Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

Every scientist understands that their interpretations of thier experiments and findings are unlikely to be the whole truth or even wrong. New findings from new experiments are published every day. Some lead nowhere and other become mainstream for at Least a while.

However over time and a great deal of effort progress is made.
In some fields like particle physics remarkably little progress has been made in my life time (born 1935) however it is a major and very costly field of study. Quantum physics is another related science that has been stuck in a rut for a similar time.
However this has not stopped useful and practical applications emerging from these studies.
The whole area surrounding Field theory seems to lacking a fundamental thought that will bring it all together.
Unfortunately this is how science works, it always appears simple looking back at it. Breakthroughs are usually led by revolutionary thought. Not from following accepted or traditional views.

The various theories around evolution are clearly not yet complete.
However, the genetic record establishes clear links between species and their evolution.
What must be less clear is the why and the processes involved.

Your question about the role of "FITNESS" leads one to suspect it plays a part, but the actual chemical, biological process, if there is one? is far from clear, with out adding survival to the equation.
Only those that survive to reproduce, pass on their genes.

Thank you. I can't really take exception to anything here and am in close agreement with much of it.

Unfortunately this is how science works, it always appears simple looking back at it. Breakthroughs are usually led by revolutionary thought. Not from following accepted or traditional views.

I believe most of science (I'll avoid using the word "metaphysics") is based on a few very poor definitions and some false assumptions. Several are relevant to "Evolution" but the most important are that individuality and consciousness can be factored out of the equation. Darwin factored it out because he believed only humans are conscious and still we believe only a few species are conscious. Obviously if you believe any life can evolve outside consciousness then it really could be factored out. I don't believe this. I don't believe anything in reality follows any sort of course but is rather a random walk or cyclical or both. In a sense you could say that things that are cyclical are harmonic and things that are a random walk are chaotic, but the real world is a mixture of both except that the chaos is driven out of technology virtually by definition.

While I understand the attraction of defining fitness as survival ability I can't imagine anything so simple governing the real world works AND I can't imagine that consciousness doesn't play a chief role. I can't see any sort of advantage in understanding change in species by defining terms in such a way.

I just figured out what the ancient "goddess" "henet" really represented last night and marveled at the fact I hadn't seen it earlier. Like all things once you see them they are quite clear.

 

[cladking]

Second, all mechanisms, including Natural Selection, are about the ability to pass the traits to succeeding generations, hence it is all about the ability TO REPRODUCE.

Fine. You've only proven that individuals which don't reproduce don't reproduce.

It's easy enough to get on my ignore list for anyone who just came off; just dispute my stated meaning for any word I use.

 

[Dimi95]

That everything changes is axiomatic in a reality where no two identical things exist.
But life cooperates to fill every niche and resources are not "limited" but rather always changing.It is Darwin and those who wanted an excuse to oppress who believed that resources are limited and some people have less right to them because they were less fit or less evolved. How did this nonsense survive into modern times?

Of course everything changes but there's no reason to believe they Evolve.

Yes , there is.
We are the proof of that.
Human kind is the result of that gradual change.

How would you justify that we are able to speak and other form of life is not able to?

If we count all genes, including the very important genes serving as 'logic gates' of our DNA and deciding what actually makes us different from other life, then this similarilty with other life would be much lower, about 90%, significantly less than between cats and tigers.

The building blocks and shape of DNA molecules in humans, plants and every living thing is the same.
We all have the:
-A(adenine)
-C(cytosine)
-G(guanine)
-T(thymine)

All living things have DNA within their cells.
It's the order of these 'letters' that makes us different.
Some of these A, C, G, and T's code for genes, which in turn code for proteins.
I suggest that you read a thing or two about it if you don't know.

Proteins are the things in our body that do all of the work.
They are involved in activities.
If your don't give 'the body' the neccessary it won't stay alive.
For species to evolve , they need to remain alive first.
'the body' refers to all life.
(That is why it is metaphorical and not literal)

Evolution is only possible because of the survival of the fittest.
The evidence is in the activities by which proteins encode for genes.

The proteins that do the same things in plants and animals have similar DNA sequences.
However, even when the proteins are very similar, when and where in the body they do their job can be very different.

