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

[ding]

Fort Fun Indiana , how many times are you going to run away from answering why previous interglacial cycles were warmer with less CO2 than today?

How many?

 

[ding]

Why do you ask?

Because YOU questioned the use of those terms.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

My my, someone needs a nap. Sorry, the YECers blazed a trail of stupidity this section, so it's hard to tell.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because YOU questioned the use of those terms.

So? I am not looking for you to explain your fetish over me. I am looking for a short summary of why you would ask it about the people you also didn't mention.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Fort Fun Indiana , how many times are you going to run away from answering why previous interglacial cycles were warmer with less CO2 than today?

How many?

View attachment 576168

How many times are you going to pussy out of emailing an actual climate scientist with your nonsense? Same answer.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"However, macroevolutionary events are often thought to occur in a nongradualist manner, in a regime known as punctuated equilibrium"

Looks like they agree with what I and Alang are saying. Thanks for the assist.

 

[ding]

So? I am not looking for you to explain your fetish over me. I am looking for a short summary of why you would ask it about the people you also didn't mention.

So... because you have no valid response to the fossil records showing ABRUPT changes, you resort to playing word games.

Your statement that "I am looking for a short summary of why you would ask it about the people you also didn't mention" Is incoherent and should be rephrased.

 

[ding]

How many times are you going to pussy out of emailing an actual climate scientist with your nonsense? Same answer.

Seriously? That's your response to my question why were previous interglacial cycles warmer with less CO2? Really?

 

[ding]

My my, someone needs a nap. Sorry, the YECers blazed a trail of stupidity this section, so it's hard to tell.

This is what you always do when you find yourself in over your head.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

... because you have no valid response to the fossil records showing ABRUPT changes

Of course I do. Punctuated evolution. I have said repeatedly that these abrupt changes happen. Gotta be 6 times, now.

 

[ding]

"However, macroevolutionary events are often thought to occur in a nongradualist manner, in a regime known as punctuated equilibrium"

Looks like they agree with what I and Alang are saying. Thanks for the assist.

Not even close. They are arguing against Darwin's mechanism of gradual changes for speciation.

 

[ding]

Of course I do. Punctuated evolution. I have said repeatedly that these abrupt changes happen. Gotta be 6 times, now.

Caused by genetic mutations and not gradual changes as theorized by Darwin.

And yet here we are a couple of pages into you arguing against it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not even close. They are arguing against Darwins mechanism of gradual changes for speciation.

Not at all times, they are not. You never actually read the link.

What they argue is that it can happen without relying on SOC (but you don't know what tha is, either, because you did not read the link. Naturally)
And again,even"abrupt", in the sense they use, requires some time. At no point do they even imply some sort of coincidence of a mutation across a species. Because that is an absurd idea.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Caused by genetic mutations and not gradual changes as theorized by Darwin.

But not simultaneous mutations in many individuals across a population. Because that idea is absurd.

 

[alang1216]

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.

Interesting but not an answer to my question, do you have a mechanism for "practically complete idea emerges"?

 

[alang1216]

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​

Darwin's mechanism of gradual changes leading to speciation does agree with the observed data from his time aboard the Beagle.

 

[alang1216]

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

I don't know that that is true. If the changes were 'gradual' on the human scale they would have been instantaneous on the geological time scale.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't know that that is true. If the changes were 'gradual' on the human scale they would have been instantaneous on the geological time scale.

And what scientists are saying is not that gradualism does not happen, but rather that they think it is punctuated by rapid changes across populations. Which is just one way of saying appearance of new species. That gradualism is taking place even during periods of relative stasis. But that we often or even possibly most of the time see the parents of new species in the fossil record due to a relatively rapid change.

 

[ding]

Not at all times, they are not. You never actually read the link.

What they argue is that it can happen without relying on SOC (but you don't know what tha is, either, because you did not read the link. Naturally)
And again,even"abrupt", in the sense they use, requires some time. At no point do they even imply some sort of coincidence of a mutation across a species. Because that is an absurd idea.

The premise of mutation rate says otherwise.

I read the whole paper. Did you?

 

[ding]

But not simultaneous mutations in many individuals across a population. Because that idea is absurd.

What exactly do you believe mutation rate means?