punctuated equilibrium
- Thread starter Dylab
- Start date
-
- Tags
- equilibrium punctuated
hammegk said:
Once again, having been utterly destroyed in your attempt to deny evolution, you try to work in abiogenesis.
The answer, if you do some statistics, would seem obvious. We will never know the exact path or mechanism, but given the properties of materials on the earth, it would be hideously, stunningly unlikely that some kind of life did not come about. No need for supernatural entities or anything like that.
Now, I suppose, you'll want to go back to why materals have the properties they do. That is a good question in some ways, but we're still without need for, for instance, any reference to a supernatural entity.
Finally a question for you: If the universe thins out enough, will there be another "big bang" as a result?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Darwin:
I bel;ive that the fall of the dinosaurs was brought on by many different factors, Bakker in Dinosaur Heresies ponts to many smoking guns that led to the extinction. I do feel that the rise of the angiosperms and the fall of the dinosaurs was related to climatic change, but that there are many culprits in the game. (What else would a pantheist think?)
I bel;ive that the fall of the dinosaurs was brought on by many different factors, Bakker in Dinosaur Heresies ponts to many smoking guns that led to the extinction. I do feel that the rise of the angiosperms and the fall of the dinosaurs was related to climatic change, but that there are many culprits in the game. (What else would a pantheist think?)
Dancing David
I see.
Bakker has done important work.
I agree that there is no point in denying multiple factors that may or may not contribute to K/T Boundary.
However,there are numerous hypotheses and not all are as good as others.
For example,I´ve been reading an old,general zoology book (from the sixties) which briefly mentions K/T.Various factors were hypothesized back in the days,there even reads that mammals gave their own shot by eating dinosaur´s eggs.
As fascinating as such an idea may sound,we can but say that up to this day,we have gathered no evidence in favour of it (such explanations lay on the brink of falsifiability)
"Dinosaur heresies" predates asteroid theory,and Bakker seemed to give little credit to such a theory (the leading theory dealing with K/T these days).Another theory of great importance deals with volcanic activity.And so the story goes...
I see.
Bakker has done important work.
I agree that there is no point in denying multiple factors that may or may not contribute to K/T Boundary.
However,there are numerous hypotheses and not all are as good as others.
For example,I´ve been reading an old,general zoology book (from the sixties) which briefly mentions K/T.Various factors were hypothesized back in the days,there even reads that mammals gave their own shot by eating dinosaur´s eggs.
As fascinating as such an idea may sound,we can but say that up to this day,we have gathered no evidence in favour of it (such explanations lay on the brink of falsifiability)
"Dinosaur heresies" predates asteroid theory,and Bakker seemed to give little credit to such a theory (the leading theory dealing with K/T these days).Another theory of great importance deals with volcanic activity.And so the story goes...
Aw, heck. Do I have to? It's so much easier to grasp that way. The metaphor of the adaptive landscape, with its peaks and valleys, is such a handy conceptual tool. I was kinda hoping that if I played rather fast and loose with it, I might coax Bill Hoyt into the 'longer discussion' he alluded to on an earlier thread.
I agree with that, although it doesn't seem like something that is likely to happen very often (as you noted). Small changes are usually neutral at best, and deleterious at worst, with only the smallest fraction producing an adaptive benefit (as you also noted). So instances such as the one you present -- of a small change in genotype producing a 'major breakthrough' in design -- are going to be a small fraction of that small fraction.
The rarity with which we would expect to see this happen would render any such instances especially interesting, but of limited explanitory power when applied to the question of 'gaps'.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Darwin,
I take alot of Bakker with a pound of salt, he point to the deathstar hypothesis as well, but I feel that the cometary impact probably put the icing on the cake, the effects of the North American continent were the strongest and may have just shut the dinosaurs out of enough niches, but then there are still birds...
Linear and causal in evolution are two form of determinism and progresivism
I take alot of Bakker with a pound of salt, he point to the deathstar hypothesis as well, but I feel that the cometary impact probably put the icing on the cake, the effects of the North American continent were the strongest and may have just shut the dinosaurs out of enough niches, but then there are still birds...
Linear and causal in evolution are two form of determinism and progresivism
Right. Relative stability over long periods seems to be what is most typical.
I'm afraid you and I are going to have a hard time getting any kind of an argument off the ground, unless one of us can think of some tasteless comments to make about the other's mama.
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
hammegk said:
You're pathetic and grow more so with every post. Despite your pithy substanceless response I still hear the crickets and that fact that you addressed ZERO of the evidences for macro-evolution. Whenever you're more interested in making a point than a quip... get back to us...
UnrepentantSinner said:
That I find the evidence for macro-evolution less than compelling remains a fact, as does your faith that it is.
If you feel my posts pointless, try ignore. Your "pity" -- compassionate or contemptuous -- is laughable, btw. We can agree that many posts, and posters, in JREF are pathetic.
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
Hypotheses, Faith... etc. LOL One day we need to put together a dictionary of your rediculous semantic perversions. 
jj said:
You noticed, jj? Long ago, some wag dubbed hammy the "drive-by assertion" king" On this thread, he began the rhetorical excess early, peppered his questions with warning flags of No True Scotsman to come (with respect to his distorted redefinition of speciation), and then played the abiogenesis card.
hammy, if you've nothing to contribute, then why not contribute nothing. If you need to scream fundamentalism from church steeples, then climb up one and scream. But don't waste JREF bandwith.
Cheers,
UnrepentantSinner said:Hypotheses, Faith... etc. LOL One day we need to put together a dictionary of your rediculous semantic perversions.
AssFolk said:
jj said:
CheeryBill said:
My kudos to all above for their brilliant responses and enlightening comments in re punctuated equilibrium.
A
for each of you.hgc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,892
Brilliant. This thread has been hammstrung. Hammy wades in with irrelevant, snide assertions, ignores the substantive retorts, and when things have devolved into hammfisted slugfest, he gets to declare his opponents off-topic.hammegk said:...
My kudos to all above for their brilliant responses and enlightening comments in re punctuated equilibrium.
A
I have seen lots of enlightening comments about PE above, but hammy has studiously ignored them.
hammy, these are two threads in one, the PE thread, and the hammy-takes-on-the-world thread (the one this post belongs to). If you want to learn something, perhaps you'll read some of the posts from the other thread.