Evolution
The definition of evolution is change over time. The universe has changed over time, and there is little debate over this fact. There is a debate on evolution as it relates to life. In life, there are a few types of evolution:
1) Chemical evolution, that is, the origins of life (see Life page). If this issue cannot be solved, and it has not been, the following has no foundation to stand on.
2) Micro-evolution, that is, small changes over time. There is little debate here, as we are able to witness micro-evolution in real time, such as drug-resistant bacteria and other small changes in species. The genetic variation requires no statistically significant increase in functional information.
3) Macro-evolution, that is, one species changing into a new species, we are not able to witness. The genetic variation requires a large statistically significant increase in functional information. Darwinian theory predicts that genetic information can significantly increase over time. This is a falsifiable prediction. Thus, the hunt for some "hidden" factors.
Evolution, or more precisely, macro-evolution, is highly debated, not only in the Christian community but in the scientific community. Some in the scientific community are looking for "hidden" factors that would make species change. Scientists are increasingly looking beyond traditional evolutionary drivers to understand how species adapt and change, particularly in response to rapid environmental shifts. Researchers are identifying "hidden" factors—ranging from genetic mechanisms to ecological feedbacks—that influence evolution. These Scientists are honest in that they recognize the current list of factors is insufficient to explain the rapid changes we see in the fossil record. While these Scientists are looking for natural causes, the Old Age Creation Model predicts that these natural causes will not be found, as we do not see any macro-evolutionary event occurring today. In the Christian community, Evolution should NOT be a salvation issue; only faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, Grace found at the cross, should be the salvation issue. In heaven, God of the Bible will not ask you the age of the Earth or about Evolution.
What factors drive evolution?
1) Mutations: Mutations are only beneficial for species that have a very large population size, like bacteria. As the negative (detrimental) mutations far outnumber the positive (beneficial). Most mutations are neutral. Detrimental mutations outnumber beneficial mutations by at least 10,000 to 1 and sometimes by 10,000,000 to 1. The high ratio of harmful (or deleterious) to beneficial mutations explains why ecologists observe far more extinction events than speciation events in their field studies. The naturalistic biological evolution model based on phylogenetics predicts that introduction of new species has exceeded extinctions, but the fossil record shows that the reverse is true. As environmentalists point out, we are witnessing an extinction rate of multiple species per year. Even if the human activity factors are removed, we are still left with an extinction rate of at least one species every year. Without rapidly appearing new species, scientists remain unable to derive mathematical models that produce valid extinction rates for species.
2) Natural selection: Natural selection can change an animal’s color and other small changes, but it has been shown to have limits. Also, it has been shown that once the pressure that drives the change is removed, the animal will return to its original state; changes are not permanent. Finch beak evolution, shown as proof, always fails to note that the finch does not keep the large beak. As the food that forced the large beak is gone, the beak returns to its original size. Natural selection is also sometimes called the survival of the fittest.
3) Epigenetics: A negative (detrimental) effect. If parents do drugs or engage in other negative behavior. This can be passed down as a detrimental effect on offspring.
4) Gene flow: If a population of a species is separated for some time, there will be diversity between the two groups. If the population rejoins later, diversity is added into the two groups.
5) Genetic drift: Genetic drift operates through random sampling errors from one generation to the next, by chance, especially in small populations. (operates like mutations, but is different)
6) Gene Exchange: Only for bacteria, a movement of genetic material between unicellular organisms, bypassing reproduction. It drives rapid evolution in bacteria only.
With the above 5 factors, we can observe micro-evolution in real time. Drug-resistant bacteria a real micro-evolution. Darwin's finches' evolution is real; that is, the birds' beak sizes do change. So why is there a debate about macro-evolution? The 5 factors can produce small changes over time, but real-time studies show that even with these 5 factors, there are limits as to how much change can be made to a species. The 5 factors also cannot account for the rapid development of new organs, such as the brain, spinal cord, backbone, eyes, limbs, lungs, heart, blood vessels, lymph node system, hearing, gills, liver, and male and female organs. Thus, the hunt for some other "hidden" factor.