As you can imagine, the different features of a plant and a human leads to them having many different genes. There are also many similar activities between plants and humans.

Some examples are getting energy from food, making new and fixing DNA, and making new cells by cell division. So it makes sense that the DNA sequences of the genes that work in these sorts of jobs can be very similar.

Our strong connections with trees may be based, in part, on the fact that trees and humans share similar physical characteristics.
We stand upright.
The pattern of the tubular branches (bronchi) in our lungs is similar to the root system of many trees.

We are also trees If we go to the four building blocks and shape of DNA molecules.

I suggest that you look something up about DNA.

If you don't understand DNA , then it is pointless to talk about Evolution.

Some organisms, such as Turritopsis dohrnii, are biologically immortal
they can still die from means other than aging.

Death eventually and inevitably occurs in all organisms.

If there is no death , then life would not be today as it is.

Fossil fuels are formed from the decomposition of buried carbon-based organisms that died millions of years ago.
In 2022, over 80% of primary energy consumption in the world and over 60% of its electricity supply were from fossil fuels.

That change is not sudden.

It's hardly surprising that species as well change in a reality where EVERYTHING changes.

So you accept gradual change?

The question remains why and how do groups of individuals that we call "species" have offspring that are fundamentally different in many ways.

One species can 'eat' the other one not just from the 'outside' , but also from the 'inside'.

'Kidney' is just a filter system that removes waste product.
In that sense Wetlands(lands where there is water) are the 'kidney' of the earth.

In the procceses in this 'filter system' , change is not sudden.

You don't understand Evolution my friend , and you make such bold claims.

You are being asked to show your work. You just penned an essay about how species mustta changed but you never showed your work and your essay runs counter to ALL observation that shows sudden change and individuality.

Your observations show 'sudden change' yes, but only to you , to nobody else.

Your observations are not claims that concern the domain of science , but the realm of philosophy.
So maybe you should try them there.
And even there , I don't know if they would stand

Stripping the dispossessed of their humanity strips our own as well. We are humans and worthy of rights not because we are fit but because we are human.

No actually , it is because the 'fit' genes survived.
You believe that they survived just like that.
We are humans , because we have human language.
DNA is not a human language.

Show your work. This is a math test not a 19th century sociology test. In science we must prove our methodology is sound as part of experimental results and you have NO EXPERIMENT.

This again proves my point in another thread , that there are some of you that don't understand the difference between 'experiment' and 'experimentation'.
You expect all evidence to come out of lab

 

[cladking]

Evolution is only possible because of the survival of the fittest.
The evidence is in the activities by which proteins encode for genes.

You lost me here. Don't the unfit also need protein to stay alive? We need something to differentiate between the fit and unfit so natural selection knows which to promote. Defining it as "that which is promoted" is like a circular argument. It lives because it lives because it lives...

Our strong connections with trees may be based, in part, on the fact that trees and humans share similar physical characteristics.
We stand upright.
The pattern of the tubular branches (bronchi) in our lungs is similar to the root system of many trees.

Reality has proven that it has somewhat limited ways it does things. Everything is as simple as possible which is why there is the fibonacci sequence and only two sides to a coin. There are only four rules each bird must follow to create murmuration. Why shouldn't roots loot like tress and both like bronchi?

So you accept gradual change?

No, not really. While obviously all things, even rabbits, change over time I seriously don't any significant changes are typical in species because gradual changes are a random walk. Big changes occur suddenly just like the river in which you can step twice has all of it's big changes suddenly. It changes course suddenly, dries up suddenly, and turns into a fiord suddenly. Nothing is static and no two identical things exist least of all rabbits or rivers.

You don't understand Evolution my friend

I don't believe in Evolution. I didn't believe in it when I studied it either. It didn't ring true when I was five and it still doesn't.

DNA is not a human language.

It is, in effect, a metaphysical language except that it is the framework of the individual rather than a means of two way communication.

You expect all evidence to come out of lab

I expect relevant experimentation to show consciousness can be factored out and that fitness causes a gradual change in species.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again you simply twist the definition of "theory" to fit your assumptions.

