# Evolution Mechanics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 20, 2001, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-mechanics/73200 "2001-07-20T16:00:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2001, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-mechanics/73200/41 "2001-08-11T09:28:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Triskadecamus \* > **Rather than the times of higher stress, isn’t it a necessary consequence of the mathematics of population that the greatest number of mutations (both within specific species, and within higher divisions) would occur during times of relatively lower stress? The explosion takes place slowly over the long periods without major changes.** I would like to add that, in addition to what **Ben** mentioned about mutation rates, the fossil record simply doesn’t bear this out, particularly the last sentence. The rates at which new taxa appear (within the fossil record) are always highest just after “high stress” periods (the most extreme examples being mass extinctions). For example, mammalian taxa began to appear in significant numbers (by which I mean, significant enough to have a fossil record) right around the same time as dinsoaurs did, which was right after the big Permian crash. However, mammalian taxa had a much lower rate of increase than those of dinosaurs - mammals were simply out-done by them. It peaked around mid-Jurassic, right about when dinos were having their heyday, and began a slow decline to virtually nil by about the middle of the Creataceous (remember, we’re talking about the _rate_ of new taxa forming, not the numbers of taxa present; mammals were not driven to extinction by this time, but their rate of speciation was very low). Starting about the Middle Cretaceous, the rate began increasing dramatically - where the peak during the Jurassic was perhaps 6 or 7 new Orders every million years, immediately after the K-T event, it shot up to around 45 new Orders per million years. Genera had a slower increase, indicating more newer forms evolving in order to fill the many vacant niches left by the dinosaurs. Similarly, the fossil records of angiosperms indicates that their diversification from first appearance during the early Cretaceous to modern levels took only about 10 million years. Essentially, growth will almost always be rapid, as soon as a group of organisms gets the chance to exploit an opening. Eventually, however, environmental checks and balances come into play which will slow the rate at which new taxa form; relative stasis then becomes the norm, until conditions are again favorable for expansion. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2001, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-mechanics/73200/42 "2001-08-11T09:36:07Z")
Gahhh! Error! This sentence: "Starting about the Middle Cretaceous, the rate began increasing dramatically - where the peak during the Jurassic was perhaps 6 or 7 new Orders every million years, immediately after the K-T event, it shot up to around 45 new Orders per million years. Genera had a slower increase, indicating more newer forms evolving in order to fill the many vacant niches left by the dinosaurs. " Should read as follows: "Starting about the Middle Cretaceous, the rate began increasing dramatically - **where the peak rate during the Jurassic was perhaps 0.2 new Orders** every million years, immediately after the K-T event, **it shot up to around .9 new Orders** per million years. Genera had a slower increase (not peaking until we reach the Recent, with a rate of 45 new Genera per million years), indicating more newer forms evolving in order to fill the many vacant niches left by the dinosaurs. " It helps if one reads graphs correctly… ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-mechanics/73200/43 "2001-08-26T01:26:22Z")
Has any of you clearly very knowledgable folks here read or encountered Johnjoe McFadden’s _Quantum Evolution: The New Science of Life_? [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393050416](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393050416) I’ve only been able to skim through it at the bookstore, but it struck me as little more than pseudo-scientific mysticism with a great deal of quantum mechanics thrown in to impress the rubes. It seems to me that McFadden took some false creationist/ID assumptions as valid and tried to invent some mystical evolution mechanism to “answer” the creationists! In other words, McFadden seems to accept statistical arguments like those of Dembski as perfectly valid and thus felt an emotional need to rebut the creationists by manufacturing an answer to their objections. The problem is, of course, McFadden’s answer – which assumes some kind of quantum mysticism lies at the heart of evolution – is as ludicrous as the creationist’s challenge! Would you evolution experts who know of his work critique my analysis? What do you folks think of McFadden? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-mechanics/73200.md?page=2)