Since this is a debate, let's look at the evidence for and against macro-evolution.
Macro-evolution proofs:
1) Micro-evolution does work, and we know how and why (antibiotic-resistant bacteria, pesticide-resistant insects, and environmental factors made changes in species like the peppered moth color or beak size finches, adaptation). 2) There are a few transitional fossils. 3) Some unrelated species have similar bones in the fossil record. 4) In the fossil record, species go from simple to more complex most of the time. 4) Species that are similar have similar DNA. 5) Types defined: divergent, convergent, parallel evolution, and coevolution. Divergent: related species evolve distinct traits (observable minor changes). Convergent: independent evolution of similar traits in unrelated species (not observable). Parallel: independent development of similar traits in closely related, but geographically separated species. Coevolution: two species reciprocally affect each other's evolution through close ecological interactions, such as predator-prey, parasite-host, or pollinator-plant relationships. Evolutionary biologists claim that there are transitional forms in the fossil record. To buttress this assertion, they frequently point to the “feathered” dinosaur fossils. This has been found to be dorsal crest or tubercles or spines, like those found on iguana lizards. The other claim is a transitional intermediate (Archaeopteryx, which is a bird) between birds and theropod dinosaurs. But now modern crows like birds, that are older and living at the same time as transitional intermediate (Archaeopteryx and Caudipteryx, both are birds) have been found. Archaeopteryx, 150 million years ago, and modern crow-like birds date back up to 210 million years ago. Evolution is claimed as fact, as only a naturalistic worldview is allowed, no matter the problems and evidence.
Problem with the Macro-evolution theory: (lacks sufficient empirical evidence)
Evolution’s critics often cite the virtual absence of transitional intermediates in the fossil record as a significant problem for the theory. If evolutionary processes explain life’s history, then it’s reasonable to expect an abundance of fossil intermediates documenting the emergence of new life-forms, there are few in the fossil record. See Fossil record page
None of Darwin's predictions have come true; they have all failed. The fossil record does not show gradualism and the intermittent or transitional fossils predicted have not appeared. The failure that hurt humans is the Vestigial Organs prediction. Medicine took this prediction and claimed that the appendix and tonsils were useless organs and removed many healthy ones, when they are part of the immune system. Darwin knew nothing about DNA and proteins.
In On the Origin of Species (1859), Charles Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down". (It has DNA, Cell Walls, and much more, see the Life page.) If there is complex code (DNA), there must be a coder.
Cambrian explosion: All body plans appear at the same time, 540 million years ago, early in the Cambrian explosion. Eyes and other complex features all appear at once in the Cambrian explosion. The fossil record is firm. All at one time: Brain, spinal cord, backbone, eyes, limbs, lungs, heart, blood vessels, lymph node system, hearing, gills, liver, and male and female organs. There is no time for Macro-evolution to work.
Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event 40 million years after the Cambrian explosion. Macro-evolution to work. Life froms: armored fish, crinoids, trilobites, sea scorpion and more.
Avalon explosion single cells to complex life all at once. The fossil record is firm. All at 575-million years ago. Macro-evolution to work. 270 species within 20 different genera all from single cell life.
Lack of transitional fossils for most of the life forms. Animals appear to remain unchanged, and most go extinct. The past predictions were that new fossil finds would fill in the gap in the transitional fossils, but they have not come true. There are “missing links” for most species. Due to the lack of “missing links” in the fossil record, scientists have been removing the words "missing link" from textbooks and white papers. Wouldn't that be great if you could not solve a problem, so you delete the words from your vocabulary and just pretend that there is no problem! For that matter, some would like to remove the term Micro-evolution, also, so they do not have to defend it either!
Living fossils: Horseshoe crab, Nautilidae, Australian lungfish, nurse shark and many more. Animals appear, remain unchanged for long time spans.