Projecting, much?

At the risk of confusing the issue this would literally make every individual equally fit.

No.

No, I don't. Biology just changed to a more PC word. It's just gussied up fitness.
"Selected" is just the past tense "fit" and sounds nicer.

No.

Why do you never address my arguments or answer a direct question?

Because it's just word salad and based on ignorance / strawmen.
All I can do in response to that, is point it out.

And since you can not and since you have no experiment "Evolution" isn't a theory, it is an hypothesis.

False.

It is an hypothesis confirmed only by looking by a species that always sees what it expects.

No.

All I'm saying is that we should look again from a different vantage point. I believe that from this vantage point more can be seen and more experiments in more areas of science are supported.

Write a paper about it and see where it gets you, since you seem to believe you understand thing that apparently every single evolutionary biologists in the 200-year history of the field seems to have missed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is it your opinion then that those scientists who believe in punctuated equilibrium aren't even scientists?

You don't really know what punctuated equilibrium is, do you?
You seem to think it contradicts "mainstream" evolution and / or seem to imply that only a marginal amount of scientists accept it.

How wrong you are.


PE merely deals with how the rate of change follows the rate of environmental change, at large. That's it.

It's part of evolution and I'm not aware of any evolutionary biologist that doesn't accept it as such.

PE is a phenomenon which also occurs in GA's (genetic algorithms) which is something I actually have worked with in the past.

Here's a brief superficial explanation...

At generation 0, initial conditions are set in place, with a set number of selection pressures. These pressures are kept stable.
The process starts and the population starts to evolve in function of the selection pressures.
After some time, the population will have reached to so called "local optimum".
This is a state of "maximal adaption" in context of the selection pressures. This does NOT mean there aren't "better solutions".
What it does mean, is that no more, or extremely little, new evolutionary pathways exist towards further better adaption.
For example, if a hypothetical better solution existed, it might require the population to take 10 steps back to then take an alternative evolutionary pathway to get to that solution. It can no longer get there by mere incremental, gradual steps each of which yields beneficial results over the previous state.

When the "local optimum" is reached, the "state" of the population stabilizes. Meaning that little further evolution will be taking place since very little, if any, potential additional change yields beneficial results. So natural selection will start favoring the status quo.

Now, let's change the selection pressures again (= the environment changes).
As a result, the local optimum moves also. Meaning, new evolutionary pathways open up to new adaption towards that local optimum. The rate of evolution speeds up again and will do so until the next local optimum is approached / reached.

This is the explanation in terms of GA's, which follows the same principles of biological evolution.


The sum up:
- in periods of environmental stability, species will eventually reach a stage of "local optimum" which will result in evolution stabilizing as well (= slowing down).
- following periods of environment change, local optimums will move and the rate of evolution will speed up again, till the next local optimum is reached again.

That is what PE is all about.
It's a part of evolution theory and no evolutionary biologist will say otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

However punctuated equilibrium like quantum evolution, is more concerned with the rate of evolution than evolution itself. Which it does not contest.

OK. As long as anyone doesn't think change is species is gradual they might be right. At least righter than Darwin and most biologists.

Dude............

Evolution in PE is gradual.
PE is not about evolution being "sudden".
It's only about how periods of environment stability / change affect the rate of evolution during and after those periods.

When it is said that the rate of evolution "speeds up", we are still talking about a slow gradual process taking many generations to unfold.
Rather, the thing about PE is that if species find themselves in, or close to, a local optimum, then most change will be selected against as natural selection will favor the status quo.

 

[wellwisher]

1. it's not "my" case

2. we don't need any fossils. Genetics show beyond a shadow of a doubt that all species share ancestry.



And still you have learned nothing at all, even though this simple lesson has been provided to you on a near weekly basis since at least June 2021.
Why do you refuse to learn? Why do you insist on being wrong?

There really is no point in talking to you if you can't even manage to comprehend such simple things.

All you are doing with this silly behavior is confirm the statement that you quoted:

Because the only way to argue against evolution, is to lie about it or to insist on willful ignorance



You mean: predicted the existence of such a fossil based on evolution theory / history and THEN actually finds it.

