Don't need to. You can neither confirm or deny it. Right?Got an example of a species where the nervous system is 'larger'?
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.
Don't need to. You can neither confirm or deny it. Right?Got an example of a species where the nervous system is 'larger'?
“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).Slight changes led to species differentiation. That has always been my mantra.
Correct. I can't confirm, deny, or believe it.Don't need to. You can neither confirm or deny it. Right?
Did Gould believe that gradualism was wrong or that it wasn't evident in the fossil record?In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria.[1] Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's model of geographic speciation,[3] I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] and their own empirical research.[5][6] Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin[7] is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
Because it's too logical to believe that the intelligence of mammals evolved from a less advanced state to a more advanced state?Correct. I can't confirm, deny, or believe it.
Well... he did propose an alternate theory that matched observations of the fossil record, so what do you think?Did Gould believe that gradualism was wrong or that it wasn't evident in the fossil record?
I'm not sure I follow what you think of as 'advanced'? Is it intelligence, self awareness, etc. Evolution is solely concerned with survival. If intelligence proves useful in the long term it will continue.Because it's too logical to believe that the intelligence of mammals evolved from a less advanced state to a more advanced state?
Evolution by natural selection is the opposite of random.That's actually the reason I believed it when I read it. You must be one of those people who think evolution is random or something. Weird.
I don't think it contradicts gradualism. A finch flies into a new environment and gradually changes into several species in a few thousand years. An instant in geologic time . Once adapted to all the new niches, there is little selection pressure and the long period with change begins. IMHO.Well... he did propose an alternate theory that matched observations of the fossil record, so what do you think?
You really do struggle with relative terms.I'm not sure I follow what you think of as 'advanced'? Is it intelligence, self awareness, etc. Evolution is solely concerned with survival. If intelligence proves useful in the long term it will continue.
Evolution by natural selection is the opposite of random.
You don't think that Eldredge and Gould stating that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record and proposing an alternate theory to Darwin's theory is contradictory to Darwin?I don't think it contradicts gradualism. A finch flies into a new environment and gradually changes into several species in a few thousand years. An instant in geologic time . Once adapted to all the new niches, there is little selection pressure and the long period with change begins. IMHO.
Since we were talking about birds of a feather, do you think birds today have a higher state of intelligence? If they do it is not significant so it is safe to say that a higher state of intelligence is not a guarantee of functional advantage. We're smarter than monkeys but there are still monkeys running around.Would you say that evolving from a lower state of intelligence to a higher state of intelligence is a functional advantage? If so, wouldn't a larger central nervous system relative to a smaller central nervous system be more advantageous? And the opposite of random?
Really. I think both theories are true, just as Newton and Einstein were both correct in their theories.You don't think that Eldredge and Gould stating that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record and proposing an alternate theory to Darwin's theory is contradictory to Darwin?
Really?
Don't know, but are you seriously arguing that intelligence is not a functional advantage?Since we were talking about birds of a feather, do you think birds today have a higher state of intelligence? If they do it is not significant so it is safe to say that a higher state of intelligence is not a guarantee of functional advantage. We're smarter than monkeys but there are still monkeys running around.
Do you believe that Eldredge and Gould thought both theories were true considering that they stated that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record?Really. I think both theories are true, just as Newton and Einstein were both correct in their theories.
You'll have to ask them, I have no idea.Do you believe that Eldredge and Gould thought both theories were true considering that they stated that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record?
It seems to me that if they believed as you do they wouldn't have made the statement they made. Virtually nonexistent is a strong statement.You'll have to ask them, I have no idea.
Intelligence is an advantage unless there is species even more intelligent. Just ask any Neanderthal.Don't know, but are you seriously arguing that intelligence is not a functional advantage?
Yes, monkeys are still running around and so are ants but for the life of me I don't understand why you would think that would negate intelligence as a functional advantage.
Considering that something like 99.9999% of all species have gone extinct it appears that there is no functional advantage which guarantees continued survival.
I have a good friend who is an executive with Duke Energy, one of the largest utilities in the nation.
They are putting up these stupid solar farms right and left.
I asked him why are they investing in this scam technology. He knows it is a scam the same as I do.
He said for two reasons.
First the filthy ass government gives them all kinds of subsidies and tax breaks and allows them to pass the cost of construction onto the consumers.
Second of all they borrow money for operating and capital from mostly European banks. The Euro banks are under the dumbass EU mandate to invest in silly ass "green" shit. They get much better rates and terms that way.
Solar and wind are just scams. Nothing more than Environmental a Wacko's wet dreams.
Pretty sure having intelligence versus not having intelligence is still an advantage then too.Intelligence is an advantage unless there is species even more intelligent. Just ask any Neanderthal.