Convergent evolution: Many complex features appear in unrelated animals and plants, too many to be evolution. Look at Chameleon and Sand Lance fish, with the same eyes (independent eye movements and special focusing lenses) and a darting tongue. The list of convergent evolution is very long, too long. Real-time studies show evolution does not repeat. So these features that appear in unrelated animals do not fit into the theory of evolution.
6) Studies have shown that mutations are only beneficial for species that have a very large population size, like bacteria. For all other animals mutations drives the species towards extinction. So mutations do not produce new and complex features, like eyes. When animals are stressed and have a small population size, we protect then, as they do not change. Mutations occur when DNA is damaged and left unrepaired. The ratio of negative to beneficial mutations in anything larger than an ant is harmful to the life form.
Natural selection can change an animal’s color and other small changes, but it has been shown to have limits. Also, it has been shown that once the pressure that forces the change is gone, the animal will go back to its original state; changes are not permanent! Finch beak evolution, shown as proof, always fails to note the finch does not keep the large beak. As the food that forced the large beak is gone, the beak returns to its original size.
Origins of life: There was no primordial soup. There was no time for natural origins; as soon as the Earth cooled, there was life. The first life forms were not “simple” as predicted. Cyanobacterium is very complex. There was not one simple early life form; there was a complete ecosystem with sulfate-reducing microorganisms, which also shows up early in the record, and a very complex life form.
Some clades are very diverse, and some are unusually sparse; evolution should work everywhere the same.
The recovery after mass extinctions is very quick, too quick for evolution. Permian-triassic Extinction: 90 percent to 95 extinction rate. Yet, life recovered in just thousands of years. Triassic-jurassic Extinction: Triassic dinosaurs gone and in just thousands of years all new Jurassic dinosaurs. Cretaceous-tertiary Extinction: Mass extinction, all dinosaurs are gone, as is most life forms, yet there are all new life forms in just thousands of years. (Psalm 104:29-30)
Breeding for dogs and horses for thousands of years. Change comes at a heavy cost: a shorter lifespan and poor health. Dogs have great genetic diversity, so natural selection and mutations allow for large changes. We have taken a wolf and were able to breed it up to the size of a Great Dane. But Great Danes and other large dogs have a shorter lifespan and many more health issues. Likewise, we took a wolf and bred it down to a teacup poodle; again, a shorter lifespan and many more health issues. In horses, the large Daft horses have a shorter lifespan and many more health issues. This has proven: Life does not like to change. If it is forced to change (natural selection and mutations), the species changes at a very high cost, with a short life span and major health issues.
If a species changes, that is microevolution. The species does NOT get to keep the change. Remove penicillin for some time, and the drug-resistant bacteria go away! Remove the large seeds and the Finch beaks go back to the small size. Remove the dark trees and the black moths go back to the color months. So ALL the proofs for evolution are only half-truths. If someone only tells half-truths, this is a clear sign these is bias! Why would they do half-truths?
DNA testing of close animals has shown they are not related. The two river dolphins and ocean dolphins are not related. The two panda bears are not related and the list can go on and on.
The proof of evolution is mostly: Animal A looks like animal B, so animal B must have come from animal A. How childish if you can not show how it happened.
Common Ancestry problem. Animals that have a recent common ancestor are too different. A donkey is very close in ancestry to the horse and zebra. So close that they may breed, producing mules and zonkeys. Yet the donkey, horse and zebra are very different, too different. The donkey is very cautious and departs from danger, they can not be used in a battle. The horse will go into battle willingly; some like the danger. The Donkey and the horse are easily tamed and once tame will remain tame. Zebras are difficult to tame and difficult to keep tame. Other sample of this problem can be found in nature.
“Evolution Junk”, those who believe only in evolution have put on blinders and have made gross errors in the past about designs in nature. The theory is evolution is a series of random mutations, thus residual vestige of random mutations will be found in nature. In this thinking, many scientists overlooked designs in life. Only later was it shown that what they called junk was, in fact, a good design. Examples of this are many: Tonsils, Appendix, Panda's thumb, Whale hips (still taught as vestige, but this is wrong), Junk DNA, humpback whale's fins, and more. There are neutral mutations, like some humans have three or one kidney, but these are not residual vestige or a case for design as they are rare.
