NationStates Jolt Archive

So, this is a thread about what type of evolution you believe in. As far as I know, there are two main thoughts on how evolution takes place: Punctuated Equilibrium and Gradualism. So which side do you take? Why do you believe either one is correct?

For those that aren't too sure what either means, here are some links:

Wiki on Gradualism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradualism#Geology_and_biology

Wiki on Punctuated Equilibrium:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

I favour the second. :)

So, this is a thread about what type of evolution you believe in. As far as I know, there are two main thoughts on how evolution takes place: Punctuated Equilibrium and Gradualism. So which side do you take? Why do you believe either one is correct?

For those that aren't too sure what either means, here are some links:

Wiki on Gradualism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradualism#Geology_and_biology

Wiki on Punctuated Equilibrium:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

I favour the second. :)


neither, in my view, are particularly accurate. Genetic variations occur, they occur all the time, this supports a "gradualism" theory. However rapid changes in enviornment can cause certain factors to become very disadvantageous (or advantageous) very quickly, resulting in a much more rapid change as the "dying off" of unsuited members of the species occurs much more rapidly than normal.

Punctuated Equilibrium, I tend to think that species do evolve slowly over time, but rapidly when the situation requires it, such as periods of disaster. A species that gets cut off in a cave or on an island can change very rapidly, a species devastated by natural disaster also changes very quickly. Probably due to reduced gene pool forcing a change.

Evolution is like the behavior of the barbarian-clown. Often, you mess with people's heads and engage in relatively subtle mindgames in order to keep your marks off balance, then when they least expect it, you leap out of the bushes and tackle him, depants him and run around whooping like a madman while he chases you in a desperate attempt to get his pants back.

Evolution is like the behavior of the barbarian-clown. Often, you mess with people's heads and engage in relatively subtle mindgames in order to keep your marks off balance, then when they least expect it, you leap out of the bushes and tackle him, depants him and run around whooping like a madman while he chases you in a desperate attempt to get his pants back.

This is either very deep,
or just my mind seeing a non-existing parallel.

The jury is still haven't decided yet.

Punctuated intelligent gradualist creationism, of course.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1166/1454018245_5986b5e6c1.jpg

This is either very deep,
or just my mind seeing a non-existing parallel.

The jury is still haven't decided yet.

My analogies are a lot like evolution too. :D

So, this is a thread about what type of evolution you believe in. As far as I know, there are two main thoughts on how evolution takes place: Punctuated Equilibrium and Gradualism. So which side do you take? Why do you believe either one is correct?

For those that aren't too sure what either means, here are some links:

Wiki on Gradualism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradualism#Geology_and_biology

Wiki on Punctuated Equilibrium:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

I favour the second. :)
i dont "believe" one way or the other. its not like its some kind of religion where you have to guess the correct opinion of god.

over the course of time scientists will work on the issue and show which (if either) is the best model for how evolution has worked

I favor the first.

neither, in my view, are particularly accurate. Genetic variations occur, they occur all the time, this supports a "gradualism" theory. However rapid changes in enviornment can cause certain factors to become very disadvantageous (or advantageous) very quickly, resulting in a much more rapid change as the "dying off" of unsuited members of the species occurs much more rapidly than normal.
This.

I don't think it's an either or, it's more a combination of the two.

I prefer the philosopher Didactylus' theory.

I prefer the philosopher Didactylus' theory.

He could perform a truly spectacular flying tackle. *nod*

I don't think it's an either or, it's more a combination of the two.

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. There are very few issues that are black or white, and those that are tend to be trivial in nature. I lean towards gradualism with a side of punctuated equilibrium, myself.

Evolution? Please, don't tell me you support that completely unproven scientific theory. There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that beings "evolve" at all -- my grandparents weren't monkeys of any kind, and don't try obfuscating the issue with rubbish about bacteria and the fossil record. It should be plainly obvious to any right-thinking individual that all living species were created in their current form by God during his six days of creation 6000 years ago, and any who disagree are heretics who should be burned at the stake.