The mere existence of this fossil is indeed evidence in support of evolution theory.
And doubly so when it is found by prediction.



Another typical example of creationist intellectual dishonesty.
"where is the missing link between fish and tetrapods?"
"here, it's called tiktaalik!"
"ok, but where is the missing link between fish and tiktaalik, or between tiktaalik and tetrapods?"

The problem is the casino math approach. This type of science is like going into a casino with hopes and dreams thereby adding subjectivity to what is supposed to be rational science. There is a layer of fantasy that stands in the way of being fully rational. I trace that back to ignoring the impact of water and thereby needing a black box approach. The DNA does not work without water. How can a model, that leaves out a critical variable, be trusted to be more than a contortionistic correlation? Astrology can correlate the planets but we know that is not fully rational, either.

Water and oil when blended will form an emulsion and then separate out. This is what happens in cells with water and organics. Water, by being the dominate secondary bonding force, not only makes life fluid; fluid physics, but it causes the organics to bead up into the structures of the cell. This minimizes the potential of the water. However, it also lowers the entropy of the organics; less complex, thereby adding entropic catalytic potential.

Entropy is not magic, but rather it is a state variable, meaning any given state of matter has a measurable entropy constant. With the second law saying entropy has to increase, these state constants need to increase, and I call that evolution with a sense of direction; increase. Species, by being distinct in terms of reproduction, tells us these increasing entropic states, have quantum steps, and are not continuous. Life is quantized at the level of system entropy.

I was watching a TV show last night about T-Rex. One of the scientists was saying that in terms of fossil, we do not have anywhere near the same amount of small animal fossils, as large animal. The hard fossil evidence is disproportionally large animals, even though common sense would say there should be even more species of small animals. The fossil data is biased to larger bones since these can preserve longer and be found. However, it was the little animals that survived the asteroid event extinction of the dinosaurs, yet their past is not well represented by the fossils. They too are entropic states. If we use the science method based on hard data, we need to ignore the smaller animal since the data is very lacking. But to me, all entropic state can be included with the water model since one sample will be enough.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem is the casino math approach.

This supposed "problem" only exists in the heads of those who are ignorant of evolution (willfully or otherwise).

This type of science is like going into a casino with hopes and dreams thereby adding subjectivity to what is supposed to be rational science. There is a layer of fantasy that stands in the way of being fully rational. I trace that back to ignoring the impact of water and thereby needing a black box approach. The DNA does not work without water. How can a model, that leaves out a critical variable, be trusted to be more than a contortionistic correlation? Astrology can correlate the planets but we know that is not fully rational, either.

Water and oil when blended will form an emulsion and then separate out. This is what happens in cells with water and organics. Water, by being the dominate secondary bonding force, not only makes life fluid; fluid physics, but it causes the organics to bead up into the structures of the cell. This minimizes the potential of the water. However, it also lowers the entropy of the organics; less complex, thereby adding entropic catalytic potential.

Entropy is not magic, but rather it is a state variable, meaning any given state of matter has a measurable entropy constant. With the second law saying entropy has to increase, these state constants need to increase, and I call that evolution with a sense of direction; increase. Species, by being distinct in terms of reproduction, tells us these increasing entropic states, have quantum steps, and are not continuous. Life is quantized at the level of system entropy.

I was watching a TV show last night about T-Rex. One of the scientists was saying that in terms of fossil, we do not have anywhere near the same amount of small animal fossils, as large animal. The hard fossil evidence is disproportionally large animals, even though common sense would say there should be even more species of small animals. The fossil data is biased to larger bones since these can preserve longer and be found. However, it was the little animals that survived the asteroid event extinction of the dinosaurs, yet their past is not well represented by the fossils. They too are entropic states. If we use the science method based on hard data, we need to ignore the smaller animal since the data is very lacking. But to me, all entropic state can be included with the water model since one sample will be enough.

Would you like some mayo with that word salad?

 

[cladking]

Projecting, much?



No.



No.



Because it's just word salad and based on ignorance / strawmen.
All I can do in response to that, is point it out.



False.



No.


