> No. You keep trying to make "evolution" identical to speciation.
> This is too limiting evolution includes speciation but is not limited to it.
No, my point here is to explore the other aspect of "evolution" which I call "degeneration", or the population getting dumber and dumber and then, potentially getting extinct, due to sudden environmental changes.
I believe that the evidence shows that this is what actually happens.
> We were discussing the formation of species. If you get two populations that
> periodically exchange genes you will not get them to be different enough to no
> longer be able to reproduce and thus become separate species.
but, degeneration can then occur within the same species!
> This does not mean that each population will remain unchanged.
indeed, it seems like the gneral trend, therefore, based on a society is degeneration...
> They will each continue to change their gene pools through the variety of
> mechanisms that I specified above. Remember microevolution includes
> processes UP TO and including speciation.
Maybe, or maybe they are actually just degenerating in certain ways! The evidence shows that degenerative behavior seems more and pervasive!!!
> If it happens that the environment changes and the PREEXISTING genetic
> variety is not able to respond then the organisms will die. Millions of
> species have become extinct over time. it is not all one way.
EXACTLY, degeneration can win even without complete extinction as the population gets dumber and dumber and more dependent on external processes, machines and Governments to solve their problems and even to ACTUALLY feed them!!!
> if transformations have become irreversible (and you need to go read my
> original post for the qualifications and definitions of this word) almost
> by definition this is now a new species and gene exchanges are no longer
> possible with the other species by definition of what a species is.
Well, it then sounds like irreversible transformations CANNOT take place without isolation since period exchange would not allow for the irreversible transformation and, even if irreversible transformations took place, they would be quickly eliminated by the general population as freaks of nature!
This is some basic stuff, so very specific definitions are needed here...
> You need to get off the sole emphasis on environmental changes. There are
> two steps and they need to be kept separate. 1) development and accumulation
> of genetic variety-- Look at my previous posts for the many ways this can
> come about-- this is the element of chance
Well, as I've mentioned before, the first step can actually just lead to degeneration primary due to social pressures and the fact that they cater to the LOWEST common denominator with education, peer pressure, etc, etc.
> and 2) interaction of the organism with the environment , which obviously
> also includes the element of competition with other species--- this is
> the aspect of selection (necessity). The title of a famous book by Jacques
> Monod is <i>Chance and Necessity</i>.
Well, it is also OBVIOUS, that this is the MOST significant process since the first step could be and probabbly is a LOT more degenerative and degenerative behavior is prevalent in today's society! The evidence is all around us...
> You keep saying "suddenly" when in geologic time this is usually a very
> long period.
Well, there can be 10,000+ years of perceived linearity and/or even 100,000 years of perceived linearity, where general environmental changes are pretty much dormant, but, when the TIME of change is there, in accordance to the periodic recycling requirements of the various AGE/ERA macro cycles, it really doesn't matter how many years of perceived linearity we had!
> Now there have been events like huge meteorite collisions (Chixolub for one)
> that lead to huge extinctions and are sudden. But these are the exeption the
> norm is that changes occur all the time but very slowly.
OBVIOUSLY, it shows that you simply do NOT know what you are talking about here! Even if the number of years of perceived linearity are in thousands and thousands of years, all that REALLY matters is when are the various macro cycling times of change pre-clocked to occur (take place). A much better understanding of wave theory and time to frequency relationships, communication systems and energy convertion is required to "grasp" those facts and NOT just boggus moronic theories and denial of true reality!!!
Perceived linearity and stability is ONLY "normal" in times where critical environment changes are NOT taking place, due to macro cyclic changes...
> The concept of "punctuated equilibrium" apart from being widely misunderstood
> and misused by "creationists" has fallen in disrepute among geneticists. A
> good book to read that I mentioned before is Daniel Dennett <i>Darwin's
> Dangerous Idea</i> or any number of books by Dawkins.
..and what is that suppose to mean!? The question of TIME changes being slow or fast is only relevant to the specific dimension that is being measured within. In other words, if I take snap shots of reality every 100 years or ever 1000 years, the associated changes and factors that are related to those changes are much different than trying to wrongly assume linearity over all time dimensions.
That is also the same if I take snap shots of reality every microsend, millisecond and second, then the associated changes and factors that are related to those changes are also much different.
Assuming lineraity accross multiple frequencies is boggus at best and there is no evidence of it. As a matter of fact, the evidence CLEARLY shows that there are significant non-linear behaviours during cyclic times, these is probably why, populations became isolated in certain areas and developed unique local characteristics.
So, you are certainly not going to convince me or ANY boggus linear theory as the norm or the rule when the EVIDENCE actually shows that the contrary of it is more likely, including the aspect of DEGENERATION, meaning that more intelligent populations that were, for example, able to build sophisticated things like great pyramids, etc, etc, have existed ten's of thousands of years ago.
In other words, there is absolutely no evidence that, for example, intelligence is evolutionary! Taking a snap shot of the population at large shows the exact opposite...This, of course, is very significant and that is probably why most just choose to disregard the REAL evidence...
-wirelessguru1
