution. That is why we teach evolution as a fact, because it is.
15. Because science by definition is a “theory” – not testable, observable, nor repeatable, why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?
Because science by definition is none of those things. To be considered science, it must be testable, observable, and repeatable (at least in some aspect). Thus, a dinosaur bone is not science. It is a fact. It exists. That it is a dinosaur and that a dinosaur means a specific thing is science because it is a testable concept. Other people can take that definition of what a dinosaur is and make their own observations to test it. They can make predictions and then see if those predictions hold up. If it can’t do this, it’s not science. Something that is not testable, observable, nor repeatable is called speculation or religion, but most emphatically NOT science. That is why we resist creationism or intelligent design being taught. They have no evidence to support them, they have no testable predictions that would support the ideas and what few predictions they have made have been proven wrong. Therefore, they have nothing to do with science and should not be taught as science. If they are going to be taught in school, it should be limited to a religion class. Even then, that religion class, to be allowable in a public school, would also have to teach equally other religions. So unless you are willing to have Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Satanism, and any other religion taught on an equal footing, you can’t have them in a public school that is bound by law to not advocate any single religion over another. To do so violates our most fundamental right, freedom of religion.
16.What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process.
There are actually several processes. It would take several books to adequately answer that question, so I will just mention a few in brief. Genes get accidentally duplicated all the time, our genomes are filled with duplicated genes. Most genes we have are in fact part of gene “families” which originated from the duplication of an earlier gene. When this happens, the duplicated gene is then free to evolve into something else. The original gene is still constrained by its original function, so it has a limited ability to change without breaking. However, that spare gene can change independently and it doesn’t matter if it can no longer perform its original function. It then has the ability to over time pick up a new function. Another way to increase genetic information is through viral infections. Our genome is about 8% viral origins. Viruses function by inserting themselves into the genome of their host and using the host cell to make the viral proteins. When the virus copies itself and spreads to other cells, it very often takes a small part of the host genome with it. Also, quite often, a virus gets inserted into a host genome, but loses its ability to replicate itself, thereby getting trapped in the host cell. If that cell happens to be a reproductive cell, which happens, it will get passes on to offspring as a permanent part of the genome. This is in fact virtually the entire basis of the field of gene therapy. Another way is good old fashioned sex. Hybridizations occur between closely related species all the time. Most of the time, those hybrids are sports, they can’t reproduce, but sometimes they can. Red wolves and Gray oaks are great examples of species that have been created through hybridizations. Plants are the ultimate masters of hybridization. They hybridize and create new species at the drop of a hat. They also readily duplicate their entire genomes. Of course, bacteria and many prokaryotes regularly swap genes among each other in a process called conjugation. There are many other ways, this is just the tip of the ice berg, but I hope I have demonstrated that increasing genetic information is really quite easy and happens all the time.
17. What purpose do you think you are here for if you do not believe in salvation?
Again, another question that has nothing to do with evolution. How does this even relate to the topic? The other flaw in this question is that it assumes we all have a purpose at all. What evidence can you give me that anyone has a purpose? What evidence can you give me that you can know the mind of God well enough to know what that purpose is? What is the purpose of a baby that dies at birth? What is the purpose of a person that never has children? Why do we need a purpose? Each of us are here because our parents had unprotected sex. There is no requirement that it be any deeper than that. It is fine to ask that question, but honestly, what does that have to do with science or evolution? For me, I think our purpose is what we choose to make it. Only you can answer what your purpose is and only if you decide to create one for yourself. As far as Salvation goes, why do we need to believe in Salvation? Why do we need Salvation? For us to need Salvation, that requires that God made us imperfectly so that we need to be saved. Why would God create something that needed God to rescue it? What need did God have to create something who’s only purpose was to worship God and ask to be rescued? These are not scientific questions. They are religious, philosophical questions. They are by their very nature outside the realm of science, at least, until someone comes up with a way to objectively test them. But they most certainly do not have anything to do with whether or not evolution occurs.
