Question for a knowledgeable evolutionist

[Halcyon]

None of my above claims come from the Urantia Book. They come from trying to remember what I was taught in my college classes fifteen years ago.

Mutation IS the only way to get NEW genes into a life form.

Punctuated Equilibrium is a scientific concept. It's not from the Urantia Book. Anne's description of it sounds more correct than mine.

Finally, no one can prove or disprove that our evolution is guided so I suppose it's just another one of those faith things...

So its just coincidence that you, being a follower of the Urantia Book, are advocating sudden jumps in evolution (which punctuated equilibrium is not) which is the Book's teaching on evolution?

 

[Super Universe]

The book claims many things, some agree with science, some agree with the bible, and some agree with both. And there are things that don't agree with anything.

Kind of like the bible, wouldn't you agree?

What I post is what I believe and when people inquire why I believe those things I explain them the best way I can.

Sometimes, like today, my reasoning is simply based on fading memories of college.

 

[Super Universe]

Punctuated Equilibrium is simply a period of faster evolution set apart by periods of seemingly stable or non-evolution.

It wouldn't be possible for a species to evolve so rapidly that certain individuals actually left others of it's own species behind.

Or would it?

 

[zabugle]

Sure you can. My checking account is now in the negative and the bank just proved it by charging me a fine.

The balance in your checking account is different than the existence of your checking account. Seeing as there are a finite number of financial institutions I could theorectically try to prove that you didn't have a checking account. It would be much easier however for you to prove that you did.

When it comes to a "guiding hand" the possible group is not finite. To prove that it didn't exists we would have to examine each one until we exhausted all the possiblities, which is impossible since they are infinite. Proving that one does exists should be quite easy in comparison. You see the difference, I am sure.

As I said there is no reason to assume a guiding hand is needed. If there is one, you're going to have to offer some proof. If it's in the pudding- show me

 

[zabugle]

Punctuated Equilibrium is simply a period of faster evolution set apart by periods of seemingly stable or non-evolution.

PE is not simply anything. And it really isn't what you describe here.

It wouldn't be possible for a species to evolve so rapidly that certain individuals actually left others of it's own species behind.

Why not?

 

[Super Universe]

Sigh... Perhaps you could explain everything to us since you don't like any of my explanations.

Or are you trying to suggest that PE doesn't exist at all?

Maybe it's just another one of those crazy theories people come up with from time to time, kind of like a belief in a Supreme Being.

 

[zabugle]

Well I did explain PE in a previous post. It is far more complicated than how I summarized it though. What I meant is that is far from simple, and certainly not what you are describing. Far from being a "crazy theory" it has quite a bit of evidence supporting it. For more information try here:

talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

Apologies for the lack of clickable link. I don't have enough post yet to link websites

 

[Super Universe]

So you are saying that PE is not a vehicle for real evolution even though that's what the evidence shows because for some reason we can't find fossils that to show a more gradual change?

So since the scientists don't have a theory that explains a gradual evolution with sudden spurts they simply say "We just haven't found the evidence yet".

 

[zabugle]

So you are saying that PE is not a vehicle for real evolution even though that's what the evidence shows because for some reason we can't find fossils that to show a more gradual change?

I'm at loss trying to figure out how you got this from my posts. I'm at an even bigger loss to figure out how you got this:

So since the scientists don't have a theory that explains a gradual evolution with sudden spurts they simply say "We just haven't found the evidence yet".

I refer again to the link.

 

[Super Universe]

So you join a religious forum, inject your opinion into a discussion, and simply refer everything to your home forum where you feel more comfortable?

"SU then runs over to talkorigins.com since they have all of the answers over there."

 

[zabugle]

So you join a religious forum, inject your opinion into a discussion, and simply refer everything to your home forum where you feel more comfortable?

"SU then runs over to talkorigins.com since they have all of the answers over there."

I see that you are more comfortable lobbing insults at me than discussing the science. Looks like we're done.

 

[Super Universe]

What insult?

I've been trying to get you to discuss the science for the last 40 posts but you refer everything to talkorigins.

(Okay, 40 might be a slight exaggeration, hehe)

 

[zabugle]

Well there was no science in that last post. It seemed to be a critique of my debating style, which involves referencing outside sources. Coupled with the two condescending comments about my knowing so much more than you, I'm not sure what else to make of it but attempts to insult me.

But full steam ahead with the science. Let's summarize. I explained rather briefly PE here:

That's not what puncutated equilibrium is. Puncuated equilibrium involves the isolation of a small population of a species from the larger population, where they evolve as an adaptation to a specific enviromental niche. These new species appear "suddenly" (I put suddenly in quotes because we are talking about geologic time scales) because of the rareness of fossilization. Entire species don't evolve this way. Rather the theory proposes that a small population of the species evolves isolated from the rest of species. There's no reason to think that the rest of the species doesn't still exists, though to be sure it is evolving too.

You ignored this, but later said this, which directly contradicts what I said above:

Punctuated Equilibrium is simply a period of faster evolution set apart by periods of seemingly stable or non-evolution.

It wouldn't be possible for a species to evolve so rapidly that certain individuals actually left others of it's own species behind.

Or would it?

I stated that this was not PE. You asked me to explain. Because apparently my previous explanation was insuffcient or unclear, I refered you to a more detailed essay, thinking that might help. At the same time you implied that you seemed to think that I thought it was some unsupportable "crazy theory". To which I responded:

Well I did explain PE in a previous post. It is far more complicated than how I summarized it though. What I meant is that is far from simple, and certainly not what you are describing. Far from being a "crazy theory" it has quite a bit of evidence supporting it. For more information try here:

And yet your very next post says:

So you are saying that PE is not a vehicle for real evolution even though that's what the evidence shows because for some reason we can't find fossils that to show a more gradual change?

