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

[alang1216]

So then you believe that punctuated equilibrium has no basis whatsoever? Do you understand what stasis is?

I can Google with the best of them, so yes I understand and no PE is just our way of interpreting the fossil record. It doesn't invalidate Darwin.

 

[alang1216]

Try looking up the definition of analogy or analogous. Or better yet, why don't you show me how my analogy is false.

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 did. Technology is a creation, you can have an idea and build it, you don't need to base is on what has come before. Evolution is a continuous process with no option for radical new inventions. That is why there are wheel on cars but not on horses.

 

[ding]

I can Google with the best of them, so yes I understand and no PE is just our way of interpreting the fossil record. It doesn't invalidate Darwin.

So you do believe that there is a basis for punctuated equilibrium but think it's only a way of interpreting the fossil record?

Even though the basis of punctuated equilibrium is diametrically opposite of Darwin's belief that everything evolved slowly over small successive iterations?

Darwin's theory does a great job of explaining why the beaks of finches changed slightly but a horrible job of explaining where birds came from.

 

[ding]

I did. Technology is a creation, you can have an idea and build it, you don't need to base is on what has come before. Evolution is a continuous process with no option for radical new inventions. That is why there are wheel on cars but not on horses.

So then it's your opinion that technology does not evolve and is a horrible analog for biological evolution?

 

[ding]

Evolution is a continuous process with no option for radical new inventions.

Really? So where did birds come from?

 

[alang1216]

Really? So where did birds come from?

Therapod dinosaurs. It wasn't until the detailed finds from China that we realized most of them had feathers but could not fly. There was a long period of evolution that led the birds we see today. There was no sudden appearance of feathered flying creatures.

 

[alang1216]

So you do believe that there is a basis for punctuated equilibrium but think it's only a way of interpreting the fossil record?

Yes.

Even though the basis of punctuated equilibrium is diametrically opposite of Darwin's belief that everything evolved slowly over small successive iterations?

I disagree. Slowly is a relative term. If something evolved slowly over small successive iterations over a period of thousands of generations but the fossils are only only found every million years then it would appear they were created suddenly and not evolved gradually.

Darwin's theory does a great job of explaining why the beaks of finches changed slightly but a horrible job of explaining where birds came from.

I disagree. There was a wonderful Scientific American article a few years back just on the gradual evolution of feathers.

 

[alang1216]

So then it's your opinion that technology does not evolve and is a horrible analog for biological evolution?

Tech can evolve but it can also be a creation. Edison was quite good at that. Did the Edison record player evolve or was it a new creation? Life doesn't have any other path but evolution so in that regard it is not a good analogy.

 

[ding]

Therapod dinosaurs. It wasn't until the detailed finds from China that we realized most of them had feathers but could not fly. There was a long period of evolution that led the birds we see today. There was no sudden appearance of feathered flying creatures.

So there are fossils showing slight successive changes?

Can you show that to me please?

 

[ding]

Yes.


I disagree. Slowly is a relative term. If something evolved slowly over small successive iterations over a period of thousands of generations but the fossils are only only found every million years then it would appear they were created suddenly and not evolved gradually.


I disagree. There was a wonderful Scientific American article a few years back just on the gradual evolution of feathers.

Yes, it is a relative term which is compared to stasis. You do realize what that means right? No changes transitioning to big changes with the group that didn't change dying off. No successive small changes there at all.

 

[alang1216]

So there are fossils showing slight successive changes?

Can you show that to me please?

Sure.

 

[ding]

Tech can evolve but it can also be a creation. Edison was quite good at that. Did the Edison record player evolve or was it a new creation? Life doesn't have any other path but evolution so in that regard it is not a good analogy.

I'm not arguing technology evolves on it's own. You seem to be missing the point. Old technology gets replaced by new technology. The transition from old to new happens rapidly and the new technology rapidly expands where slight differences work against each other to produce the next leap or change.

It's like you are being intentionally obtuse because I am attacking your religion of Darwinism. Religious fanatic much?

 

[alang1216]

Yes, it is a relative term which is compared to stasis. You do realize what that means right? No changes transitioning to big changes with the group that didn't change dying off. No successive small changes there at all.

If an animal is adapted to its niche and that niche doesn't change neither does the animal.

 

[alang1216]

I'm not arguing technology evolves on it's own. You seem to be missing the point. Old technology gets replaced by new technology. The transition from old to new happens rapidly and the new technology rapidly expands where slight differences work against each other to produce the next leap or change.

My smart phone has been evolving rapidly, my hand axe, not so much.

It's like you are being intentionally obtuse because I am attacking your religion of Darwinism. Religious fanatic much?

The core of Darwinism is descent from a common ancestor, to me that is 'sacred' and inviolate. I have no problem if evolution is more complex than simple gradualism. I'd be surprised if nothing else was involved.

 

[ding]

If an animal is adapted to its niche and that niche doesn't change neither does the animal.

That's what you are going to go with? Seriously?

So your mental model is that for every species that experienced long periods of stasis there were no genetic modifications passed down during that period because there were no changes to their environment so when they rapidly died out (relative to the period of stasis) it was because their habitat changed but the slight modifications weren't captured by the fossil record to actually prove the theory you believe because the fossil record isn't perfect?

Are you even listening to yourself?

 

[ding]

My smart phone has been evolving rapidly, my hand axe, not so much.


The core of Darwinism is descent from a common ancestor, to me that is 'sacred' and inviolate. I have no problem if evolution is more complex than simple gradualism. I'd be surprised if nothing else was involved.

And I'd be surprised if genetic mutations were not involved in a theory that should have been based upon genetics.

Darwin's idea on genetic transference were so wrong it's not even funny. And it was his idea on genetic transference that served as his foundation for his theory. In other words, his theory is built upon a foundation of sand.

 

[ding]

My smart phone has been evolving rapidly, my hand axe, not so much.

Clearly you have not seen Greenworks' amazing battery operated chainsaws.

But based on this argument you must believe that stasis undermines Darwin's theory of evolution.

 

[alang1216]

Clearly you have not seen Greenworks' amazing battery operated chainsaws.

As good an axe as you'll ever need.

But based on this argument you must believe that stasis undermines Darwin's theory of evolution.

I do NOT believe that. Changes to critters only happen because their environment has changed.

 

[alang1216]

And I'd be surprised if genetic mutations were not involved in a theory that should have been based upon genetics.

I don't disagree.

Darwin's idea on genetic transference were so wrong it's not even funny. And it was his idea on genetic transference that served as his foundation for his theory. In other words, his theory is built upon a foundation of sand.

Darwin was ignorant on the mechanism of evolution but was spot on that it happens. Do you doubt his fundamental premise, that we all came from a common ancestor?

 

[alang1216]

That's what you are going to go with? Seriously?

So your mental model is that for every species that experienced long periods of stasis there were no genetic modifications passed down during that period because there were no changes to their environment so when they rapidly died out (relative to the period of stasis) it was because their habitat changed but the slight modifications weren't captured by the fossil record to actually prove the theory you believe because the fossil record isn't perfect?

Are you even listening to yourself?

You lost me at "but the slight modifications weren't captured by the fossil record to actually prove the theory you believe because the fossil record isn't perfect". If they died out why would you expect them to appear in the later fossil record?