Write a paper about it and see where it gets you, since you seem to believe you understand thing that apparently every single evolutionary biologists in the 200-year history of the field seems to have missed.

It's very easy to refute your every claim;

No. You are wrong and your words are a kind of salad.

My work here is done.

 

[cladking]

When it is said that the rate of evolution "speeds up", we are still talking about a slow gradual process taking many generations to unfold.

I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.

Why can't you understand this and address any of my points?

Since you won't answer any questions, I'll answer it for you. It's because you only see what you believe and you believe in fitness. You believe every rabbit is exactly alike except some are fitter than others even though you can't define, measure, or predict "fitness".

Rabbits are not exactly alike. Every rabbit is an individual with its own individual consciousness and experience. You can't see this because to you "rabbits" are nothing but a species. You can't accept that each has free will so you can't imagine they are equally fit. Many scientists don't even believe humans have free will even though consciousness which nature provides so every individual can succeed can nearly be defined as free will.

Now just say "No" and "word salad" because you can't be bothered to argue any point at all.

 

[cladking]

The problem is the casino math approach. This type of science is like going into a casino with hopes and dreams thereby adding subjectivity to what is supposed to be rational science. There is a layer of fantasy that stands in the way of being fully rational. I trace that back to ignoring the impact of water and thereby needing a black box approach. The DNA does not work without water. How can a model, that leaves out a critical variable, be trusted to be more than a contortionistic correlation? Astrology can correlate the planets but we know that is not fully rational, either.

Water and oil when blended will form an emulsion and then separate out. This is what happens in cells with water and organics. Water, by being the dominate secondary bonding force, not only makes life fluid; fluid physics, but it causes the organics to bead up into the structures of the cell. This minimizes the potential of the water. However, it also lowers the entropy of the organics; less complex, thereby adding entropic catalytic potential.

Entropy is not magic, but rather it is a state variable, meaning any given state of matter has a measurable entropy constant. With the second law saying entropy has to increase, these state constants need to increase, and I call that evolution with a sense of direction; increase. Species, by being distinct in terms of reproduction, tells us these increasing entropic states, have quantum steps, and are not continuous. Life is quantized at the level of system entropy.

I was watching a TV show last night about T-Rex. One of the scientists was saying that in terms of fossil, we do not have anywhere near the same amount of small animal fossils, as large animal. The hard fossil evidence is disproportionally large animals, even though common sense would say there should be even more species of small animals. The fossil data is biased to larger bones since these can preserve longer and be found. However, it was the little animals that survived the asteroid event extinction of the dinosaurs, yet their past is not well represented by the fossils. They too are entropic states. If we use the science method based on hard data, we need to ignore the smaller animal since the data is very lacking. But to me, all entropic state can be included with the water model since one sample will be enough.

And water isn't even conductive without salt in it.

Reductionistic science looks at one thing at a time and then looks at something else. It never occurs to some scientists that all things exist simultaneously. All things affect all other things. And reality must respect every experiment or you are misinterpreting experiment. Most are so busy looking through a microscope they forget there's a big picture and the microscope exists.

 

[gnostic]

Evolution in PE is gradual.
PE is not about evolution being "sudden".
It's only about how periods of environment stability / change affect the rate of evolution during and after those periods.

When it is said that the rate of evolution "speeds up", we are still talking about a slow gradual process taking many generations to unfold.
Rather, the thing about PE is that if species find themselves in, or close to, a local optimum, then most change will be selected against as natural selection will favor the status quo.

I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.

Why can't you understand this and address any of my points?

It is not that @TagliatelliMonster didnt understand your points, it is your understanding of Punctuated Equilibrium is wrong, just as your understanding of Natural Selection is also wrong.

You have misunderstood both.

You think PE is about very sudden changes, like instantaneous change within 2 generations, eg you believe that offspring is immediately a different species to the parent. That’s not how Punctuated Equilibrium work, that’s not even how speciation works.

What you have described, is comic-book Evolution, has nothing to do with Punctuated Equilibrium.