So, this is a thread about what type of evolution you believe in. As far as I know, there are two main thoughts on how evolution takes place: Punctuated Equilibrium and Gradualism. So which side do you take? Why do you believe either one is correct?

For those that aren't too sure what either means, here are some links:

Wiki on Gradualism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradualism#Geology_and_biology

Wiki on Punctuated Equilibrium:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

I favour the second. :)

The two are really one.

Evolution is constant - for the most part, static environment means that there is no advantage to 'difference in the design', so evolution occupies a fairly passive role - producing gradual changes by diversity, tempered by breeding back. Big change is thus very gradual, while small changes occur constantly.

When the environment is not static, small advantages can be big advantages... and a lack of diversity can mean sudden death. What you effectively see, then - is 'pruning' of the population, which means diversity is no longer tempered by breeding back into the original line.

The two principles are different aspects of the same thing.

So, this is a thread about what type of evolution you believe in. As far as I know, there are two main thoughts on how evolution takes place: Punctuated Equilibrium and Gradualism. So which side do you take? Why do you believe either one is correct?

I don't consider scientific theories a matter of belief. Furthermore, I am not adequately learned in evolutionary biology to make a judgment of any authority.

I don't consider scientific theories a matter of belief. Furthermore, I am not adequately learned in evolutionary biology to make a judgment of any authority.

you're one of those people who fill out a survey just to mark "no opinion" aren't you?

Evolution? Please, don't tell me you support that completely unproven scientific theory. There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that beings "evolve" at all -- my grandparents weren't monkeys of any kind, and don't try obfuscating the issue with rubbish about bacteria and the fossil record. It should be plainly obvious to any right-thinking individual that all living species were created in their current form by God during his six days of creation 6000 years ago, and any who disagree are heretics who should be burned at the stake.

Seven days. On the seventh day God gave his greatest gift to mankind - the powernap.

Seven days. On the seventh day God gave his greatest gift to mankind - the powernap.

I don't think that really counts as "creation". The powernap was simple enough for an ordinary person to discover. And they're never mentioned in Scripture, either.

you're one of those people who fill out a survey just to mark "no opinion" aren't you?

I express opinions. They don't necessary answer the question posed, but are still relevant.

I don't think that really counts as "creation". The powernap was simple enough for an ordinary person to discover. And they're never mentioned in Scripture, either.

Hell yeah they are! What do you think Jesus was doing in between his crucifixion and resurrection? Shit like that takes major energy.

Id say it really depends on the species, and its individual evolutionary history...

neither, in my view, are particularly accurate. Genetic variations occur, they occur all the time, this supports a "gradualism" theory. However rapid changes in enviornment can cause certain factors to become very disadvantageous (or advantageous) very quickly, resulting in a much more rapid change as the "dying off" of unsuited members of the species occurs much more rapidly than normal.

I'm pretty sure that'd be punk eek.

Evolution is like the behavior of the barbarian-clown. Often, you mess with people's heads and engage in relatively subtle mindgames in order to keep your marks off balance, then when they least expect it, you leap out of the bushes and tackle him, depants him and run around whooping like a madman while he chases you in a desperate attempt to get his pants back.

With your permission, I'm going to quote this in a paper I'm doing on litigation strategy.

With your permission, I'm going to quote this in a paper I'm doing on litigation strategy.

lol when in doubt Pants someone after flying tackling them and then run away with their pants.

With your permission, I'm going to quote this in a paper I'm doing on litigation strategy.

lol when in doubt Pants someone after flying tackling them and then run away with their pants.

It worked for Alexander The Great. *nod*

It worked for Alexander The Great. *nod*

Yet he only lived to be 33 and reportedly had a difficult personal life. Do you really want that to happen to you? And what's more, you probably won't be able to conquer all of the known world in that time, either -- not with so much more of it these days.

Yet he only lived to be 33 and reportedly had a difficult personal life. Do you really want that to happen to you? And what's more, you probably won't be able to conquer all of the known world in that time, either -- not with so much more of it these days.

