Ask Your Question today
Fish made the leap to land as amphibians, which adapted to reptiles and birds. Eventually we got mammals. Do you think something will come after mammals?
| Probably, and soonish | 5 | |
| Probably, but not for a long time | 12 | |
| Probably not | 8 |
There are 108 different classes in the kingdom Animalia, the class Mammalia being only one, so certainly. The class Aves (birds) actually already appeared slightly after mammals (funny considering they're technically maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs which makes them sound certainly older than mammals), although some modern phylogeneticists no longer classify them as distinct from the class Reptilia.
You asked about after mammals, a class, so I'm answering regarding that level of taxonomic hierarchy and excluding anything below. I would be highly surprised if there weren't more classes to come provided all life doesn't end soon.
Yeah fill us in, mf. What branch of science deals with seductive, sexy ass animals? All of us on dogfucker.com are "tingling" at the prospect.
Maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs, you say? Go on, SW, please...I'm not touching, I promise. What's this about class Reptilia? I'm not imagining I'm the naughty teacher of their 'class,' so to speak. I'm a real bunny, but I'm not curious at all...not at all curious about buttraping various evolutionary links until I undid the entire process. Like, ya'all thought that mutation was beneficial to survival until you got held down on the couch and destroyed until you couldn't procreate without crying.
Biologicus interruptus
Btw which period is my back day dinosaur from? Every day is back day...unless its neck day
I'm curious what field of study specifically is this? You have my brain a tingling and would like to learn more
It’s crocodiles.
They existed long before mammals, and will exist long after they are extinct.
Well I guess it all depends on what other class or plant life that animals choose to identify with.
Seeing how it will take millions of years before a new class of animal will evolve I dont think that will happen. We are far more likely to get off this planet and find an animal that developed in otherworldly conditions requiring new adaptations.
Yo look at this. The government is so desperate for truckers both Republicans and Democrats are getting behind a bill to hand truckers $7,500 in tax cuts yearly. And $10,000 to truck drivers who entered a apprenticeship program like you. With me being a home owner and married with kids if this passes I will literally pay 0% in income tax 😂
https://cdllife.com/2022/lawmakers-introduce-bill-that-would-give-you-a-tax-credit-up-to-7500-just-for-being-a-truck-driver/
Fucking nice. And great timing. I was worried about getting a high tax increase, since I went from not paying pretty much any taxes (cause I used to make jack shit) to being paid way more and owning property in the future.
Thanks for this information! This news is fantastic for projecting larger goals for myself.
I think theres more at play to this whole thing than just natural selection. Natural selection is obviously real but when you kick the can down the road long enough it gets murky.
So the first fish that had a mutation it was like a little nub where legs would eventually grow and just over time he passed his genetics and then these nubs turned into legs over generations (because nubs somehow give you an advantage when passing genetics) and then other nubs eventually became arms and they also slowly developed all kinds of different organs just out of pure chance and over millions of years. Im sorry but that doesnt sound much less crazy than a guy in the clouds calling the shots. It sounds like a religion to me.
They say "I can prove natural selection in a lab!" And I say OF COURSE YOU CAN. Obviously we adapt to our environment. Ill bet if human beings smoked cigarettes for millions of years our bodies will one day be immune to the smoke. Because natural selection is real but show me in a lab where a animal starts growing different limbs. They say "oh that cant be done in a lab because it takes millions of years!" So you have to have faith in the science/religion.
Ive debated alot of these evolutionists on discord they have fancy degrees and use big words but they sound absolutely rediculous when you use common sense questions about the theory. It reminds me of when you use common sense questions to a preacher. They get tripped up and have to revert back to versus and strawmans. Because they're both religions.
Legs evolved from fins. It's not that difficult to imagine a fin gradually evolving longer and stronger, to allow a fish to wade along shallow water. This would allow it to swim out of reach of larger predators, since it would be too shallow for them. Therefore those fish that inherited this trait would be more likely to survive, leading this trait to become more prevalent in the next generation.
Random genetic mutations happen all the time but most of them have no effect on the organism, while the rest usually just lead to the organism's death. So it's not astonishing then that some mutations would have a beneficial effect on an organism, considering the shear amount of other mutations in other organisms that didn't do anything.
The likelyhood of it being ONLY an "accidental" mutation is less than there actually being some type of intelligent force at play. This statement always causes evolutionists to automatically hear that and go thinking of god. Specifically the god of Abraham. Because evolutionists are like religious people and think black and white because, in my opinion, they're indoctrinated in the dogma. To them the only possibilities they even think exist is natural selection or god of abraham.
