inimalist-
Punctuated Equilibrium is based on two concepts:
(1) macromutations and
(2) population restrictions.
Macromutations have not been verified.
"The overall factor that has come up again and again is that mutation remains the ultimate source of all genetic variation in any evolutionary model. Being unsatisfied with the prospects of accumulating small point mutations, many are turning to macromutations to explain the origin of evolutionary novelties. Goldschmidt's hopeful monsters have indeed returned. However, though macromutations of many varieties produce drastic changes, the vast majority will be incapable of survival, let alone show the marks of increasing complexity. If structural gene mutations are inadequate because of their inability to produce significant enough changes, then regulatory and developmental mutations appear even less useful because of the greater likelihood of nonadaptive or even destructive consequences.... But one thing seems certain: at present, the thesis that mutations, whether great or small, are capable of producing limitless biological change is more an article of faith than fact." --Lane Lester, geneticist and Raymond Bohlin, biologist
And population restrictions provide a disadvantage for Darwinian evolution!
Far from developing in such a way as to give rise to new species, small populations give rise to serious genetic defects. The reason for this is that in restricted populations individuals must continually mate within a narrow genetic pool. For this reason, normally heterozygous individuals become increasingly homozygous. This means that defective genes which are normally recessive become dominant, with the result that genetic defects and sickness increase within the population.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Symmetric Chaos-The theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium" was developed to circumvent the fact that the fossil record contains no "transitional" forms. Hello... is anybody home?
Conspiracy theories were developed to explain why some people on LSD see people as reptile men. The logic you're trying to is extremely poor.
Just because someone comes up with something doesn't mean anything.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Just ignore him fellas. It's his God of the Gaps logic that pervades everything he talks about. You'll never win because he's completely wrapped up in the meme that is ID. It has such a strong hold that literally nothing will displace it.
Punctuated Equilibrium is based on two concepts:
(1) macromutations and
(2) population restrictions.
Macromutations have not been verified.
"The overall factor that has come up again and again is that mutation remains the ultimate source of all genetic variation in any evolutionary model. Being unsatisfied with the prospects of accumulating small point mutations, many are turning to macromutations to explain the origin of evolutionary novelties. Goldschmidt's hopeful monsters have indeed returned. However, though macromutations of many varieties produce drastic changes, the vast majority will be incapable of survival, let alone show the marks of increasing complexity. If structural gene mutations are inadequate because of their inability to produce significant enough changes, then regulatory and developmental mutations appear even less useful because of the greater likelihood of nonadaptive or even destructive consequences.... But one thing seems certain: at present, the thesis that mutations, whether great or small, are capable of producing limitless biological change is more an article of faith than fact." --Lane Lester, geneticist and Raymond Bohlin, biologist
And population restrictions provide a disadvantage for Darwinian evolution!
Far from developing in such a way as to give rise to new species, small populations give rise to serious genetic defects. The reason for this is that in restricted populations individuals must continually mate within a narrow genetic pool. For this reason, normally heterozygous individuals become increasingly homozygous. This means that defective genes which are normally recessive become dominant, with the result that genetic defects and sickness increase within the population.
And DigiMark007, you are "acting" like an idiot; be fair. By the way, do you play Chess?
I'm not acting like anything. Acting implies something other than one's true feeling. And I truly feel you are an idiot whose debating tactics are disingenuous to true scientific study, or true anything for that matter, and that you deserve to be ignored.
Though, ironically enough, I'm not a proponent of punctuated equilibrium. Go figure. But our reasons for finding fault with the system are obviously quite different, as are the ends to which we use them. Ushome plays God of the Gaps with it. I simply see it as an offshoot of evolutionary theory that isn't as supported as traditional models.
Anyway, go back to the 5-6 threads you created for yourself as a platform to preach to the few who will listen to you. This thread is about science, not your incessant blathering.
And yeah, I play chess.
i believe the selfish gene theory to be more accurate. to say instant changes in a species causes any sort of evolution is rediculus. minor changes to an animals genome is the eventual cause. with many many changes of genes we come to speciation. how long this takes, is up to debate.
ushome i agree with you on this particular theory i dont think it really has any difference. however taking a valid evolutionary scientists words and twisting them, is not something i would do in your situation
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm not acting like anything. Acting implies something other than one's true feeling. And I truly feel you are an idiot whose debating tactics are disingenuous to true scientific study, or true anything for that matter, and that you deserve to be ignored.Though, ironically enough, I'm not a proponent of punctuated equilibrium. Go figure. But our reasons for finding fault with the system are obviously quite different, as are the ends to which we use them. Ushome plays God of the Gaps with it. I simply see it as an offshoot of evolutionary theory that isn't as supported as traditional models.
Anyway, go back to the 5-6 threads you created for yourself as a platform to preach to the few who will listen to you. This thread is about science, not your incessant blathering.
And yeah, I play chess.
ushomefree i think you just got owned 😛
Originally posted by chickenlover98
i believe the selfish gene theory to be more accurate. to say instant changes in a species causes any sort of evolution is rediculus. minor changes to an animals genome is the eventual cause. with many many changes of genes we come to speciation. how long this takes, is up to debate.ushome i agree with you on this particular theory i dont think it really has any difference. however taking a valid evolutionary scientists words and twisting them, is not something i would do in your situation
It is strange, however, that the phenotypic qualities of a species seem to stabilize over periods of time though, which does lend some credit to the theory
Originally posted by inimalist
It is strange, however, that the phenotypic qualities of a species seem to stabilize over periods of time though, which does lend some credit to the theory
most theories have some evidence but are then proven wrong. ie: the geocentric theory. once more complex technology arrives it is eventually disproven.
Originally posted by inimalist
It is strange, however, that the phenotypic qualities of a species seem to stabilize over periods of time though, which does lend some credit to the theory
Agreed, but I still think our definition of "stable" is working with such a limited time-frame (i.e. human) that evolutionary trends may be in slow but steady flux, but are largely undetectable by all but the most rigorous genome maps (and various similar techniques).
hey, as i said before, I certainly think gene level is the way to look at it, but keep in mind, these genes exist in an environment, and don't loose the forest through the trees 🙂
God, Digi, off topic I know, but I'm sorry I haven't posted in the memes or market thread... blah, let me get some shit together..
Originally posted by inimalist
hey, as i said before, I certainly think gene level is the way to look at it, but keep in mind, these genes exist in an environment, and don't loose the forest through the trees 🙂God, Digi, off topic I know, but I'm sorry I haven't posted in the memes or market thread... blah, let me get some shit together..
Hehe. No worries. It's not like the threads (or either of us) are going anywhere. You don't have to feel obligated to post when there's other concerns....especially in such (comparatively) slow-moving threads.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Symmetric Chaos-The theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium" was developed to circumvent the fact that the fossil record contains no "transitional" forms. Hello... is anybody home?
Science kinda does that, you know? Improves with time and new discoveries?