So? Stasis isn't absolute stasis. That's all he's saying. Instead of playing Sherlock Holmes you could always just read the orgininal papers. They give plenty of examples of what they are talking about. It's perfectly clear.
universal values?
- Thread starter gnuneo
- Start date
So? Stasis isn't absolute stasis. That's all he's saying. Instead of playing Sherlock Holmes you could always just read the orgininal papers. They give plenty of examples of what they are talking about. It's perfectly clear.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
What struck me about that article is the estimated number of described fossil species – 250,000. The article is a decade old, so the number will be higher now, but that is still less than the number of extant species of beetle currently described (400,000 and rising).
It's a tiny number compared to the total number of potentially fossilisable species that have existed, not to mention the species that could not leave a fossil record. We're talking a very small part of one percent of the potential record if every species that could leave a fossil had done. I think what is extraordinary is not the lack of 'transitional forms' but the way that paleontologists have been able to construct any story at all from such meagre resources.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
When are you going to realize that someone who has to ask what phyla are, while the whole time pretending to be knowledgeable about biological evolution, isn't fit to judge the clarity of anything.
You need biology 101. If a fossil is "well defined" by phyla then at its "species level" it's also going to be "well defined". Understand?
You're arguing for the sake of arguing and think that you can hide your ignorance in assuming the other person is equally as ignorant and getting lost in semantics. You don't want to have to accept the fossil record as it actually is, as these paleontologists have described it - and as Gould and Eldredge felt the need to address with punctuated equilibrium. Still, but still... you argue that they never meant it. These quotes that you can't understand do mean what these scientists are saying. It's funny that you're actually telling them what they meant, - that they don't know what a species is, and if and when they speak "drivel" according to knotted.... "Drivel is drivel regardless of who speaks it." ....&..... "Well then wherever they did this they were talking drivel."
And that was your response to learning how Gould and Eldredge formulated punctuated equilibrium....which you've never bothered to learn (like the biological classifications). It would help if you'd learn this stuff first.I asked what a "group of phyla" is. I realise now you were just being sloppy.
dilute micro said:
Indeed, that doesn't make sense to me.
dilute micro said:You're arguing for the sake of arguing and think that you can hide your ignorance in assuming the other person is equally as ignorant and getting lost in semantics. You don't want to have to accept the fossil record as it actually is, as these paleontologists have described it - and as Gould and Eldredge felt the need to address with punctuated equilibrium. Still, but still... you argue that they never meant it. These quotes that you can't understand do mean what these scientists are saying. It's funny that you're actually telling them what they meant, - that they don't know what a species is, and if and when they speak "drivel" according to knotted.... "Drivel is drivel regardless of who speaks it." ....&..... "Well then wherever they did this they were talking drivel."
If either Eldredge or Gould said that all evolution was speciation then they were talking drivel. Even you now acknowledge this. You recognise that even stasis isn't absolute stasis. You recognise that punctuated equilibria does not apply to every single case. You haven't yet recognised that punctuations are not assumed to be an instance of speciation. Maybe I'll get round to explaining this one to you eventually.
I've no problem with the theory of punctuated equilibria. I've just got a problem with you misrepresenting it.
I feel I've said enough now. Your nagging doubts will catch up with you eventually.
ska invita
back on the other side
sorry, joining this thread late, but wanted to add my 2p.
i think the problem with having a 'scientific' basis for morality is that science IMO is unable to talk about consciousness adequately.
i bring this up, because i think you can find universal values (or lack of them) within different entities that are sharing similar states of consciousness. Defining states of consciousness is a very complex matter though, so even a crude map of values=conscious states would be very shaky.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
Knotted you've got to learn the basics before any of this is going to make sense to you. The taxonomic system is the whole ballgame here with understanding what Gould, Darwin, Eldredge and others are saying. We've seen where they mention the lack of "transitional forms". This means the fossils they find have the "basic anatomical designs", as Gould put it, and aren't showing movement away from them. The basic designs, and body type, is what the higher levels of the taxa are about and phylum is where organisms are grouped according to body type.
kingdom - phylum - class - order - family - genus - species
general <----------------------------------> specific
If a fossil is "well defined" by phyla then at its "species level" it's also going to be "well defined". In other words, if a fossil is fully formed or well defined that means it's already represented in the phylum group. If it has an already known body type then any changes can only come as you move towards the more specific taxa. This amounts to simple modifications to a standard chassis (one of 36 body types). When Gould said, "morphological change is usually limited and directionless" and a species, "may get a little bigger or bumpier" - that's what he's talking about.
Some better language.
Here's some typical language. Learn what this is about knotted and you don't get confused.
