Very warm, no modern day trees, no ice, high seas

[Harpy Eagle]

Climate changing? That's a funny one. Climate is rain, cold, hot, wind, snow, hail etc..

Climate is more than just the pieces, it is the pattern of those pieces.

I suggest you look over the earth's history, what was at what ppm and how life managed to cope.

It is not about how life coped, it is about how humans cope.

Once you achieve this and once you try to understand the alarmists rhetoric, then you might stop opening your mouth and coming out with the laughable pile of shite.

You try so hard to sound like you know what you are speaking of, but it is clear that you do not.

Let me give you a little example of a changing climate and how people that are not idiots like you are dealing with it.

The farmers I work with have seen the rail patterns shift over the last 10 to 15 years and being pretty much set for the past 5 to 6 generations. While the total amount of rain has not changed all that much, it now comes in a few days each month vice spread out over the month. This is not really good for crops, they either have too much water or not enough. So in this area farmers have been adding irrigation they never needed before. This is how people with a brain adjust to the changes they see first hand.

Now run along and eat some crayons and leave the discussion to the adults.

 

[Captain Caveman]

You silly deniers and your silly strawmen...

I do believe sarcasm flies over your head at 33,000 feet.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Climate is more than just the pieces, it is the pattern of those pieces.




It is not about how life coped, it is about how humans cope.



You try so hard to sound like you know what you are speaking of, but it is clear that you do not.

Let me give you a little example of a changing climate and how people that are not idiots like you are dealing with it.

The farmers I work with have seen the rail patterns shift over the last 10 to 15 years and being pretty much set for the past 5 to 6 generations. While the total amount of rain has not changed all that much, it now comes in a few days each month vice spread out over the month. This is not really good for crops, they either have too much water or not enough. So in this area farmers have been adding irrigation they never needed before. This is how people with a brain adjust to the changes they see first hand.

Now run along and eat some crayons and leave the discussion to the adults.

The Sahara desert was once a temperate forest, so was Antarctica, millions of years ago. Mankind didn't alter these with the climate either. The earth has had ice five times, we are in the final stages of the last ice age, some 5,000 years to go, whether you buy a Tesla Power Wall or not, but I admire your enthusiasm.

The climate moves around the planet; plate tectonics, volcanoes, the sun, the Milankovitch cycles, wind and sea currents, chaos theory etc.. all play a part. It's called climate, it doesn't follow your diary, sorry to have popped your climate bubble.

 

[alang1216]

Although I don't see how his original work actually explained the ORIGIN of species. I see his work more as explaining the evolution of a species.

'Origin' is correct since new species are always originating.

 

[alang1216]

That seems rather shaky to me.

Which part?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I do believe sarcasm flies over your head at 33,000 feet.

Not sure you know what that word means my man.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Which part?

Whichever part disagrees with his magical idea of a mutation happening in many, many individuals at the same time. So basically, every working hypothesis that actually exists.

 

[alang1216]

Ummmm... that's not where I was going. Where I was going was how nature seems to meet all needs. That if a need or void exists within nature, nature figures out a way to meet or fill it. It seems to me that nature is a complex, adaptive, emergent and interconnected system. Almost like a living organism. Stated another way.... nature abhors a vacuum. To me, evolution very much resembles the technology cycle. When a need exists, a practically complete idea emerges to address that need and rapidly grows to fill that need in the inflation phase. Then in the equilibrium phase, slight differences compete against each other until the next practically complete idea/thing emerges and the process repeats itself.

I think you just blurred the line between science and mysticism. Or do you have a mechanism for "practically complete idea emerges"?

 

[ding]

Two things there:

1) Speciation is an arbitrary term. It can be based on chronology, breeding requirements, or physiology.

2) "Abrupt" can still mean millions of years and million of generations

Ok, do you think these guys understand the terms they are using when they use them?

Evolution in the weak-mutation limit: Stasis periods punctuated by fast transitions between saddle points on the fitness landscape

The gradual character of evolution is a key feature of the Darwinian worldview. However, macroevolutionary events are often thought to occur in a nongradualist manner, in a regime known as punctuated equilibrium, whereby extended periods of evolutionary stasis are punctuated by rapid transitions...

www.pnas.org

 

[ding]

Whichever part disagrees with his magical idea of a mutation happening in many, many individuals at the same time. So basically, every working hypothesis that actually exists.

