54 replies to this topic

[Sweeney]

Discuss.

Spoiler

We haven't had one for a while, and I always enjoy them. If you don't, don't read it

[Fresca]

I don't need to be persuaded to believe in micro-evolution, but I think this is really interesting nonetheless.

[Sweeney]

Fresca, on 25 February 2011 - 06:56 AM, said:

I don't need to be persuaded to believe in micro-evolution, but I think this is really interesting nonetheless.

If you think there's a difference between micro-evolution, and macro-evolution, then you probably need to read it again.

[Fresca]

Sweeney, on 25 February 2011 - 07:23 AM, said:

If you think there's a difference between micro-evolution, and macro-evolution, then you probably need to read it again.

At what point did I imply that? I meant that I don't need to be persuaded because I already feel this way.

Edited by Fresca, 25 February 2011 - 11:32 AM.

[Sweeney]

Fresca, on 25 February 2011 - 11:30 AM, said:

At what point did I imply that? I meant that I don't need to be persuaded because I already feel this way.

The point where you actually used the redundant "micro" prefix But fair enough.

[Mr. Hobo]

Still can't explain the moon...

[Sweeney]

Mr. Hobo, on 25 February 2011 - 12:02 PM, said:

Still can't explain the moon...

HOW DID IT GET THERE?!
Fuckin' Billo.

[iargue]

If only changing species was as easy as changing color of text!

[Sweeney]

iargue, on 25 February 2011 - 03:22 PM, said:

If only changing species was as easy as changing color of text!

I don't know if you've ever actually taken a biology course, but it really kind of is.

[iargue]

Sweeney, on 25 February 2011 - 03:25 PM, said:

I don't know if you've ever actually taken a biology course, but it really kind of is.

Oh. Okay!

[Persuasion]

You basically said little changes turn into big changes through time. So you're saying Macro evolution is basically a bunch of mincro evolutions that have occured??

[Boggart]

zlpqlz, on 25 February 2011 - 03:33 PM, said:

You basically said little changes turn into big changes through time. So you're saying Macro evolution is basically a bunch of mincro evolutions that have occured??

Yup, that's exactly. it. little change occur over time due to spontaneous mutations in our genes which may or may not benefit us over time. The ones with the beneficial mutations, which is determined beneficial/detrimental, during specific environmental conditions. These organisms will have stronger offspring, and over time, genetic ratios will shift towards the more benefitial ones

[Waser Lave]

zlpqlz, on 25 February 2011 - 03:33 PM, said:

You basically said little changes turn into big changes through time. So you're saying Macro evolution is basically a bunch of mincro evolutions that have occured??

Evolution is evolution, there isn't really a micro or macro distinction imo.

[Sweeney]

zlpqlz, on 25 February 2011 - 03:33 PM, said:

You basically said little changes turn into big changes through time. So you're saying Macro evolution is basically a bunch of mincro evolutions that have occured??

I didn't say anything. I found that
You're right, although as Laser pointed out, there's no real or valid distinction between micro or macro evolution.

[esilim]

Boggart, on 25 February 2011 - 03:37 PM, said:

Yup, that's exactly. it. little change occur over time due to spontaneous mutations in our genes which may or may not benefit us over time. The ones with the beneficial mutations, which is determined beneficial/detrimental, during specific environmental conditions. These organisms will have stronger offspring, and over time, genetic ratios will shift towards the more benefitial ones

So why don't we see a massive continuum, then--instead of such distinct species? The continuum of color in the paragraph is quite different from the distinctness of the species that we see--either in extant creatures or in the fossil record. And this explanation, though cute, has an even more difficult time with the cambrian explosion, in which many complex organisms appear at once, from just a few very simple ancestors. There might be a viable evolutionary model to fit the evidence, but the one in this thread isn't it... I think if we oversimplify our position, we leave it vulnerable to ridicule if someone who disagrees decides actually to do the research. (Though, it's my experience in this debate that almost no one actually looks at evidence; everyone just repeats what they have heard from their own experts both "for" their own position and "against" others').

[Sweeney]

quogarasrevenge, on 25 February 2011 - 03:50 PM, said:

So why don't we see a massive continuum, then--instead of such distinct species? The continuum of color in the paragraph is quite different from the distinctness of the species that we see--either in extant creatures or in the fossil record. And this explanation, though cute, has an even more difficult time with the cambrian explosion, in which many complex organisms appear at once, from just a few very simple ancestors. There might be a viable evolutionary model to fit the evidence, but the one in this thread isn't it... I think if we oversimplify our position, we leave it vulnerable to ridicule if someone who disagrees decides actually to do the research. (Though, it's my experience in this debate that almost no one actually looks at evidence; everyone just repeats what they have heard from their own experts both "for" their own position and "against" others').

Oh, goody

Fossilisation is a rare event. Most changes would have been unnoticable in a fossilised record anyway.

