Rav
Punctuated equilibrium and gradual change are basically the same process, but during times of great stress(evolutionary pressure)when ecosystems are changing rapidly, the outliers that are damped down in less stressful times are suddenly offered a chance, mainly because the status quo becomes unsustainable. There are likely to be traits among those outliers that increase suitability in the new conditions and those will survive where other traits die out. Thus evolutionary change becomes relatively rapid. The Cambrian explosion was one such period where the new forms seemed to appear instantly in the fossil record, though it actually took several million years. That instance was caused by the innovation of differentiated multicellular life.
Grumpy
gradualism does not explain evolution and i'm not quite sure how PE will.Do you see now how his hypothesis, although opposed to conventional conceptualizations of gradualism, is actually a form of it? As such, far from it being a radical overhaul of evolutionary theory, it simply promotes a particular variable speed model.
gradualism does not explain evolution and i'm not quite sure how PE will.
Still, there are, broadly speaking, two types of belief. One is based on rational faith. My wife has been kind, supportive, forgiving and faithful for 35 years. So it is rational for me to believe that she will continue to do so for another ten or twenty years until one of us dies; I have evidence to support my faith.
So when a hypothesis, like evolution, has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt and has taken its place in the canon of science, we are expected to use proper scientific terminology and refer to it as a theory, not a belief.
it is a theory, but technically, even if scientists do not say it, it is still a belief too.
don't ask me stupid questions like this, go patronize some other dumbass.
AKA adaptation.What I understand so far is that you accept "micro" evolution . . .
fine choice of words but that's basically it.. . . but think the case for speciation through evolution has not been made to your satisfaction. Would that be about right?
that's an assumption.PE is fast gradualism. Mechanisms are the same.
AKA adaptation.
yes.
fine choice of words but that's basically it.
the conference of those 50 scientists disagrees.
i'm sorry, i retract the statement.Leopold re your last line, I'm afraid I can't see how you reach that view from the report that Rav made available. What in that report are you relying on?
that's an assumption.
since it works for adaptation you assume it will work for diversity.
Evidence, yes, but not proof.
i'm sorry, i retract the statement.
i no longer have the original manuscript.
AKA adaptation.
i see.leopold
Rav posted the original paper, it just didn't say what you were told it said.
i see.
then how do you explain the fact that at least one of the quotes that i copy/ pasted from the original text at jstor does not match the one posted by rav?
i see.
then how do you explain the fact that at least one of the quotes that i copy/ pasted from the original text at jstor does not match the one posted by rav?
that doesn't even come close to explaining why the issue at jstor is different from the one rav posted.leopold
Your own dishonesty and ignorance and the dishonesty and ignorance of the sources you use. It's pretty plain you will stoop to any level in order to promote your BELIEFS over science's KNOWLEDGE because that knowledge is dangerous to your beliefs. That is also the source of the "Science is a belief" false meme, trying to bring the status of knowledge down to the same level of uncertainty as beliefs have, trying, falsely again, to build an equivalence between the two. The only way ANY ignorant paradigm of belief can survive is if the people remain ignorant, thus the dishonest tactics employed by the believer against the sources of knowledge. Our current political problems are largely caused by the thrashing of dying belief paradigms plus the blatant racially based hatred of that black man in the White House.
Grumpy
that doesn't even come close to explaining why the issue at jstor is different from the one rav posted.
that doesn't even come close to explaining why the issue at jstor is different from the one rav posted.