Human exceptionalism: Charles Darwin wrote, and many scientists followed this thinking: Animals that most look like us will most closely match our cognitive capabilities. After study and research, the animals that have the closest cognitive capabilities to humans are crows, ravens, and the New Caledonian Crow. The New Caledonian Crow can: Make fish hooks, teach others how to make fish hooks. Crows and ravens (same family) are the only animals to be able to solve multi step problems and make tools to solve these problems. MRI scans have shown that crow and raven brains are the closest to humans. Yet, human exceptionalism has shown that we are not just a higher animal. Humans differ much from animals. Humans are the only ones to be active in: art, music, jewelry, use symbolism, active religion, written languages, mathematics, have moral dilemmas, and much more. Many of these appeared as soon as humans appeared. Neanderthals have few of these abilities and are too different from Humans. Near the end, Neanderthals lived alongside Humans. Neanderthals had no tear ducts, very large sinuses, large barrel shaped chest, short arms, heavy bones, different braincase, different ear bones, and more. There is no “missing link” to humans from bipedal primates. The large brain evolution hypothesis has been falsified after the discovery of early hominins with larger brains than later hominin fossils.
Irreducible Complexity: Many biological systems require multiple parts to function at once; proponents of this view argue that small, step-by-step changes could not produce these systems, as intermediate steps would not be functional.
Mathematical Challenges: The time required for random mutations to create new systems is often considered too long, or the odds too low, to account for the diversity of life within the available time.
Difficulty Defining Species Transitions: Critics argue that artificial breeding (which causes change within species) does not produce the same results as natural selection over long periods and therefore cannot be used as a direct parallel for macroevolution
Macroevolution posed difficulties for Darwin and later theorists because species’ phenotypes frequently change abruptly or experience long periods of stasis, both of which are counter to the theory of incremental change or gradualism. We introduce a statistical model that accommodates this uneven evolutionary landscape by estimating two kinds of historical change: directional changes that shift the mean phenotype along the branches of a phylogenetic tree, and evolvability changes that alter a clade’s ability to explore its trait-space. In mammals, we find that both processes make substantial independent contributions to explaining macroevolution and are rarely linked. ‘Watershed’ moments of increased evolvability greatly outnumber reductions in evolutionary potentials, and large or abrupt phenotypic shifts are explicable statistically as biased random walks, allowing macroevolutionary theory to engage with the language and concepts of gradualist microevolution. Our findings recast macroevolutionary phenomena, illustrating the necessity of accounting for a variety of evolutionary processes simultaneously.
The prediction was that the fossil record would show gradualism, but what is found is what scientists call “punctuated equilibrium”. “Punctuated equilibrium” species remain unchanged for a long time, then die out and are quickly replaced with a new species. Gradualism contradicts the fossil record.
The claim is that when a species gets to a small population size, it changes more quickly; this is "Punctuated equilibrium”. But real-time studies show that when a population size gets small, it does not change; either it needs to grow its population or it will go extinct. That is why we put small population species on the endangered species list!.
Real-time studies show that the larger a species' body size, the less it can change over time.
Real-time studies show that the longer the gestational period the less the species can change over time.
Real-time studies show that the fewer young in the 'litter," the less the species can change over time.
Based on real-time studies, animals with a long gestational period and only one baby at birth have no chance of change (evolution).
Some species have such small genetic diversity that they lack the DNA diversity to change at all. Chimpanzees have very low genetic diversity, thus have 0% chance of any change.
Similar species have similar DNA. But Chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas all have very close DNA, yet, they are so anatomically different they cannot interbreed. Humans share 50% DNA with yeast. Cats and humans share 90% gene similarity. Dogs and humans is 84%. We share 35% of our DNA with daffodils. Humans do not mate or come from these. So, quoting similar DNA percentages does not mean macroevolution is true!