TagliatelliMonster gave an even better explanation in his large reply/post, but the general idea is that -

when the environment is stable, there are little to no changes to the species of any population, because there are no selective pressures,​

​

but when environment do change, then selective pressures would cause period of populations to adapted to environmental changes, speeding up, but not in the way you believe it.​

In Punctuated Equilibrium, speciations would still occur through many generations, especially for multicellular organisms.

TagliatelliMonster’s explanation & example are definitely more complete than mine. I have highlighted some essential points in TagliatelliMonster’s post:

Here's a brief superficial explanation...

At generation 0, initial conditions are set in place, with a set number of selection pressures. These pressures are kept stable.
The process starts and the population starts to evolve in function of the selection pressures.
After some time, the population will have reached to so called "local optimum".
This is a state of "maximal adaption" in context of the selection pressures. This does NOT mean there aren't "better solutions".
What it does mean, is that no more, or extremely little, new evolutionary pathways exist towards further better adaption.
For example, if a hypothetical better solution existed, it might require the population to take 10 steps back to then take an alternative evolutionary pathway to get to that solution. It can no longer get there by mere incremental, gradual steps each of which yields beneficial results over the previous state.

When the "local optimum" is reached, the "state" of the population stabilizes. Meaning that little further evolution will be taking place since very little, if any, potential additional change yields beneficial results. So natural selection will start favoring the status quo.

Now, let's change the selection pressures again (= the environment changes).
As a result, the local optimum moves also. Meaning, new evolutionary pathways open up to new adaption towards that local optimum. The rate of evolution speeds up again and will do so until the next local optimum is approached / reached.

This is the explanation in terms of GA's, which follows the same principles of biological evolution.


The sum up:
- in periods of environmental stability, species will eventually reach a stage of "local optimum" which will result in evolution stabilizing as well (= slowing down).
- following periods of environment change, local optimums will move and the rate of evolution will speed up again, till the next local optimum is reached again.

it is not that no one understand your points, they disagree with your points because your points are often wrong.

You certainly don’t Punctuated Equilibrium as well as you believe you do: you have misunderstood PE because you have mistakenly assumed PE opposed Natural Selection, when it doesn’t.

 

[cladking]

It is not that @TagliatelliMonster didnt understand your points, it is your understanding of Punctuated Equilibrium is wrong, just as your understanding of Natural Selection is also wrong.

I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.

You have misunderstood both.

I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.

You think PE is about very sudden changes, like instantaneous change within 2 generations, eg you believe that offspring is immediately a different species to the parent. That’s not how Punctuated Equilibrium work, that’s not even how speciation works.

I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.

What you have described, is comic-book Evolution, has nothing to do with Punctuated Equilibrium.

I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.

TagliatelliMonster gave an even better explanation in his large reply/post, but the general idea is that -

when the environment is stable, there are little to no changes to the species of any population, because there are no selective pressures,but when environment do change, then selective pressures would cause period of populations to adapted to environmental changes, speeding up, but not in the way you believe it.

I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.

In Punctuated Equilibrium, speciations would still occur through many generations, especially for multicellular organisms.

I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.

TagliatelliMonster’s explanation & example are definitely more complete than mine. I have highlighted some essential points in TagliatelliMonster’s post:

I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.


This is called the distributive property.

Another thing you can distribute to all of your comments is they had nothing to do with any of my points.

Lectures, semantical games, naysaying, and saying the words are salad is not addressing the points.

 

[YoursTrue]

You don't really know what punctuated equilibrium is, do you?
You seem to think it contradicts "mainstream" evolution and / or seem to imply that only a marginal amount of scientists accept it.

How wrong you are.


PE merely deals with how the rate of change follows the rate of environmental change, at large. That's it.

It's part of evolution and I'm not aware of any evolutionary biologist that doesn't accept it as such.

PE is a phenomenon which also occurs in GA's (genetic algorithms) which is something I actually have worked with in the past.

Here's a brief superficial explanation...

At generation 0, initial conditions are set in place, with a set number of selection pressures. These pressures are kept stable.
The process starts and the population starts to evolve in function of the selection pressures.
After some time, the population will have reached to so called "local optimum".
This is a state of "maximal adaption" in context of the selection pressures. This does NOT mean there aren't "better solutions".
What it does mean, is that no more, or extremely little, new evolutionary pathways exist towards further better adaption.
For example, if a hypothetical better solution existed, it might require the population to take 10 steps back to then take an alternative evolutionary pathway to get to that solution. It can no longer get there by mere incremental, gradual steps each of which yields beneficial results over the previous state.