The cambrian explosion took place over a period of around 20 million years. Not exactly "at once".

Next?

[esilim]

Actually, much more than 20 million years, but still in evolutionary development, very much "at once" for the immense amount of genetic material that would have had to be produced (multiplied by an exponential factor, considering the vast amount of the genetic material produced would have been "mistakes" rather than the extremely occasional beneficial one). If fossilization is a rare event, that makes the fossilization of the explosion also remarkable. Again, we need theorized mechanisms that fit the evidence more than cute graphics. Although--for educating and convincing people these days, cute graphics work better!

[Sweeney]

quogarasrevenge, on 25 February 2011 - 04:15 PM, said:

Actually, much more than 20 million years, but still in evolutionary development, very much "at once" for the immense amount of genetic material that would have had to be produced (multiplied by an exponential factor, considering the vast amount of the genetic material produced would have been "mistakes" rather than the extremely occasional beneficial one).

Source on your date range?

Complexity doesn't necessitate more genetic material. The cambrian explosion merely demonstrates that evolution and diversification can occurr comparatively swiftly in periods of great selection pressure. It is not a problem for the modern synthesis.

Quote

If fossilization is a rare event, that makes the fossilization of the explosion also remarkable. Again, we need theorized mechanisms that fit the evidence more than cute graphics. Although--for educating and convincing people these days, cute graphics work better!

There aren't more fossilization events from the cambrian, just a greater range of phyla represented than previously.
The rate of fossilisation is low, and is a non-issue.

[esilim]

Sweeney, on 25 February 2011 - 04:23 PM, said:

Source on your date range?

Complexity doesn't necessitate more genetic material. The cambrian explosion merely demonstrates that evolution and diversification can occurr comparatively swiftly in periods of great selection pressure. It is not a problem for the modern synthesis.


There aren't more fossilization events from the cambrian, just a greater range of phyla represented than previously.
The rate of fossilisation is low, and is a non-issue.

Source at this moment is my memory, and the length of the period is 70 or 80 million. But maybe you could look it up and give us an attested source.
Both complexity and variety do require more genetic information.
Greater selection pressure is fine, but there also have to be mutations from which to select--otherwise selection pressure produces extinction, not evolution.
If the rate of fossilization event is consistent, then we are back to the problem of no continuum in fossilized forms.

What we need is the proposal of mechanisms and a scenario that would produce a large amount of genetic material, with a high rate of beneficial mutations, greater intensity of selection, and extenuating circumstances that would unusually inhibit fossilization during the intermediary period. It's a tall order, but it's what we need, if we wish to fit the evidence well.

[Waser Lave]

quogarasrevenge, on 25 February 2011 - 04:32 PM, said:

Source at this moment is my memory, and the length of the period is 70 or 80 million. But maybe you could look it up and give us an attested source.

If you're going to use information to support a statement you should be the one to look it up and make sure it's accurate.

[Sweeney]

quogarasrevenge, on 25 February 2011 - 04:32 PM, said:

Source at this moment is my memory, and the length of the period is 70 or 80 million. But maybe you could look it up and give us an attested source.

Laziness is unbecoming. I looked it up in the first place to ensure my initial figure was accurate.
http://gsabulletin.g.../122/11-12/1731

Quote

Both complexity and variety do require more genetic information.

That depends entirely on how you define information. But that's not relevant. What you actually said was genetic "material", something entirely different again. Do you have any evidence for your assertion that 20 million years isn't long enough, or is that something else that you've plucked from "memory"?

Quote

Greater selection pressure is fine, but there also have to be mutations from which to select--otherwise selection pressure produces extinction, not evolution.

No one is disputing that.

Quote

If the rate of fossilization event is consistent, then we are back to the problem of no continuum in fossilized forms.

Not if it's consistently rare. Which it is.

Quote

What we need is the proposal of mechanisms and a scenario that would produce a large amount of genetic material, with a high rate of beneficial mutations, greater intensity of selection, and extenuating circumstances that would unusually inhibit fossilization during the intermediary period. It's a tall order, but it's what we need, if we wish to fit the evidence well.

No, it isn't.

[WharfRat]

Hey Joe, why'd you remove parts of your sig? I mean, I guess cataliste is so far gone that that bit made sense... but what about the goal to bring reason to codex? Did you just give up?

[Sweeney]

Cody, on 25 February 2011 - 04:45 PM, said:

Hey Joe, why'd you remove parts of your sig? I mean, I guess cataliste is so far gone that that bit made sense... but what about the goal to bring reason to codex? Did you just give up?

Just making space for the stuff I added No other reason.

[jcrgirl]

0 results found for 'Pokemon' when searching this page. The fuck kind of evolution is this?????

[Sweeney]

jcrgirl, on 25 February 2011 - 04:48 PM, said:

0 results found for 'Pokemon' when searching this page. The fuck kind of evolution is this?????

The real kind that we talk about in the big boy topics.