Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh look, another psychobabble red herring.Says the guy who can't explain why a 120 ppm greater concentration of CO2 led to a planet that was 2C cooler.
Darwin's finches and their reaction to their environment supports his theory.Can you prove that?
Because the lack of transitional fossils, stasis, the abrupt ending of species being replaced by new species says otherwise.
No. A statement is not an argument. Ding, I don't have time for remedial education of grown men.Of course it was.
You mean where you talk about technology? Not really analogous to biology is it. One is creation, one is evolution. They are different.Post the whole reply and then you might be able to comprehend it.
Actually it goes to your track record of dishonesty. It literally disproves everything you believe about climate change and you cannot respond to a valid point.Oh look, another psychobabble red herring.
Lots of hot air from the uneducated slob. But offer to get him with a climate scientist to try out his act, and he folds like a cheap suit.
And even in punctuated equilibrium, time is required for a trait to dominate apopulation of a species. I think some people have a very hard time grasping what scientists mean when they use the word "abrupt", in the context of geological time.Darwin's finches and their reaction to their environment supports his theory.
All I can tell you is to read the post. It was super clear.You mean where you talk about technology? Not really analogous to biology is it. One is creation, one is evolution. They are different.
And I think it depends upon the rate of mutation.And even in punctuated equilibrium, time is required for a trait to dominate apopulation of a species. I think some people have a very hard time grasping what scientists mean when they use the word "abrupt", in the context of geological time.
Stasis and abrupt changes in the fossil record do not.Darwin's finches and their reaction to their environment supports his theory.
As in, mutations happen faster right before a new trait dominates, and slower otherwise? Explain yourself.And I think it depends upon the rate of mutation.
Let me tell you the reason why it is 2C cooler today than it was during previous interglacial cycles when CO2 was 120 ppm less. CO2 does not drive the earth's climate.Oh look, another psychobabble red herring.
Lots of hot air from the uneducated slob. But offer to get him with a climate scientist to try out his act, and he folds like a cheap suit.
I don't want to hear lies from a uneducated slob. Try out your material on a climate scientist.Let me tell you the reason why it is 2C cooler today than it was during previous interglacial cycles when CO2 was 120 ppm less. CO2 does not drive the earth's climate.
Not necessarily. No. You are assuming all mutations take or survive. They don't necessarily do. You are also assuming that the rates are always the same. They are not necessarily always the same. But what we can deduce is that when there is an abrupt change following a long period of stasis, is that the mutations rates were likely high and the new species took or survived. And like I explained in my technology cycle analogy, they rapidly expanded in the inflationary phase and then settled into the equilibrium phase were slight differences worked to drive the next leap or major change.As in, mutations happen faster right before a new trait dominates, and slower otherwise? Explain yourself.
Ding, you don't really say much in your posts. Which is intentional, to leave yourself room to wiggle out of horseshit.
If greenhouse gas concentrations increase, temperatures should increase, right?I don't want to hear lies from a uneducated slob. Try out your material on a climate scientist.
I didn't assume anything. I asked you what you meant. I.E., the opposite of making assumptions. Lies make baby Jesus cry, ding.Not necessarily. No. You are assuming all mutations take or survive.
Oops, another lie.You are also assuming that the rates are always the same
So, your answer to my question is "Usually". Whew. This is like pulling teeth.But what we can deduce is that when there is an abrupt change following a long period of stasis, is that the mutations rates were likely high and the new species took or survived.
Oops, still masturbating on an anonymous message board. What a sad ending for such a renowned expert.If greenhouse gas concentrations increase, temperatures should increase, right?
You have said that before, right?
I couldn't have explained it any more clear... Not all mutations take or survive. Mutation rates can change. When there is an abrupt change following a long period of stasis, it is likely that mutations rates were high and the new species took or survived. And like I explained in my technology cycle analogy, the new species rapidly spreads in the inflation phase and then settles into an equilibrium phase were slight differences work to drive the next leap or major change.I didn't assume anything. I asked you what you meant. I.E., the opposite of making assumptions. Lies make baby Jesus cry, ding.
Oops, another lie.
So, your answer to my question is "Usually". Whew. This is like pulling teeth.
I am not rejecting the idea. There are lots of ideas still on the table, as this topic is a frontier of science.
It all depends upon the driver for the mutation.Such a complicated topic. Even mutation rates themselves within a species can evolve over time. And sometimes higher rates can reduce the speed of adaptation, ironically.
So you don't agree that temperatures will increase if greenhouse gas concentrations increase?Oops, still masturbating on an anonymous message board. What a sad ending for such a renowned expert.
