5 ms·
I have heard that scientists estimate at something like 99.9% of all species that ever lived have ZERO evidence left in the fossil record. While I think that a
by didgetmaster 2y ago
I have heard that scientists estimate at something like 99.9% of all species that ever lived have ZERO evidence left in the fossil record.
While I think that a great many things can be learned by studying the relative few fossils discovered; making broad assumptions about ecosystems based on limited evidence seems like a bit of a stretch.
- _1tem 2y ago[flagged]
- goatlover 2y agoWhat is this anti-scientific comment doing on hacker news? Evolution is a fact. It happened and it's still happening. The exact way species evolved is theoretical based on existing facts.
- _1tem 2y ago[flagged]
- tomrod 2y agoMake reddit style claims, get reddit style responses [0] [1] [0] https://imgflip.com/i/voggo https://imgflip.com/i/voggo [1] https://tenor.com/view/watch-it-gif-3524753964604521397 https://tenor.com/view/watch-it-gif-3524753964604521397
- Loughla 2y agoI feel like the basis of your argument requires you to very heavily misinterpret the word theory as being equal to the word belief. There's a reason those two things have different words for them. You know that, right?
- andrewflnr 2y agoDon't feed the troll. Especially don't feed them with tricky semantic distinctions.
- TacticalCoder 2y ago[dead]
- itishappy 2y agoThat's 0.01% more evidence than competing theories, no?
- tomrod 2y agoNah, evolution is much more predictive than creation myths -- to the point we've been able to cause speciation in labs simulation conditions aligned to evolutionary theory. Evolution isn't based solely on fossil records, and truth be told Judeochristian creationism couldn't account for extinction which the fossil record indicated. The 0.01% evidence is just a biased sample, but even a biased sample can be useful in context. Remember -- a good theory fits the evidence, and a good metaphysical framework allows adaption and update of truth with new evidence.
- itishappy 2y agoI think we agree. Regardless of the actual numbers, we clearly have more evidence for evolution than anything else.
- nurettin 2y agoGenetic algorithms work, and you can observe evolution in bacteria simply by exposing them to an acidic environment for several generations, so what do you mean by creation myth?
- daedrdev 2y agoWe literally know how genes change which cause evolution can do it ourselves, can measure how genes have changed between different groups of people and compared to animals and regularly evolve ecoli in real time for medical research
- jordanb 2y agoScientists are aware and account for that. One way they do that is by focusing not on megafauna but on creatures that exist in immense numbers in a biosphere like insects or even smaller creatures. They also look at pollen and other biological matter that gets spread evenly. They can also look at the effects life has on the structure and chemistry of earth. For instance, they know when oxygenation happened because there are chemicals in older rocks that can not form in the presence of oxygen, while there are chemicals in younger rocks that can only form in the presence of oxygen. A big evidence that the end-Permian effected land as much as the ocean is the behavior of rivers. When plants are present, rivers tend to meander because plant roots hold onto the river banks. When plants are not present, the river is able to take the shortest path to the ocean. Rivers banks laid down at the end of the Permian meander, river banks laid down at the start of the Triassic do not.
- tomrod 2y ago> Rivers banks laid down at the end of the Permian meander, river banks laid down at the start of the Triassic do not. * subject to relative flatness But what an interesting thought, I'd never considered how river topography might indicate world conditions. So start of Triassic really was a blow to life!