Oh look, another psychobabble red herring.
Darwin's finches and their reaction to their environment supports his theory.
No. A statement is not an argument. Ding, I don't have time for remedial education of grown men.
You mean where you talk about technology? Not really analogous to biology is it. One is creation, one is evolution. They are different.
Actually it goes to your track record of dishonesty. It literally disproves everything you believe about climate change and you cannot respond to a valid point.
And even in punctuated equilibrium, time is required for a trait to dominate apopulation of a species. I think some people have a very hard time grasping what scientists mean when they use the word "abrupt", in the context of geological time.
All I can tell you is to read the post. It was super clear.
And I think it depends upon the rate of mutation.
Stasis and abrupt changes in the fossil record do not.
As in, mutations happen faster right before a new trait dominates, and slower otherwise? Explain yourself.
Let me tell you the reason why it is 2C cooler today than it was during previous interglacial cycles when CO2 was 120 ppm less. CO2 does not drive the earth's climate.
I don't want to hear lies from a uneducated slob. Try out your material on a climate scientist.
Not necessarily. No. You are assuming all mutations take or survive. They don't necessarily do. You are also assuming that the rates are always the same. They are not necessarily always the same. But what we can deduce is that when there is an abrupt change following a long period of stasis, is that the mutations rates were likely high and the new species took or survived. And like I explained in my technology cycle analogy, they rapidly expanded in the inflationary phase and then settled into the equilibrium phase were slight differences worked to drive the next leap or major change.
If greenhouse gas concentrations increase, temperatures should increase, right?
I didn't assume anything. I asked you what you meant. I.E., the opposite of making assumptions. Lies make baby Jesus cry, ding.
Oops, another lie.
So, your answer to my question is "Usually". Whew. This is like pulling teeth.
Oops, still masturbating on an anonymous message board. What a sad ending for such a renowned expert.
I couldn't have explained it any more clear... Not all mutations take or survive. Mutation rates can change. When there is an abrupt change following a long period of stasis, it is likely that mutations rates were high and the new species took or survived. And like I explained in my technology cycle analogy, the new species rapidly spreads in the inflation phase and then settles into an equilibrium phase were slight differences work to drive the next leap or major change.
It all depends upon the driver for the mutation.
So you don't agree that temperatures will increase if greenhouse gas concentrations increase?Oops, still masturbating on an anonymous message board. What a sad ending for such a renowned expert.