Fine-tuning in Life systems: Blood is fine-tuned to control its PH (acidity). In fact, all life systems are fine-tuned, not what random unguided mutations would produce.
Fossil record reversal, the transitional form, or the "gradual" form appears after the more complex life form.
Frequency and extent of mass extinctions. The species rate vs. the extinction rate is not covered in evolution.
Rapid recovery from mass extinctions is too quick for evolution.
Duration of time windows for different species. Generating specific functional nucleotide changes (e.g., binding sites) takes immense time, with two-nucleotide strings taking 84 million years and five-nucleotide strings 2 billion years in hominins. This contrasts with rapid speciation, which can occur in decades via mating changes
Frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis (interaction between two different organisms living in close association, to the advantage of both)
Frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism. Altruism refers to the evolutionary paradox where individuals perform costly actions (lowered fitness) that benefit others, a behavior that should logically be selected against, yet it is widely observed in nature and human society.
Speciation and extinction rates. The extinction rate is higher than the Speciation (observable today).
Molecular clock rates are that they rarely tick at a constant speed across different species or genes, breaking the core assumption of a strict molecular clock. Mutation rates fluctuate due to differences in generation times, population size, metabolism, and natural selection, leading to significant discrepancies in evolutionary timing
Recent Origin of Humanity. The problem refers to scientific contradictions in dating, locating, and explaining the rapid emergence of anatomically modern
Homo sapiens sapiens. While an origin around 100,000- 200,000 years ago is generally accepted, it is contradictory evidence.
The list of problems grows over time, not shrinks.
Since evolutionary predations have not come to pass, and the evidence is going in the wrong direction. Common features in life (cells, DNA, and more) are open to a common design from a common Designer, Creator.
The claim that one must choose between the Bible (God) or Science is a false position. John Lennox put it this way: I show you a Ford car. I tell you: You must pick one: The car is either a product of an engineer in internal combustion engine design OR Henry Ford. You must pick one.
Overall, there are many solidly scientific reasons to question the theory of evolution. These flaws may be resolved by science (but many past predictions have failed miserably) , or they may eventually kill the theory altogether. We don’t know which one will happen, but we do know this: the theory of evolution is far from settled, and rational people can question it scientifically.
++++++++++++++++++++
Detailed examples:
1) In Richard Lenski’s long-term E. coli evolution experiment (LTEE), one population of bacteria evolved the ability to consume citrate, a nutrient previously unused by the bacteria, after roughly 31,000 generations of living in a citrate-rich environment. This rare event was driven by complex mutations, not a single change, that developed over decades, turning the citrate-using bacteria into a newly adapted form. While this at first glance looks like proof for evolution, the test was run a second time, and it was found that evolution does not repeat.
2) Convergent evolution. Animals with wings include birds, bats, insects, pterosaurs, and extinct flying reptiles. These are the only creatures capable of true flight. More than just wings are needed for true flight. The whole body of the animal must have all parts capable of supporting true flight. The body must be very light, so the weight to lift is correct. True flight takes extra energy. To have this happen once by random chance would be amazing, but it happened 4 times in unrelated animal families and very early in life's history. Birds have flight as early as 210 millsion years ago, some say 160. Either number is very early in each's history. Flying insect fossils, dating back over 325 million years ago, include massive dragonflies with wingspans of 2.5 feet. Bats are known to have flown as early as 56 million years ago, just 10 million years after the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, which killed three-quarters of all life. Early pterosaurs date back more than 215 million year ago. Convergent evolution claims that all these developed true flight by random chance.
Convergent evolution is not just in true flight; it is in all life forms, including plants.
Convergent evolution claims that poisonous stings with venom occurred in many unrelated species, such as: jellyfish, Scorpions, Snakes, stingrays, platypus, stinging nettle, bees, spiders, cone snails, octopus, and stonefish. The first human injection needle was not until 1844.