"Why if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine graduations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" - Darwin
I'm pretty sure I understand the basics. I just haven't muddled myself by absorbing a load of creationist crap. Have a read through of this. It goes through a lot of these creationist quote mines and puts them in context. You might even learn a thing or two.
gorski
customised free radical
ALL!!!! 
dilute micro
esse quam videri
We don't find non-pe transitional fossils either.
So if pe explains lack of transitional fossils....
dilute micro
esse quam videri
No you don't understand the basics of biology, punctuated equilibrium, or darwinian evolution. How is it "creationist crap" when it's Gould and Eldredge's argument....and Darwin's? I've simply been explaining it all to you. Then you pretending to have known it all along.
This is just willy waving now. I don't care if you know more than me or less than me. I just think you are wrong on this and I've given my reasons. If you think I'm wrong on something, just tell me. You keep saying I don't understand, but you never say what I've got wrong. I'm bored with this.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
You should be able to use your critical thinking skills and tell for yourself what you've got wrong.
That's your whole problem. You're not *thinking* about any of it. You just google to something that makes you feel comfortable even though you don't know what it's saying. Because googling is so easy you've failed to learn the basics. Only by learning the basics are you going to be able to think critically.
As it is, when a point of contention comes up, you'll argue a pavlovian argument in favor of what you perceive as naturalism (darwinian evolution) vs supernatural (creationism) when critical thinking requires only that a theory supposedly based on empirics should stand or fall on its own, not because of anything else. When I said way back in this thread that pe wasn't darwinian you took up the argument that it was - but all the while not knowing the basics or what pe was about. Sure enough you can find Gould promoting pe as 'darwinian' (and no wonder it's so compelling when you don't know fundamental biology). But you can also find him saying the opposite and authoring pe to remedy what Darwin's theory can't explain. The reason for this is the very same thing you've done in this thread which is the fallback argument, the fight between creationists and non-creationists. It's the parachute defense for a faulty theory. You just now summed all this up with calling it "creationists" - so you can ignore that none of it was.
OK I'm going to take this as a concession that you got pe a bit wrong. It really is about species level evolution.
You want higher level transitional fossils?
http://ncse.com/image/kvdpadians032
http://ncse.com/image/kvdpadians040
http://ncse.com/image/kvdpadians042
http://ncse.com/image/kvdpadians047
http://ncse.com/image/kvdpadians049
http://ncse.com/image/kvdpadians050
http://ncse.com/image/kvdpadians051
http://ncse.com/image/kvdpadians052
http://ncse.com/image/kvdpadians053
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s066.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s068.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s069.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s070.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s071.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s072.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s073.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s074.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s075.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s076.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s077.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s078.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s079.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s080.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s081.pdf
You can guess what I've just been reading. I find it quite amusing.
Willy waving. You're still not telling me where I'm going wrong.
dilute micro said:
This is just bullshit. Especially the highlighted bit. Sorry.
bhamgeezer
Dogs bark
No one is anti-science, twattoooo!!!!
Just anti non-critical etc. etc.
Oops! Silly me, there was I thinking that it was a necessary condition upon crossing the Channel or Atlantic!
Gorski being a kulak gets his head slapped on one side by the proletariat and on the other side by the bourgeoisie. The fact he gets slapped on both sides means he thinks he is in some sense a critical voice in the desert. The fact is he's just a fucking kulak. Please don't quote him in my presence.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
OK I'm going to take this as a concession that you got pe a bit wrong. It really is about species level evolution.
You want higher level transitional fossils?
http://ncse.com/image/kvdpadians032
http://ncse.com/image/kvdpadians040
http://ncse.com/image/kvdpadians042
http://ncse.com/image/kvdpadians047
http://ncse.com/image/kvdpadians049
http://ncse.com/image/kvdpadians050
http://ncse.com/image/kvdpadians051
http://ncse.com/image/kvdpadians052
http://ncse.com/image/kvdpadians053
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s066.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s068.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s069.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s070.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s071.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s072.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s073.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s074.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s075.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s076.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s077.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s078.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s079.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s080.pdf
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/padian_pdfs/KvD_Padian_s081.pdf
You can guess what I've just been reading. I find it quite amusing.
For a person that just learned what a phylum is you've got a bizarre know-it-all attitude. Punctuated evolution HAS TO BE ABOUT SPECIATION. pe, theoretically, doesn't just work for the small changes but for the big phylum changes too. That was the whole point of the theory - that all these transitional fossils that can't be found are now explained away because they're evolving out of sight of the fossil record. You need to read about pe before you come on here claiming what the authors of pe said was "drivel" and then proceed to make up your own punctuated equilibrium. But before you do that you're going to need to bone up on fundamental biology.
Email this to all the paleontologists that say we're missing transitional forms, knotted. To humor you, I'm sure Gould and Eldredge wasn't aware of whale evolution, or a number of Cambrian fossils which were most likely separate phyla all to themselves. Look at the great work you've done. You, a person ignorant of elementary biology, have, via the internet, found what can only be taken as a complete refutation of all these scientists that have said the fossil record doesn't show the transitionals Darwin's theory predicted.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
I think you believe all this to be just one philosophy vs another philosophy. That's why you feel so confident without knowing the fundamentals.
