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

[ding]

Got an example of a species where the nervous system is 'larger'?

Don't need to. You can neither confirm or deny it. Right?

 

[ding]

Slight changes led to species differentiation. That has always been my mantra.

“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).

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.

 

[alang1216]

Don't need to. You can neither confirm or deny it. Right?

Correct. I can't confirm, deny, or believe it.

 

[alang1216]

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.

Did Gould believe that gradualism was wrong or that it wasn't evident in the fossil record?

 

[ding]

Correct. I can't confirm, deny, or believe it.

Because it's too logical to believe that the intelligence of mammals evolved from a less advanced state to a more advanced state?

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.

 

[ding]

Did Gould believe that gradualism was wrong or that it wasn't evident in the fossil record?

Well... he did propose an alternate theory that matched observations of the fossil record, so what do you think?

 

[alang1216]

Because it's too logical to believe that the intelligence of mammals evolved from a less advanced state to a more advanced state?

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.

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.

Evolution by natural selection is the opposite of random.

 

[alang1216]

Well... he did propose an alternate theory that matched observations of the fossil record, so what do you think?

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.

 

[ding]

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 really do struggle with relative terms.

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?

Or do you want to play some more word games instead?

 

[ding]

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.

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?

 

[alang1216]

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?

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.

 

[alang1216]

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?

Really. I think both theories are true, just as Newton and Einstein were both correct in their theories.

 

[ding]

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.

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.

 

[ding]

Really. I think both theories are true, just as Newton and Einstein were both correct in their theories.

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?

 

[alang1216]

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?

You'll have to ask them, I have no idea.

 

[ding]

You'll have to ask them, I have no idea.

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.

 

[alang1216]

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.

Intelligence is an advantage unless there is species even more intelligent. Just ask any Neanderthal.

 

[skookerasbil]

Lol....and one thing that hasn't changed a smidge in the last 20 years.....

The voting public could not possibly be any less interested in climate change....a fact that not even debatable.

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

Correct....solar and wind not serious options for electricity generation. The energy policy-makers know it.

Investors can make mega profits even in niche markets, which is exactly what's happening. Only the climate nutters get giddy about it

 

[ding]

Intelligence is an advantage unless there is species even more intelligent. Just ask any Neanderthal.

Pretty sure having intelligence versus not having intelligence is still an advantage then too.

But it's great that I made you argue against intelligence as a functional advantage.