18. Why have we found only 1 of “Lucy”, when we have found more than 1 of everything else?
See question 12 for “Lucy”. To add to that, most fossil species consist of at most a few specimens. So it is not true that we have found more than one of everything. But more to the point, we have found seveal specimens of Austalopithicus, several different species in fact. So it is not true that we have only found one. There are numerous examples.
19. Can you believe in “the big bang” without faith?
First off, “the big bang” has nothing to do with evolution. It doesn’t even have anything to do with life on earth. You can accept evolution and reject the Big Bang Theory, they are completely independent. Second, yes, you can. Do you seriously think the physicists who came up with the theory just pulled it out of their butts? Or do you think they started with observations of the known universe. They did in fact start with observations and deduced the big bang theory based on physical and mathematical principles. It had nothing to do with faith, it had everything to do with observations of the known universe. It would also never have been accepted by other physicists if they couldn’t defend the math. It will also be unceremoniously dumped if anyone provides a better explanation. I don’t have the mathematical background to understand the evidence for the theory. Thus, I accept the Big Bang Theory because there are lots of people that do have the background and have examined it in detail and have not been able to demolish it yet. But by all means, if you want to learn the math well enough to take a crack at it, go for it. There are plenty of physicists that will be happy to help you out and study whatever you come up with. The Big Bang Theory actually got its named as a derogatory comment from Dr. Fred Hoyle, a physicist that did NOT accept the theory initially. But eventually, the math and observable facts won people over. No faith involved.
20. How can you look at the world and not believe someone created/thought of it? It’s amazing!!!!
I agree, the universe is amazing. I don’t think you can explore the world as much as biologists do without thinking the universe is amazing. But because I know something of how it works, I find it endlessly more amazing than if I didn’t.people become scientists precisely because they think the universe is amazing and awe-inspiring. So awe-inspiring in fact, they want to know more about it. They are not content to just sit back and ignore it. But the question has nothing to do with evolution. It again assumes that evolution and a Creator are mutually exclusive. As I stated above, and as so many religious leaders and religiously devout scientists have stated ad nauseum, it is OK to believe in God and still accept evolution as being true. Let me ask you, which is more amazing, God did it, or we are the descendants of stars that exploded billions of years ago, spreading their elements across the universe, which eventually coalesced into our planet and finally at long last became us? Is the story of our connection to the universe in a very real, physical way as living descendants of the stars any less awe-inspiring than God waved his appendage and poof we are here? Does one story mean the other didn’t happen? No, I don’t think so.
21. Relating to the big bang theory…where did the exploding star come from.
Again, nothing to do with evolution. Also, it wasn’t a star, stars didn’t exist yet. Finally, heck if I know, ask an astrophysicist. No way is an evolutionary biologist ever going to be able to adequately answer that question. You are asking the wrong people and associating things that have no connection to each other. This sort of question is like asking an Olympic swimmer to compete in the heavy weightlifting competition and then assuming he can’t swim because he lost the weightlifting competition.
22. If we come from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?
First, we did not come from monkeys. Monkeys and humans both came from a common ancestor. Second, when you were born, did your parents die? What makes you think that just because one species evolved that the ancestral species has to go extinct? Life is not a perfectly linear ladder of existence. If it did work that way, there could only be one species on the planet at a time and that obviously isn’t true. I assume everyone can agree that new phones use the technology of pre-existing phones and improve upon them. When the new phones are created, do all older phones magically disappear? I don’t think so. Or perhaps, do the older phones gradually start going by the wayside as they get replaced over time. Taking this even farther, did kids stop drawing their names in sand because the internet was invented? Did hieroglyphs on Egyptian obelisks vanish because of TV? No, they stuck around. The evolution of a species does not require the ancestors to die out. In fact, that rarely happens.
There you go, 22 answers to 22 questions. I hope it has become obvious that the objections people raise against evolution, for the most part, have nothing to do with evolution. Those that do have something to do with evolution are based on a serious lack of understanding about how the world and science works. The history of life truly is the greatest story ever told. Let’s focus on learning that story and spend less time on arguments about the existence of the publisher.
Our Mystery Monday fossil concerns a photo taken by the Arkansas Archaeological Society on one of their digs. I’m still trying to find when this was taken, but I know roughly where. Can you tell what it is they are uncovering?