When the "local optimum" is reached, the "state" of the population stabilizes. Meaning that little further evolution will be taking place since very little, if any, potential additional change yields beneficial results. So natural selection will start favoring the status quo.

Now, let's change the selection pressures again (= the environment changes).
As a result, the local optimum moves also. Meaning, new evolutionary pathways open up to new adaption towards that local optimum. The rate of evolution speeds up again and will do so until the next local optimum is approached / reached.

This is the explanation in terms of GA's, which follows the same principles of biological evolution.


The sum up:
- in periods of environmental stability, species will eventually reach a stage of "local optimum" which will result in evolution stabilizing as well (= slowing down).
- following periods of environment change, local optimums will move and the rate of evolution will speed up again, till the next local optimum is reached again.

That is what PE is all about.
It's a part of evolution theory and no evolutionary biologist will say otherwise.

You guys amaze me. You know and believe whatever science says about evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.



I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.



I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.



I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.



I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.



I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.



I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.


This is called the distributive property.

Another thing you can distribute to all of your comments is they had nothing to do with any of my points.

Lectures, semantical games, naysaying, and saying the words are salad is not addressing the points.

Ok now we're up to "ability" of various entities to start replicating themselves at the start of the "tree."

 

[gnostic]

It's important to go beyond fossils to substantiate your case of evolution by natural selection and/or mutations that formed species that lasted or may not have lasted.

Biology have already gone beyond paleontology, YoursTrue.

it is really you have put head in the sand. You seemed to be permanently stuck in the late 19th century or early 20th century.

Have you not heard of Genome Project???

Protein-encoding genes? Genome mapping? Comparisons of DNA sequences?

Genome Project is large scale gathering and mapping out the DNA sequences from living & extant species of just about every species of animals, of plants, of fungi, of protists, of archaea, of bacteria.

For example, they have mapped out the sequences of protein-coding genes of living modern human and living modern chimpanzee, and have been able to calculate & estimate the time of divergence between the 2 separate genera (Homo & Pan).

It is like when you do DNA testing of 2 very distant cousins, to pinpoint exactly when their paths diverged.

It is not just comparison between humans & chimpanzees. You could compare when the African lions diverged from leopards. Or when the giant pandas diverged from the brown bears or from the spectacled bears. or the crown jellyfish from the box jellyfish. And so on.

The Genome Project provide many insights about current species, without researching into fossils.

The Genome Project have been going on for some decades now, DNA testing of today, have improved since the 1980s when this project had started. And it is something that creationists, like yourself, have completely ignored, or worse, dismissed.

For someone who claimed to be expert in evolution, when you were in high school, you seemed to be focusing on only fossils, when you have completely forgotten about the Genome Project.

 

[gnostic]

I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.



I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.



I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.



I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.



I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.



I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.



I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.


This is called the distributive property.

Another thing you can distribute to all of your comments is they had nothing to do with any of my points.

Lectures, semantical games, naysaying, and saying the words are salad is not addressing the points.

Why do you demand that people accept your views, if you don’t even understand what Punctuated Equilibrium is?

No one should accept your say-so, when you are incorrect in the first place.

How about reading the large post from @TagliatelliMonster , post 1526, understanding the Punctuated Equilibrium, and addressing his points & example?

 

[YoursTrue]

Biology have already gone beyond paleontology, YoursTrue.

it is really you have put head in the sand. You seemed to be permanently stuck in the late 19th century or early 20th century.

Have you not heard of Genome Project???

Protein-encoding genes? Genome mapping? Comparisons of DNA sequences?

Genome Project is large scale gathering and mapping out the DNA sequences from living & extant species of just about every species of animals, of plants, ofSo fungi, of protists, of archaea, of bacteria.

For example, they have mapped out the sequences of protein-coding genes of living modern human and living modern chimpanzee, and have been able to calculate & estimate the time of divergence between the 2 separate genera (Homo & Pan).