I believe theres a missing piece and I admit I dont know what it is for certain (no one does but their ego prevents them from questioning) but I have theories. One theory is I believe its far more likely the cells inside of organisms are actually intelligent. They are possibly communicating with other cells and orchestrating these mutations with the goal of evolving. I admit I dont know but out of all the possibilities saying natural selection alone is causing all this is less reasonable than any theory I've heard.
"The likelyhood of it being ONLY an "accidental" mutation is less than there actually being some type of intelligent force at play".
What makes you think that? If it were shown to be true then fair enough, but it sounds like it's just a completely made up opinion based on nothing tbh.
Well that's an interesting idea, but again it isn't based on anything, so why should anyone believe that? If you're sceptical about any mainstream scientific theory then fair enough, but rather than just dismiss it and make up other ideas, you should instead research it to find out why it's so widely believed among scientists. There's probably more evidence in support of the evolution of species by natural selection than you could read in a lifetime.
You misunderstand how much time is between these random mutations. Look at the lung fish. It's still a fish but it managed to turn its swim bladder (how a fish remains neutrally buoyant in water) into a lung. That's practically how fish started on land. Not as amphibians. Ambibians took a few million years. Plus land really didnt have much for advantages over the ocean. Trees weren't a thing yet. There was giant lichen and mushroom "trees". Only until some actual vegetation grew in did making the random mutation of moving to land a good survival function.
You're entirely correct in that intelligent design, as what you're describing is called, is different from religion; it's much broader, does potentially contain creationism, but also contains possibilities that known science can't currently outright dismiss as easily as creationism even if there's very little supportive data for said possibilities.
Two such possibilities come to mind:
• An extraterrestrial intelligence having seeded the planet with the building blocks for life as we know it to emerge, directed panspermia (panspermia being this having happened naturally via comets, etc. or _also_ via spacecraft/probes albeit as an unintentional consequence of exploration). Scientists such as Carl Sagan entertained this possibility.
• Our universe is either a simulation or a literal bubble universe created within a preexisting one by an unfathomably technologically sufficient intelligence from the former.
These are two wild but technical possibilities that do not evoke the paranormal, yet notably do involve being intelligently designed at least some extent (although in both cases it's also possible to have endured little to no tampering since the initial event and to have simply been seeded more so than designed as we now are, evolution taking its course).
These are fine ideas and intelligent design is okay so far as it doesn't make the leap that there's evidence that one of these things _must_ have occurred. There isn't.
Abiogenesis is "the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances."
With a sample pool of exactly zero confirmed cases of either abiogenesis or intelligent design, it's very difficult to determine which happened in our particular case, but it's beginning to look more and more like chemistry simply has a tendency to birth biology just as physics births chemistry.
The biggest flaw with intelligent design, however, is that it's just kicking a rock a little farther down the road; if we propose that an extraterrestrial intelligence birthed us with directed panspermia, we then must ask who created _them_.
We're eventually led to abiogenesis either way, confirming that natural, chemical evolutionary processes are capable of inducing both abiogenesis and later biological evolutionary processes that eventually birthed an intelligence capable of carrying out directed panspermia.
As for biological evolution, it's my opinion that the burden of proof actually rests with anyone denying it; once one has accepted that traits are passed from one generation to the next via reproduction, I don't see a world in which it's not a _given_ that gradual changes in favor of passing on genetic information gradually change any sort of organism.
Some people seem to accept this in small doses yet hit the brakes after enough change has occured. Think of it like a game of telephone; while the next few iterations might sound close enough, eventually the message can be profoundly altered. In our case genetic information is the telephone message. It's of course going to look a bit directed because a "bad" message means dying before passing it on as much as a "good" one.
That's not a matter of faith. It's common sense. I don't need faith to know that something I already know definitely does change will have accumulated more change in billions of years than a few years. In a hypothetical situation where I live indefinitely and earn a dollar per year, it doesn't seem like much but I don't need faith to see that in a billion years I have made a billion dollars from this operation. It doesn't require faith at all.
“ … chemistry simply has a tendency to birth biology just as physics births chemistry”.
You might enjoy the Facebook special interest group on Abiogenesis. I am a member and have an intense interest in “protolife”. These are the structural precursors of cellular life. It seems that droplets of liquids, and fats have a tendency to form in ways that mimic mycobacterium on the early evolutionary chain of life. Much work is left to be done constructing working protolife models.
While that effort continues, our human civilization should explorer possibilities to initiate panspermia of nearby planets. Natural selection is more dynamic and resilient when at work in ecosystems built upon a pyramid of trillions of different microbes. Perhaps, we could genetically engineer photosynthetic bacteria to live in the cool cloud tops of Venus. Having a planet slowly turn green would be a nice reminder that we Earthlings can do something to fill the voids of our galaxy.