Convergent evolution claims that echolocation occurred in many unrelated species, such as bats, toothed whales (dolphins, orcas), shrews, and birds (oilbirds, swiftlets). This requires the animal to both make the sound and be able to hear it, and the brain to be able to make a 3D map of the location.
3) Life Does Not Like Change. A wolf as lifespan of up to 20 years. In breeding, we have bred wolves up to Alaskan Malamutes. Alaskan Malamutes have a lifespan of up to 14 years and are prone to health issues. Great Danes only have a lifespan of up to 10 years and are prone to serious health issues. As a species moves away from its normal, it will always have a short life and health issues. This should be no surprise, but is brushed aside by those that beivlev in evolution. All life forms information is stored in DNA. DNA has error correction to try and keep the species the same. Changes in a life form come through mostly through mutations, and mutations are almost always negative-detrimental to the life form. So change always comes at a high cost. On the scale, we have a teacup poodle, a very small dog. Teacup poodles are prone to serious health issues with an average lifespan of 12. Biologists blame these short lifespans and health issues on breeding, but what is the difference between breeding and natural selection? If a aminal need to be larger to survive in the wild, natural selection will make it larger. Just as breding as done to make dogs larger. Evolution says that to survive in the wild, some animals have to be smaller; natural selection will make them smaller. Breeding and natural selection use the same DNA changes to change the size of the animal. Note: Animals with very low genetic diversity have no chance to change at all. Low genetic diversity: Cheetahs, Tasmanian devils, mountain gorillas, snow leopards, chimps, narwhal, lynx, koalas, rhinoceros, ferrets, sea otters and many more. Some are due to humans, most are not. So, whales and elephants should have a short life span. Yet, whales and elephants are very large, have very long life spans and are not sickly.
4) Cambrian explosion. Too much at once. Jointed limbs, specialized appendages, hardened exoskeletons, digestive tracts, circulatory systems, gills, and complex eyes. Chordata, fish, with a brain, spinal cord, backbone, ears, nose, eyes, smell organ, fins, liver, gills, and many more advanced features. All in only 10 million years 540 to 520 million years ago. Some are living fossils and still alive today: lamp Shells, nautilus, star fish, sponges, Jellyfish, and Anemones. Horseshoe Crabs and Coelacanths 450 million years, just after the Cambrian.
4) Rapid recovery, too quick:
Life on Earth recovered astonishingly fast after the Dinosaurs killing asteroid 66 million years ago, with ecosystems rebounding within mere years to thousands of years, rather than tens of thousands. Studies show new species appeared. Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event (CPEE). It occurred 66.043 ± 0.043 million years ago when an asteroid at least 10 kilometers (6 miles) in diameter crashed into Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula.
Dinosaurs rapid recovery after mass extinction. Dinosaurs experienced a rapid recovery and diversification following the Triassic-Jurassic mass extinction event ~201 million years ago. Following the extinction, dinosaurs saw an abrupt increase in diversity and distribution. After the extinction, they rapidly became the dominant terrestrial animals. 80% of dinosaur species disappeared and were replaced with all new dinosaurs, some in just 700,000 years to recover. Within 10,000 years or less, large theropod dinosaurs appeared, and in less than 100,000 years, dinosaur species diversity attained a stable maximum. Especially astounding is not just the body size and complexity of the new species but the fact that they appeared amid hostile environmental conditions. However, the short time between the TJEE and the Jurassic speciation is far too brief to allow for a naturalistic explanation. Long-term evolution experiments performed in real time show that even under extreme laboratory pressure, the most evolutionarily flexible species experience nothing more than microevolution
Permian-Triassic mass extinction event is by far the most catastrophic known event to ever impact life on Earth. It occurred 251.9 million years ago. This cataclysm eradicated 90–96% of marine species and at least 70% of land species. It even wiped out insect species. Not even cockroaches survived the catastrophe. Massive volcanic eruptions poured huge quantities of carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide into the atmosphere. Yet, only 1.3 million years after the greatest known mass extinction event, fossils dated to 250.6 million years ago have been found. What astounded the paleontologists was the incredible diversity of the benthic fossils they found. Their samples included fossils from 7 phyla and at least 20 distinct metazoan (large-bodied animal) orders. The ecosystem was complete in that it included middle-sized predators (15–20 centimeters long) and top predators. In other words, ecosystem balance and optimization did not take many millions of years to evolve. It appeared immediately. It included “Lazarus taxon.” A Lazarus taxon is a species or paleontological group that disappears from the fossil record for one or more periods, only to reappear later. From an evolutionary perspective, it is totally unexpected that such a diverse, complex, complete, and optimized ecosystem would arise so quickly after such a devastating and widespread extinction event. However, such an outcome is exactly what one would predict from a Creator intent on preparing Earth and its life for the arrival of human beings within the very narrow time window during which humans could exist and thrive.