Again it's statistics not magic. Within any distribution mutations will occur with some frequency. To argue only one creature mutates to a new species at a time would seem to make it impossible for a new species to propagate.

As pointed out in the paper I shared with you....

The abrupt appearance of species in the fossil record prompted Eldredge and Gould to postulate that evolving populations of any species spend most of the time in the state of stasis, in which no major phenotypic changes occur (9, 10). The long intervals of stasis are punctuated by short periods of rapid evolution during which speciation occurs, and the previous dominant species is replaced by a new one.

They modeled different scenarios using varying mutation rates. The idea that more than one mutations occurring in a herd at the same time is the basis for their models.

Evolution in the weak-mutation limit: Stasis periods punctuated by fast transitions between saddle points on the fitness landscape

 

[ding]

I think you just blurred the line between science and mysticism. Or do you have a mechanism for "practically complete idea emerges"?

I blurred the line between the technology cycle and evolution. Which should have been obvious when I prefaced my remarks by saying, "To me, evolution very much resembles the technology cycle." And then went on to explain the technology cycle. It's called using a proxy or an analog which is done often in science when conceptualizing phenomenon.

In the case of technology the mechanism would be technology to solve a need. In the case of evolution the mechanism would be mutations which lead to functional advantages.

 

[ding]

Nonsense.

What is nonsense is you not being able to explain why previous interglacial cycles were warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The Sahara desert was once a temperate forest, so was Antarctica, millions of years ago. Mankind didn't alter these with the climate either. The earth has had ice five times, we are in the final stages of the last ice age, some 5,000 years to go, whether you buy a Tesla Power Wall or not, but I admire your enthusiasm.

The climate moves around the planet; plate tectonics, volcanoes, the sun, the Milankovitch cycles, wind and sea currents, chaos theory etc.. all play a part. It's called climate, it doesn't follow your diary, sorry to have popped your climate bubble.

I cannot figure out if you are really a total fucking moron or you just play one on the internet.

I did not say that mankind is causing the change, in fact I said it really does not matter. The fact of the matter is that things are changing and those changes will impact we humans.

Yes, the Sahara desert was once a temperate forest, and people lived there. And as it changed they either moved, adapted or died. The planet does not care at all.

My "dairy" is that it is changing and we as humans need to prepare for those changes. But sadly the world is filled with fucking morons like you that would rather fight about the cause and use their brain and get ready for the changes.

 

[ding]

You silly deniers and your silly strawmen...

Says the guy who can't explain why previous interglacial cycles were warmer with less atmospheric CO2.

 

[ding]

'Origin' is correct since new species are always originating.

Except his mechanism of gradual changes leading to speciation does not agree with the observed data from the fossil record. So his theory does not really address the origin of new species. It describes the evolution of existing species.

The abrupt appearance of species in the fossil record prompted Eldredge and Gould to postulate that evolving populations of any species spend most of the time in the state of stasis, in which no major phenotypic changes occur (9, 10). The long intervals of stasis are punctuated by short periods of rapid evolution during which speciation occurs, and the previous dominant species is replaced by a new one.​

​

Evolution in the weak-mutation limit: Stasis periods punctuated by fast transitions between saddle points on the fitness landscape​

 

[ding]

Which part?

The part that blames the fossil record for why Darwin's mechanism for speciation doesn't match the fossil record.

Oh look... that data point is messing up my data. I know this because it doesn't fit my data. That's OK, I can just delete that data point. That's called bullshit science and bullshit logic.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Not sure you know what that word means my man.

I was being sarcastic with the Bible comments due to the fuckwit questions/statements I received. Sheesh. Did I really have to explain that !!

 

[Captain Caveman]

Nonsense.

Fucking hope so, my OU degree was in foundation science and geology. Try again cupcake.

 

[ding]

I was being sarcastic with the Bible comments due to the fuckwit questions/statements I received. Sheesh. Did I really have to explain that !!

What we have here are a couple of science illiterate jackanapes - who have zero background in science - thinking they can run roughshod over people who do have backgrounds in science. It's comical.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ok, do you think these guys understand the terms they are using when they use them?

Evolution in the weak-mutation limit: Stasis periods punctuated by fast transitions between saddle points on the fitness landscape

The gradual character of evolution is a key feature of the Darwinian worldview. However, macroevolutionary events are often thought to occur in a nongradualist manner, in a regime known as punctuated equilibrium, whereby extended periods of evolutionary stasis are punctuated by rapid transitions...

www.pnas.org

Why do you ask?