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

[ding]

As good an axe as you'll ever need.


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

That's quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard. The central nervous system of every mammal species has gotten larger as they evolved. How is environment responsible for that?

 

[ding]

I don't disagree.


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?

I'm not arguing that evolution doesn't happen. I am arguing how it happens. He built his theory on a flawed understanding of inheritance. That understanding is what led to his conclusions. If he had understood how inheritance was passed down, I suspect he would have come to a different conclusion on how evolution occurs. One that would have been able to match the fossil record.

This is what Darwin wrote, "“It seems pretty clear that organic beings must be exposed during several generations to the new conditions of life to cause any appreciable amount of variation; and that when the organisation has once begun to vary, it generally continues to vary for many generations” (Darwin 1861, p. 7)."

I believe we come from common ancestors. Plural. I don't believe that evolution occurs in onesies and twosies. It occurs across the herd simultaneously. Such that there is a fairly rapid transition - i.e. one or two generations - from one species to another species with the original species dying out because that is what the fossil record shows with respect to speciation.

I do not believe that organic beings must be exposed during several generations to the new conditions of life to cause any appreciable amount of variation; and that when the organisation has once begun to vary, it generally continues to vary for many generations. That's not supported by the fossil record.

 

[ding]

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?

I don't expect the species that died out to reappear later in the fossil record. I expect the fossil record to show one species being replaced by another species without capturing gradual changes because I don't believe that speciation happens gradually.

I was stating YOUR argument.

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, right?​

​

Your mental model is that when one species died out and was replaced by another species it was because their habitat changed and that the change happened gradually, right?​

​

Your mental model is that the slight modifications which happened gradually weren't captured by the fossil record because the fossil record isn't perfect, right?​

​

So your mental model undermines the integrity of the fossil record but the fossil record is the basis for your mental model, so in effect you have undermined your mental model by casting dispersion on the fossil record.

 

[alang1216]

That's quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard. The central nervous system of every mammal species has gotten larger as they evolved. How is environment responsible for that?

I never heard the central nervous system of every mammal species has gotten larger as they evolved. Got a link? Either way, if it gave them a survival advantage in their environment it would be passed on.

 

[alang1216]

I'm not arguing that evolution doesn't happen. I am arguing how it happens. He built his theory on a flawed understanding of inheritance. That understanding is what led to his conclusions. If he had understood how inheritance was passed down, I suspect he would have come to a different conclusion on how evolution occurs. One that would have been able to match the fossil record.

This is what Darwin wrote, "“It seems pretty clear that organic beings must be exposed during several generations to the new conditions of life to cause any appreciable amount of variation; and that when the organisation has once begun to vary, it generally continues to vary for many generations” (Darwin 1861, p. 7)."

I believe we come from common ancestors. Plural. I don't believe that evolution occurs in onesies and twosies. It occurs across the herd simultaneously. Such that there is a fairly rapid transition - i.e. one or two generations - from one species to another species with the original species dying out because that is what the fossil record shows with respect to speciation.

I do not believe that organic beings must be exposed during several generations to the new conditions of life to cause any appreciable amount of variation; and that when the organisation has once begun to vary, it generally continues to vary for many generations. That's not supported by the fossil record.

Darwin was wrong about a lot of things, especially as he got older and more speculative. How many common ancestors are there? Two or two billion?

 

[ding]

I never heard the central nervous system of every mammal species has gotten larger as they evolved. Got a link? Either way, if it gave them a survival advantage in their environment it would be passed on.

I read it probably ten years ago when I was researching how intelligence arose. It was from a presentation I found on the internet and I believe it was from a university professor. I'll look for it but no promises.

But you can look for it too as you are looking to disprove it.

 

[ding]

Darwin was wrong about a lot of things, especially as he got older and more speculative. How many common ancestors are there? Two or two billion?

There's no way to quantify the exact amount but statistically it would have to be a valid sample size to jump start a new species which replaced the previous species. So your guess is as good as mine. Conceptually though, it's not a few.

 

[ding]

I never heard the central nervous system of every mammal species has gotten larger as they evolved. Got a link?

Still searching but this touches on it obliquely.

Nervous System - Evolution Of The Vertebrate Nervous System

science.jrank.org

The nervous system shows the greatest development in vertebrates. There is an increase in centralization with increasing elaboration of the brain with areas with specific functions.

 

[alang1216]

I read it probably ten years ago when I was researching how intelligence arose. It was from a presentation I found on the internet and I believe it was from a university professor. I'll look for it but no promises.

But you can look for it too as you are looking to disprove it.

I won't even try to prove a negative, thank you very much.

 

[alang1216]

There's no way to quantify the exact amount but statistically it would have to be a valid sample size to jump start a new species which replaced the previous species. So your guess is as good as mine. Conceptually though, it's not a few.

Allow me to rephrase, which species had a common ancestor to man? My guess is one for all multicellular life but it may be a handful if we include the viruses and bacteria.

 

[ding]

I won't even try to prove a negative, thank you very much.

That's a weird way of looking at it. Wouldn't you be proving that the nervous system of some mammals has gotten smaller or stayed the same? How would that be proving a negative?

 

[ding]

Allow me to rephrase, which species had a common ancestor to man? My guess is one for all multicellular life but it may be a handful if we include the viruses and bacteria.

I think I'll go with this graphic but still argue that homo sapiens or any other species did not arise from one male and female pair. I believe that whenever a new species came into existence it did so because a statistically valid number arose at or about the same time.

 

[alang1216]

That's a weird way of looking at it. Wouldn't you be proving that the nervous system of some mammals has gotten smaller or stayed the same? How would that be proving a negative?

I maybe that I can show that the nervous system in some mammals has gotten smaller or stayed the same but that wouldn't disprove your assertion.

 

[alang1216]

I think I'll go with this graphic but still argue that homo sapiens or any other species did not arise from one male and female pair. I believe that whenever a new species came into existence it did so because a statistically valid number arose at or about the same time.

View attachment 576777

So all the changes from one species to a new species occurred at the same time to the entire population? Seems unbelievable. I posit that a useful trait became common in a population. This would happen again and again in the population and, eventually, become a new species.

 

[ding]

I maybe that I can show that the nervous system in some mammals has gotten smaller or stayed the same but that wouldn't disprove your assertion.

Why is that?

 

[ding]

So all the changes from one species to a new species occurred at the same time to the entire population? Seems unbelievable. I posit that a useful trait became common in a population. This would happen again and again in the population and, eventually, become a new species.

Ummm... no. Care to try again? Try using the words I posted and I'm confident you can accurately represent what I wrote.

 

[alang1216]

Why is that?

Because I can't prove a negative.

 

[alang1216]

Ummm... no. Care to try again? Try using the words I posted and I'm confident you can accurately represent what I wrote.

No, I think I paraphrased you just fine. What do you disavow?

 

[ding]

Because I can't prove a negative.

We've already covered this.

Which probably explains why you can't tell the difference between geology and paleontology.

 

[alang1216]

Still searching but this touches on it obliquely.

Maybe I don't understand what you mean by the central nervous system of every mammal species has gotten larger as they evolved.