It is like when you do DNA testing of 2 very distant cousins, to pinpoint exactly when their paths diverged.

It is not just comparison between humans & chimpanzees. You could compare when the African lions diverged from leopards. Or when the giant pandas diverged from the brown bears or from the spectacled bears. or the crown jellyfish from the box jellyfish. And so on.

The Genome Project provide many insights about current species, without researching into fossils.

The Genome Project have been going on for some decades now, DNA testing of today, have improved since the 1980s when this project had started. And it is something that creationists, like yourself, have completely ignored, or worse, dismissed.

For someone who claimed to be expert in evolution, when you were in high school, you seemed to be focusing on only fossils, when you have completely forgotten about the Genome Project.

I agree that biology is not the same as paleontology. That does not mean that Tiktaaliks evolved to anything. In the long, eventual run.

 

[YoursTrue]

Biology have already gone beyond paleontology, YoursTrue.

it is really you have put head in the sand. You seemed to be permanently stuck in the late 19th century or early 20th century.

Have you not heard of Genome Project???

Protein-encoding genes? Genome mapping? Comparisons of DNA sequences?

Genome Project is large scale gathering and mapping out the DNA sequences from living & extant species of just about every species of animals, of plants, ofSo fungi, of protists, of archaea, of bacteria.

For example, they have mapped out the sequences of protein-coding genes of living modern human and living modern chimpanzee, and have been able to calculate & estimate the time of divergence between the 2 separate genera (Homo & Pan).

It is like when you do DNA testing of 2 very distant cousins, to pinpoint exactly when their paths diverged.

It is not just comparison between humans & chimpanzees. You could compare when the African lions diverged from leopards. Or when the giant pandas diverged from the brown bears or from the spectacled bears. or the crown jellyfish from the box jellyfish. And so on.

The Genome Project provide many insights about current species, without researching into fossils.

The Genome Project have been going on for some decades now, DNA testing of today, have improved since the 1980s when this project had started. And it is something that creationists, like yourself, have completely ignored, or worse, dismissed.

For someone who claimed to be expert in evolution, when you were in high school, you seemed to be focusing on only fossils, when you have completely forgotten about the Genome Project.

I agree that biology is not the same as paleontology. That does not mean that Tiktaaliks evolved to anything. In the long, eventual run.

Biology have already gone beyond paleontology, YoursTrue.

it is really you have put head in the sand. You seemed to be permanently stuck in the late 19th century or early 20th century.

Have you not heard of Genome Project???

Protein-encoding genes? Genome mapping? Comparisons of DNA sequences?

Genome Project is large scale gathering and mapping out the DNA sequences from living & extant species of just about every species of animals, of plants, of fungi, of protists, of archaea, of bacteria.

For example, they have mapped out the sequences of protein-coding genes of living modern human and living modern chimpanzee, and have been able to calculate & estimate the time of divergence between the 2 separate genera (Homo & Pan).

It is like when you do DNA testing of 2 very distant cousins, to pinpoint exactly when their paths diverged.

It is not just comparison between humans & chimpanzees. You could compare when the African lions diverged from leopards. Or when the giant pandas diverged from the brown bears or from the spectacled bears. or the crown jellyfish from the box jellyfish. And so on.

The Genome Project provide many insights about current species, without researching into fossils.

The Genome Project have been going on for some decades now, DNA testing of today, have improved since the 1980s when this project had started. And it is something that creationists, like yourself, have completely ignored, or worse, dismissed.

For someone who claimed to be expert in evolution, when you were in high school, you seemed to be focusing on only fossils, when you have completely forgotten about the Genome Project.

I never claimed to be an expert in biology, gnostic. What I did say is that I was an honor student, got scholarships based on merit. I learned (accepted) what I was taught in school and thereafter about evolution. Science was not my interest at the time, but I learned what they taught me and -- believed it. Biology is a different field, although many do connect it with evolution, as if biology proves the theory true. It--does--not. Be that as it may, since it is a personal journal for all, have a nice day and enjoy the sunshine. Hope the weather is pleasant where you're at.