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

[ding]

We all share the same universe so of course we are connected in space and time. What other connections do you think exist?

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.

 

[themirrorthief]

Who knows how accurate the video is? No human was alive at that time, the artist is just making things up as best he can.

probably a democrat

 

[ding]

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.
And something like this could happen, start to finish, over millions of years, especially in the tiny, earliest "shellies". These tiny creatures likely multiplied quickly, even before having shells.

This is where you get into the math/theory of phase changes, which is crucial to punctuated equilibrium.

This link is to 8:12 of the video, which starts the relevant part , re: phase change



Point being, mathematicians propose that there are likely tipping points in punctuated equilibrium. These are the phase changes. And that, when a trait with a strong enough advantage spreads far and quickly enough (but not even , necessarily, through most of the individuals), then the trait can very quickly come to dominate the species. Even globally.

Sounds like punting to me. Rather than arguing the flaw is in the data one should assume the flaw is in the theory. If there are long periods of stasis the fossil record should record the one offs. Again... it's a statistical thing. This explanation defies statistics.

 

[ding]

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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sounds like punting to me. Rather than arguing the flaw is in the data one should assume the flaw is in the theory. If there are long periods of stasis the fossil record should record the one offs.

But not all species experience stasis, for sure . Evolution happens at all speeds.

There is no flaw assumed at all, at any rate. Gradual changes happen, and quicker changes happen.

And the idea is to add to the theory. Surely you don't suggest throwing out gradual evolution. So the theory is growing to account for the evidence. Evolution seems to happen at all speeds.

 

[ding]

But not all species experience stasis, for sure . Evolution happens at all speeds.

There is no flaw assumed at all, at any rate. Gradual changes happen, and quicker changes happen.

And the idea is to add to the theory. Surely you don't suggest throwing out gradual evolution. So the theory is growing to account for the evidence. Evolution seems to happen at all speeds.

You keep using the term evolution. That's a broad term. I am talking about speciation. Stasis with abrupt changes is the norm not the exception for speciation. The data does not support gradual changes for speciation.

There is an inertia that must be overcome to move away from accepted theories. I believe that within the next 50 years more and more evolutionary biologists - who did not grow up beholding to Darwin's beliefs that speciation occurs through gradual changes - will continue to challenge that theory because the data does not fit that model.

Here's an interesting paper. After reading it I will probably adjust my beliefs some.

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

 

[Old Rocks]

When comparing punctuated evolution and gradual evolution. What we know about this is from the fossil record. Suppose you have a species, and a number of that species becomes isolated from the rest of the species. And over thousands to millions of years, changed in the environment in which it is isolated force evolutionary changes in order to better survive in that environment. But there are not conditions there for the fossilization of the remains of the gradual changes. Then something changes, and that species is no longer isolated from the original species. And now that new species has abilities that the original species does not have, and rapidly replaces that species. And there are places that fossilization is possible. So the fossil record says that species evolved very rapidly, when in fact, it was gradual. That is not to say that rapid evolution does not occur, but that the fossil record can be deceiving as to what actually happened.

 

[ding]

When one starts blaming the fossil record for why the fossil record doesn't match the predictions of a theory that is based upon the fossil record it undermines the credibility of the theory itself.

 

[ding]

What are evolutionary changes if not mutations? If mutations are the norm and not an event then they occur throughout time and it is only a matter if they occur in numbers significant enough to take. Like I said before.... 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.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Watching a video on the Chicxulub asteroid and at the 3:00 mark, very interesting to hear that the planet was very warm, no modern day trees and too warm for ice to remain at the poles. Oh, and sea levels some 200 metres higher.

So why the discrepancy with the climate scientists of today? Why the claim of pending doom and gloom?



Can any climate alarmist here explain?

How many humans were living on the planet when it struck?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Science already determined the co2 levels, oxygen levels, temperature etc.. before the asteroid impact, but today's climate scientists and alarmists, have concluded pending death as levels rise, which are 5 to 6 times lower than 66 million years ago.

So my question is, why the discrepancy?

How many humans were living on the planet 66 million years ago?

 

[Captain Caveman]

How many humans were living on the planet when it struck?

Two. One was called Adam, can't remember his wife's name.

 

[Captain Caveman]

How many humans were living on the planet 66 million years ago?

Still two. One was called Adam, can't remember his wife's name

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Two. One was called Adam, can't remember his wife's name.

that was only 6000 years ago. Do try and keep up

 

[Captain Caveman]

that was only 6000 years ago. Do try and keep up

I believe it was, "In the beginning", there's a popular book on the subject, but it doesn't help with the abundance of co2 in prehistoric times though, with thriving dinosaurs. Apparently we're struggling in a fraction of co2 concentrations and we're going to spontaneously combust in a decade or two, that is, if you listen to and believe the climate idiots out there.

I'm led to believe that changing my car and paying more tax will fix it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I am talking about speciation. Stasis with abrupt changes is the norm not the exception for speciation.

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

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I believe it was, "In the beginning", there's a popular book on the subject, but it doesn't help with the abundance of co2 in prehistoric times though, with thriving dinosaurs. Apparently we're struggling in a fraction of co2 concentrations and we're going to spontaneously combust in a decade or two, that is, if you listen to and believe the climate idiots out there.

I'm led to believe that changing my car and paying more tax will fix it.

According to the popular book on the subject it was 6000 years ago that Adam and Eve were chilling in a garden. But then again it was never meant to be a science text book.

Perhaps you as well should not get your science from idiots.

The climate is changing, only idiots say it is not so.

Who or what is responsible is irrelevant at this point, all we can do is adapt to the changes or be like the idiots that think it is not happening.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I believe it was, "In the beginning", there's a popular book on the subject, but it doesn't help with the abundance of co2 in prehistoric times though, with thriving dinosaurs. Apparently we're struggling in a fraction of co2 concentrations and we're going to spontaneously combust in a decade or two, that is, if you listen to and believe the climate idiots out there.

I'm led to believe that changing my car and paying more tax will fix it.

You silly deniers and your silly strawmen...

 

[Captain Caveman]

According to the popular book on the subject it was 6000 years ago that Adam and Eve were chilling in a garden. But then again it was never meant to be a science text book.

Perhaps you as well should not get your science from idiots.

The climate is changing, only idiots say it is not so.

Who or what is responsible is irrelevant at this point, all we can do is adapt to the changes or be like the idiots that think it is not happening.

The science I get are from scientists, geologists. So climate alarmists call geologists idiots!! You're a brave nincompoop.

Climate changing? That's a funny one. Climate is rain, cold, hot, wind, snow, hail etc.. Many processes are at play for these to move around the planet. Meteorologists try to predict what the weather is going to be tomorrow. These have always happened, always will. You're probably misguided by the film Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, it was just made up.

So man has been recording the weather for 150 years, and if anything deviates from this, we caused it? I like the irony in you calling scientists idiots. I don't care if you view the last 150 years, the last 10,000 years or the last 1 million years.

I suggest you look over the earth's history, what was at what ppm and how life managed to 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. And when it comes to idiots, calling you an idiot would be offensive to idiots. I assume you're one of those that glued their face to the pavement in protest.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The science I get are from scientists, geologists

Nonsense.