So since the scientists don't have a theory that explains a gradual evolution with sudden spurts they simply say "We just haven't found the evidence yet".

Not only did I not say or imply either of these points, they are in direct contradiction to what I have said. Apparently I explain things rather badly, which is why I referred you to another source.

I'd like to go back to this:

It wouldn't be possible for a species to evolve so rapidly that certain individuals actually left others of it's own species behind.

I maybe misunderstanding your point here, but this statemnet appears to me to be in direct contradiction with PE, which requires that isolation of a small population from the species as a whole.

 

[Super Universe]

What proof that an environmental niche is the cause of the evolution?

Is the general theory of natural selection the only support that you have for this or is there a direct relation to a known or discovered environmental change?

Example: white moths proliferate while dark moths almost become extinct but suddenly make a comeback in the 21st century because burning fossil fuels darkens the trees and provides more concealment for the dark moths from predators.

Rareness of fossilization? Don't fossils provide evidence for both gradual and punctuated evolution?

Isn't science simply having difficulty coming up with a theory that matches both?

If there is evidence of PE then why don't you consider PE a mode of evolution for an entire species? Have all species that show evidence of PE died out?

The discussion is not just to learn about a subject but it's also to learn about the other person's ideas about a theory.

I was frustrated because I don't know my way around the talkorigins website and the search that I did there produced nothing on punctuated equilibrium.

I don't take any person's views lightly when they disagree with mine if I believe they are just as interested in the truth as I am.

 

[zabugle]

What proof that an environmental niche is the cause of the evolution?

Proof? It is one of the features of PE.

Is the general theory of natural selection the only support that you have for this or is there a direct relation to a known or discovered environmental change?

Example: white moths proliferate while dark moths almost become extinct but suddenly make a comeback in the 21st century because burning fossil fuels darkens the trees and provides more concealment for the dark moths from predators.

Excellent example. When this happened it did not happen to the entire species, but simply to the population of the species that lived in the area with darkened trees. I'd give you a link about it, but apparently you don't like them.

Rareness of fossilization? Don't fossils provide evidence for both gradual and punctuated evolution?

Yes

Isn't science simply having difficulty coming up with a theory that matches both?

No. The two theories can exists perfectly well side by side without contradicting each other. No unifying theory necessary.

If there is evidence of PE then why don't you consider PE a mode of evolution for an entire species? Have all species that show evidence of PE died out?

Because by definition PE only happens to small population in isolated enviroments. It could happen to an entire species only if that species had few individuals. But in the fossil record it would appear differently, than classic PE.

The discussion is not just to learn about a subject but it's also to learn about the other person's ideas about a theory.

True, and yet you would seem to be failing to learn anything about mine as you have repeatedly assigned to me ideas that directly contradict what I have said.

I was frustrated because I don't know my way around the talkorigins website and the search that I did there produced nothing on punctuated equilibrium.

I gave you an address to a specific essay on PE. I'm sorry if it didn't work. I apologize that I could not link it directly. I'm quickly approaching 15 posts, so I should be able to do so soon. When I put punctuated equilibrim into the talk origins search engine I get several hits.

I don't take any person's views lightly when they disagree with mine if I believe they are just as interested in the truth as I am.

Then why do you continually misconstrue mine?

And you haven't aswered my question. Why do you believe that:

It wouldn't be possible for a species to evolve so rapidly that certain individuals actually left others of it's own species behind.

I asked this particularly because we are discussing PE, which requires the isolation of a population from the rest of the species. In fact, in laymans terms this is a pretty good description of what PE is.

 

[Super Universe]

Except the dark colored moths were not isolated from the rest of the population of moths?

 

[zabugle]

It does not require that the dark moths be isolated from the light moths. It requires that two population made up of dark and light moths were isolated from each other, and subjected to different environmental pressures. The range of the moths was such that some were in area with heavy industrial pollution. In those areas the dark moths became more dominant than the light colored moths. When the pollution was cleaned up the light colored moths became more prominent again. In areas where there was no heavy pollution there was no change to the ratio of dark and light colored moths. The ratio of light to dark colored moths only changed in certain areas. This is an example of a different traits being selected for in different environmental niche. It is not an example of PE, because no speciation took place, but it is an example of the mechanism by which PE would take place.

Are you planning on responding to my question?

 

[Super Universe]

I haven't responded to your question because you cut it from the sentence that followed.

Just like you haven't responded with proof that there isn't some guiding hand involved with our evolution.

Perhaps natural selection just created itself right after the atoms perfectly formed themselves in the void?

 

[zabugle]

I haven't responded to your question because you cut it from the sentence that followed.

Oh I see. Why did you even bring the thought up then, seeing it is in direct opposition to the mechanism by which PE works.

Just like you haven't responded with proof that there isn't some guiding hand involved with our evolution.

Oh but I did, although you simply ignored it:

The balance in your checking account is different than the existence of your checking account. Seeing as there are a finite number of financial institutions I could theorectically try to prove that you didn't have a checking account. It would be much easier however for you to prove that you did.

When it comes to a "guiding hand" the possible group is not finite. To prove that it didn't exists we would have to examine each one until we exhausted all the possiblities, which is impossible since they are infinite. Proving that one does exists should be quite easy in comparison. You see the difference, I am sure.

As I said there is no reason to assume a guiding hand is needed. If there is one, you're going to have to offer some proof. If it's in the pudding- show me

Perhaps natural selection just created itself right after the atoms perfectly formed themselves in the void?

Why do you think that natural selection is something that needed to be created? It's just how things work. If something a trait is advantageous it thrives.

 

[Fade]

This is hilarious

Go Zabugle, I'm rooting for you.