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.
You say "There is no evidence that shows how much time was involved" but you also claim the hard parts developed simultaneously. If you are a scientist, please explain the apparent contradiction to this non-scientist.
I've conversed with ding before and I seem to recall a mystical theme in his posts.
Occurring across a species at approximately the same time.Not sure what an en mass genetic mutation is?
So most individuals across a species, experiencing the same mutation at the same time? Seems far fetched.Occurring across a species at approximately the same time.
I don't think new species pop up in onesies and twosies.
Ok. What does nature not caring about you have to do with nature behaving in an interconnected manner?I don't think nature cares about me one way or the other.
So you're saying that if a population developed a shell of some sort and that shell offered a survival advantage, you'd expect it to spread. If that spreading took millions of years it would appear to us to be instantaneous because the fossil record is so spotty. Works for me.The fossil record all over the world simultaneously (to the best of our ABILITY to measure) suddenly develops hard parts. If you bothered to read for comprehension I state that it is most likely that it took millions of years to occur, there is simply no time references available.
Is this another example where we don't know the real elapsed time?Occurring across a species at approximately the same time.
I don't think new species pop up in onesies and twosies.
We all share the same universe so of course we are connected in space and time. What other connections do you think exist?Ok. What does nature not caring about you have to do with nature behaving in an interconnected manner?
Does your belief that nature not caring about you mean you can't see how nature is interconnected?
Why does it seem far fetched?So most individuals across a species, experiencing the same mutation at the same time? Seems far fetched.
That's probably because you are a hammer looking for a nail.I've conversed with ding before and I seem to recall a mystical theme in his posts.
That a random mutation would occur in several individuals simultaneously? Seems self-evidently far fetched. Seems infinitely more likely for mutations spread through the population via breeding. Are there any studies on this? I can't seem to find any.Why does it seem far fetched?
Good. Then we are in agreement.Darwin got lots of stuff wrong, especially when he applied his theories to man's evolution. His initial work was a masterpiece but each one after was worse than the one before.
Who said anything about random? If stasis is the norm followed by an abrupt change then it seems to me that the mutation occurs across the herd at the same general time. So I wouldn't necessarily call that random.That a random mutation would occur in several individuals simultaneously? Seems self-evidently far fetched. Seems infinitely more likely for mutations spread through the population via breeding. Are there any studies on this? I can't seem to find any.
I did. How else does a mutation occur, besides randomly? I would love to know.Who said anything about random?
Yes, I know. But that seems ridiculous and requires a leap of magical thought. Much more simple to say the trait spread through the population.If stasis is the norm followed by an abrupt change then it seems to me that the mutation occurs across the herd at the same general time.
Maybe, but long periods of stasis followed by abrupt changes seems to indicate a genetic driver. So onesies and twosies would be hard pressed to serve as feedstock. Not to mention the greater likelihood of a limited gene pool that would have genetic inbreeding consequences. So it seems to me the best answer that fits the data is long periods of stasis followed by an abrupt genetic mutation over a portion of the herd significant enough to establish a clean gene pool.Is this another example where we don't know the real elapsed time?
If the herd experiences the same genetic mutation that does not seem random to me.I did. How else does a mutation occur, besides randomly? I would love to know.
Yes, I know. But that seems ridiculous and requires a leap of magical thought. Much more simple to say the trait spread through the population.
But they don't. Glad that's settled. Ding, you are being circular.the herd experiences the same genetic mutation that does not seem random to me.
That seems rather shaky to me.So you're saying that if a population developed a shell of some sort and that shell offered a survival advantage, you'd expect it to spread. If that spreading took millions of years it would appear to us to be instantaneous because the fossil record is so spotty. Works for me.
You don't know that genetic mutations cannot happen across a herd. It's a numbers game. It's called statistics. So still not settled.But they don't. Glad that's settled. Ding, you are being circular.
How else does a mutation happen, other than randomly? I don't see how.
Yep, pretty much what the scientists say. Along with possible changes in the water. Perhaps it started when some minerals precipitated out onto them, and this provided an advantage. The chemicals in/on the individuals that helped that were "selected for". The more efficient they were at collecting the calcium and then shaping it, the more advantage they had. Some were just mere tubes. Not perfect tubes, either. Wrinkly, bent tubes. If you were looking for a "transitional" fossil between "no shell" and "cool shells", there you have it, 540 million years ago.So you're saying that if a population developed a shell of some sort and that shell offered a survival advantage, you'd expect it to spread. If that spreading took millions of years it would appear to us to be instantaneous because the fossil record is so spotty.