Psalm 104:29-30 "When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust.
When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground."
Sir Fred Hoyle (1915–2001), a renowned British astrophysicist, famously argued that life cannot have originated on Earth through random chemical processes. He posited that the complexity of life is too great to have assembled by chance, leading him to champion the theory of
Panspermia—the idea that life was seeded on Earth from space.
But he was right on the math of life on Earth, but did not know that life can not live any earlier in the universe. So there is no change for life starting anywhere else in the universe.
Ref:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9850016/ Scientists are increasingly looking beyond traditional evolutionary drivers to understand how species adapt and change
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8891346/ General statistical model shows that macroevolutionary patterns and processes are consistent with Darwinian gradualism 2022 Mar 2
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26376851/#:~:text=The%20waiting%20time%20problem%20is%20a%20constraint,to%20establish%20a%20string%20of%20five%20nucleotides The waiting time problem in a model hominin population 2015 Sep 17
Bernadette C. Proemse et al., “Ocean Anoxia Did Not Cause the Latest Permian Extinction,” Geophysical Research Abstracts 16 (May 2014): id. 9089, https://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014EGUGA..16.9089P; Sarda Sahney and Michael J. Benton, “Recovery from the Most Profound Mass Extinction of All Time,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 275 (April 2008): 759–65, doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1370.
Conrad C. Labandeira and J. John Sepkoski Jr., “Insect Diversity in the Fossil Record,” Science 261 (July 1993): 310–315, doi:10.1126/science.11536548
Arnaud Brayard et al., “Unexpected Early Triassic Marine Ecosystem and the Rise of the Modern Evolutionary Fauna,” Science Advances 3 (February 2017): id. e1602159, doi:10.1126/sciadv.1602159.
Shi-xue Hu et al., “The Luoping Biota: Exceptional Preservation, and New Evidence on the Triassic Recovery from End-Permian Mass Extinction,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 278 (August 2011): 2274–82, doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.2235.
ourtney Sprain et al., “High-Resolution Chronostratigraphy of the Terrestrial Cretaceous-Paleogene Transition and Recovery Interval in the Hell Creek Region, Montana,” Geological Society of America Bulletin 127 (March 2015): 393–409, doi:10.1130/B31076.1.
Paul Renne et al., “State Shift in Deccan Volcanism at the Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary, Possibly Induced by Impact,” Science 350 (October 2015): 76–78, doi:10.1126/science.aac7549.
Mark Richards et al., “Triggering of the Largest Deccan Eruptions by the Chicxulub Impact,” Geological Society of America Bulletin 127 (November 2015): 1507–20, doi:10.1130/B31167.1.
Johan Vellekoop et al., “Evidence for Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary Bolide ‘Impact Winter’ Conditions from New Jersey, USA,” Geology 44 (August 2016): 619–22, doi:10.1130/G37961.1.
Paul R. Renne et al., “State Shift in Deccan Volcanism at the Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary, Possibly Induced by Impact,” Science 350 (October 2015): 76–78.
Mark A. Richards et al., “Triggering of the Largest Deccan Eruptions by the Chicxulub Impact,” Geological Society of America Bulletin 127 (November 2015): 1507–20.