I've never seen a person like yourself who can demonstrate such a level of ignorance and then keep at it as if it doesn't matter if you understand what you're talking about or not.
For a person that just learned what a phylum is you've got a bizarre know-it-all attitude.
Wrong!
dilute micro said:
OK we got there.
dilute micro said:
Wrong!
dilute micro said:
Wrong!
dilute micro said:
Wrong!
dilute micro said:
Willy waving.
dilute micro said:
Everybody knows that we are missing fossils of transitional forms. Idiot.
dilute micro said:
Wrong!
dilute micro said:
Wrong!
dilute micro said:
Wrong!
dilute micro
esse quam videri
Nope. Guess again.
dilute micro said:
But you can't tell me what I am ignorant about. Tedious.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
There's no telling you anything apart from teaching you evolution.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
christ almight, reading all that pure ego has given me a splitting head-ache.
is this summary accurate: darwin's basic theory claimed it was all gradual. But there was a lack of transitional fossils remains. So pe, a theory that comes from biological theory that shows that smaller populations (can) evolve more rapidly (due to environmental or just normal genetic drift) in smaller environs, and then spread those genes rapidly through larger, apparently static populations quickly, was introduced.
to have i just wasted a couple of hours reading willy-waving about whether or not that can still be considered "Darwinian"?!?
or did i misunderstand?
older posts i found interesting:
kropotkin was awesome! Love his writings on anarchism as well.
first of all, there is NO requirement within a market for one to lose for another to benefit. That is absurd, in fact generally BOTH parties benefit from the activity of a 'market'.
secondly, that rather Victorian notion is still misrepresented by "social Darwinists", revealing their own ignorance and general nastiness. Avoid social Darwinists who think like that at all costs.
rolf - reread this: "Actually the basic characteristic of life is not to expand. From basic ecology, it is to occupy a steady state equilibrium at the population determined by the first limiting unsubstitutable resource. Life expands until it reaches that limiting point"
sob into your hands.
then ponder that in ALL evolutionary theory, Life HAS expanded to fill ever more niches upon Earth. If life is not expansionary, then why has that happened?
equilibrium may certainly exist, even for long periods of time, but given the fact of external factors (say - a large meteorite), then species that expand will have a stronger survival likelihood.
such a simple truth.
TY!!!
certainly there is a problem with defining consciousness within the current largely materialist paradigms within Science, although hopefully that bottleneck can be breached soon.
on the underlying question, i had in mind the 'Noble_Eightfold_Path', which has been somewhat derailed. Curiously, perhaps, many of these Truths are intrinsic to animal existence already (clearly to a greater or less degree - these WERE writings for humans after all).
i'll leave it like that to see what replies come. Still got that burning head-ache.
is this summary accurate: darwin's basic theory claimed it was all gradual. But there was a lack of transitional fossils remains. So pe, a theory that comes from biological theory that shows that smaller populations (can) evolve more rapidly (due to environmental or just normal genetic drift) in smaller environs, and then spread those genes rapidly through larger, apparently static populations quickly, was introduced.
to have i just wasted a couple of hours reading willy-waving about whether or not that can still be considered "Darwinian"?!?
or did i misunderstand?
older posts i found interesting:
kropotkin was awesome! Love his writings on anarchism as well.
first of all, there is NO requirement within a market for one to lose for another to benefit. That is absurd, in fact generally BOTH parties benefit from the activity of a 'market'.
secondly, that rather Victorian notion is still misrepresented by "social Darwinists", revealing their own ignorance and general nastiness. Avoid social Darwinists who think like that at all costs.
rolf - reread this: "Actually the basic characteristic of life is not to expand. From basic ecology, it is to occupy a steady state equilibrium at the population determined by the first limiting unsubstitutable resource. Life expands until it reaches that limiting point"
sob into your hands.
then ponder that in ALL evolutionary theory, Life HAS expanded to fill ever more niches upon Earth. If life is not expansionary, then why has that happened?
equilibrium may certainly exist, even for long periods of time, but given the fact of external factors (say - a large meteorite), then species that expand will have a stronger survival likelihood.
such a simple truth.
TY!!!
certainly there is a problem with defining consciousness within the current largely materialist paradigms within Science, although hopefully that bottleneck can be breached soon.
on the underlying question, i had in mind the 'Noble_Eightfold_Path', which has been somewhat derailed. Curiously, perhaps, many of these Truths are intrinsic to animal existence already (clearly to a greater or less degree - these WERE writings for humans after all
). i'll leave it like that to see what replies come. Still got that burning head-ache.
Similar threads