I've learned a few new tricks they didn't know in his day. :)

Edit: The Evolution of Silly. *nod*

I've learned a few new tricks they didn't know in his day. :)

Edit: The Evolution of Silly. *nod*

It seems to me almost as though Alexander the Great was a warrior and statesman who had the charisma and strategic ability to command armies of thousands, while you are an ordinary family man with a policewoman wife who likes playing in mud. The similarities could not be more astounding. What's the secret?

It seems to me almost as though Alexander the Great was a warrior and statesman who had the charisma and strategic ability to command armies of thousands, while you are an ordinary family man with a policewoman wife who likes playing in mud. The similarities could not be more astounding. What's the secret?

If I told you that, it wouldn't be a secret. ;)

If I told you that, it wouldn't be a secret. ;)

Ah, but what's the use of a secret that nobody knows about? Secrets are only valuable if someone knows you're keeping a secret. And if everyone else around them provides tantalizing but insubstantial hints which suggest that they might know what it is.

Ah, but what's the use of a secret that nobody knows about? Secrets are only valuable if someone knows you're keeping a secret. And if everyone else around them provides tantalizing but insubstantial hints which suggest that they might know what it is.

Yep. :)

If I told you that, it wouldn't be a secret. ;)

and there would be far to many conquerors. . . .dangerous that especially when nuclear weapons or tacos are involved.

Ah, but what's the use of a secret that nobody knows about? Secrets are only valuable if someone knows you're keeping a secret. And if everyone else around them provides tantalizing but insubstantial hints which suggest that they might know what it is.

Oh and it's a really cool secret too ;)

Oh and it's a really cool secret too ;)

OMG I MUST KNOW! Tell me? Please? I have cookies! See, isn't this fun?

What do I believe in? I believe in Einstein when he said there is no limit to human stupidity.

Like Neo said, I learned it was a combination of the two--which makes perfect sense to me. But, you know, what do university professors know?

I jump into the "Both" crowd.

A combination of the 2.

neither, in my view, are particularly accurate. Genetic variations occur, they occur all the time, this supports a "gradualism" theory. However rapid changes in enviornment can cause certain factors to become very disadvantageous (or advantageous) very quickly, resulting in a much more rapid change as the "dying off" of unsuited members of the species occurs much more rapidly than normal.

This is pretty much my view, as well. I would guess that mutations happen at a relatively steady rate but, if the environment isn't changing (or not changing much) then the vast majority of these mutations won't have a signoficant effect and wouldn't be selected for or against.

But if there is a drastic environmental change, or if part of a population moves into a new environment, then there are new selection pressures and any mutations will become more significant until that population has adapted to to its new environment.

any who disagree are heretics who should be burned at the stake.There's been plenty of that already!
You know, that's one of the underpinnings of the use of electrical current, a technological evolution, if you would, to make up for the lack of emotional and physical evolution.

what do university professors know?Whatever their libruhl puppetmasters tell them, of course!
Hoorah for conservapedia! Fair & Balanced!

you're one of those people who fill out a survey just to mark "no opinion" aren't you?One of those congressfolk who vote "Present"?
:p

Anywho, i've come across this recently (in the jungle no less) and thought it'd be good supplementation to the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ancestor%27s_Tale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Another point of interest to the topic:
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/10-six-sites-that-are-the-galapagos-for-modern-darwins
Platypus on there?

As well:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7886477.stm
Current.

Evolution is just an idea. Since everything ceases to be the moment I stop perceiving it, then evolution is just a thought I project to give my perceived reality a sense of autonomy. I feel bad for all of you who only exist as long as I read the forums.

Evolution is just an idea. Since everything ceases to be the moment I stop perceiving it, then evolution is just a thought I project to give my perceived reality a sense of autonomy. I feel bad for all of you who only exist as long as I read the forums.

Schrodinger called. he wants his cat back. Well, if it's alive anyway.

Schrodinger called. he wants his cat back. Well, if it's alive anyway.

Oh. It is.


Isn't.

Is.

Isn.... oh, open the bloody box, already!

I agree with the fossil record, which shows sudden bursts of evolution after a mass extinction (such as the cambrian explosion). A slow herbivore, for example, is much more likely to become widespread if the predators that would've found them easy prey were wiped out by a meteor.