Tvrtko Korbar et al., “Potential Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary Tsunami Deposit in the Intra-Tethyan Adriatic Carbonate Platform Section of Hvar (Croatia),” Geological Society of America Bulletin 127 (November 2015): 1666–80.
J. C. McElwain, D. J. Beerling, and F. I. Woodward, “Fossil Plants and Global Warming at the Triassic-Jurassic Boundary,” Science 285 (August 27, 1999): 1386–90.
M. J. Benton, “Diversification and Extinction in the History of Life,” Science 268 (April 7, 1995): 52–58.
Bernadette C. Proemse et al., “Ocean Anoxia Did Not Cause the Latest Permian Extinction,” EGU General Assembly 2014, held on April 27–May 2, 2014 in Vienna, Austria: id. 9089; Sarda Sahney and Michael J. Benton, “Recovery from the Most Profound Mass Extinction of all Time,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 275 (April 7, 2008): 759–65.
Terrence J. Blackburn et al., “Zircon U-Pb Geochronology Links the End-Triassic Extinction with the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province,” Science 340 (May 24, 2013): 941–45.
P. E. Olsen et al., “Ascent of Dinosaurs Linked to an Iridium Anomaly at the Triassic-Jurassic Boundary,” Science 296 (May 17, 2002): 1305–7.
Morgan W. Kelly, Eric Sanford, and Richard K. Grosberg, “Limited Potential for Adaptation to Climate Change in a Broadly Distributed Marine Crustacean,” Proceedings of Royal Society B 279 (January 22, 2012): 349–56.
John H. Lawton and Robert May, eds., Extinction Rates (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); Marjorie L. Reaka-Kudla, Don E. Wilson, and Edward O. Wilson, editors, Biodiversity II: Understanding and Protecting Our Biological Resources (Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 1997); David H. Reed, David A. Briscoe, and Richard Frankham, “Inbreeding and Extinction: The Effect of Environmental Stress and Lineage,” Conservation Genetics 3 (September 2002): 301–7; Richard Frankham and Katherine Ralls, “Conservation Biology: Inbreeding Leads to Extinction,” Nature 392 (April 2, 1998): 441–42; Julie A. Jiménez et al., “An Experimental Study of Inbreeding Depression in a Natural Habitat,” Science 266 (October 14, 1994): 271–73.
Kevin J. Gaston and Tim M. Blackburn, “Birds, Body Size and the Threat of Extinction,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 247 (January 30, 1995): 205–12; Marcel Cardillo et al., “Multiple Causes of High Extinction Risk in Large Mammal Species,” Science 309 (August 19, 2005): 1239–41; German Forero-Medina et al., “Body Size and Extinction Risk in Brazilian Carnivores,” Biota Neotropica 9 (February 2009): 45–50.
Blackburn et al., “Zircon U-Pb Geochronology Links,” 941–45.
Morgan F. Schaller, James D. Wright, and Dennis V. Kent, “Atmospheric PCO2 Perturbations Associated with the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province,” Science 331 (March 18, 2011): 1404–9.
Zachary D. Blount, Christina Z. Borland, and Richard E. Lenski, “Historical Contingency and the Evolution of a Key Innovation in an Experimental Population of Escherichia coli,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 105 (June 10, 2008): 7899–906; Zachary D. Blount et al., “Genomic Analysis of a Key Innovation in an Experimental Escherichia coli Population,” Nature 489 (September 27, 2012): 513–18; Hugh Ross, More Than a Theory (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 167–71; Hsin-Hung Chou et al., “Diminishing Returns Epistasis Among Beneficial Mutations Decelerates Adaptation,” Science 332 (June 3, 2011): 1190–92; Aisha I. Khan et al., “Negative Epistasis between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population,” Science332 (June 3, 2011): 1193–96; Maitreya J. Dunham et al., “Characteristic Genome Rearrangements in Experimental Evolution of Saccharomycescerevisiae,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 99 (December 10, 2002): 16144–49.