Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8873 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-22-2018 5:36 AM
98 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK (2 members, 96 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,597 Year: 17,420/29,783 Month: 1,408/1,956 Week: 405/506 Day: 11/97 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   Punctuated Equilibria: The Basics
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 61 of 69 (838988)
08-31-2018 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
08-31-2018 5:19 PM


Re: Laughter is the appropriate response when someone asserts a Biblical Flood happened.
Correct. 2 Peter was the first major crisis when Christianity had to recognize the fact that what Jesus supposedly said was simply wrong, simply false. While admitting Jesus had been wrong the author of 2 Peter created the career of the Apologist; the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain who made up stories to try to pretend the Bible stories were simply often factually wrong.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 08-31-2018 5:19 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 714
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 62 of 69 (843691)
11-20-2018 7:51 AM


Can the hypothesis of PE be tested? I can't see how.
    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 714
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 63 of 69 (843693)
11-20-2018 7:59 AM


A theory that can't be tested seems pretty useless.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2018 8:12 AM Dredge has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19687
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 64 of 69 (843696)
11-20-2018 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dredge
11-20-2018 7:59 AM


A theory that can't be tested seems pretty useless.

Which is why creationism is useless pseudoscience.

Curiously the theory of PE has been tested (see above re snails, also see Differential Dispersal Of Introduced Species - An Aspect of Punctuated Equilibrium.

Another thing to look at is the geographical-temporal (space-time) matrix the fossils are embedded in and their relationship to sister populations (see Alfred Russel Wallace and Biogeography):

quote:
The following law may be deduced from these facts:--Every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a pre-existing closely allied species.

This is known as Wallace's "Law of Sarawak" and it precedes Darwin's book.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dredge, posted 11-20-2018 7:59 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Dredge, posted 11-21-2018 6:45 AM RAZD has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 714
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 65 of 69 (843761)
11-21-2018 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by RAZD
11-20-2018 8:12 AM


Curiously the theory of PE has been tested (see above re snails, also see Differential Dispersal Of Introduced Species - An Aspect of Punctuated Equilibrium.

I would imagine a study of what happens within a species is hardly a valid test of PE.


Another thing to look at is the geographical-temporal (space-time) matrix the fossils are embedded in and their relationship to sister populations (see Alfred Russel Wallace and Biogeography)

A theory based on fossil evidence is a "test" for another theory based on fossils (PE)? I don't think so.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2018 8:12 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2018 8:41 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19687
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 66 of 69 (843763)
11-21-2018 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Dredge
11-21-2018 6:45 AM


Which are you?
I would imagine a study of what happens within a species is hardly a valid test of PE.

Except that PE is specifically about what happens in a species. I also note that you ignored the thread Differential Dispersal Of Introduced Species - An Aspect of Punctuated Equilibrium which documents several cases of rapid dispersal of introduced species into a new (to them) ecology.

Starlings, for instance, are now ubiquitous in the US after a small flock was introduced in the 1890's. This would appear in a fossil record as instantaneous (geological time).

A theory based on fossil evidence is a "test" for another theory based on fossils (PE)? I don't think so.

after Dawkins' "ignorance is no crime":

I have been giving this a bit a thought and would like to break it down slightly differently:

Five types of people that don't understand how evolution/biology/science work:

  1. people too stupid to understand the concepts. These are the unfortunates. It is not their fault.
  2. people ignorant of the concepts, possibly through no fault of their own. These are the fortunates -- they can be cured via education. A good starting source is Berkeley: Evolution 101.
  3. people that have been misinformed. These are the deceived. It may be possible to cure them with education, however the victims need to be willing to learn, and willing to give up the false concepts they have regarding how evolution/biology/science work. Cognitive dissonance comes into play here when this affects core beliefs that are strongly held.
  4. people who are charlatans. These are the people that do the deceiving of others. These are the deplorables. They too can be deceived (and likely deceive themselves), however they continue to present falsehoods even when they have been corrected. Trolls also fit in this category.
  5. people who are clinically insane. These are also unfortunates, as it is not their fault.

Rejecting information does not refute it, that just puts you in one of the 5 categories above.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Dredge, posted 11-21-2018 6:45 AM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Tangle, posted 11-21-2018 9:11 AM RAZD has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6271
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


(3)
Message 67 of 69 (843764)
11-21-2018 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by RAZD
11-21-2018 8:41 AM


Re: Which are you?
I think you need an additional category for those that hold a belief that makes it impossible for them to accept an idea that contradicts it.

They're not necessarily insane, not necessarily stupid or ignorant nor necessarily misinformed, they just can't allow anything to interfere with their belief. Deluded is one word for it but that refers to their belief, not to, for example dating methods or the ToE - they simply reject them out of hand.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2018 8:41 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2018 11:15 AM Tangle has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19687
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 68 of 69 (843774)
11-21-2018 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Tangle
11-21-2018 9:11 AM


Re: Which are you?
6. Bubble people, those that have a strongly held belief that makes it impossible for them to accept an idea that contradicts it. Such information just bounces off the bubble.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Tangle, posted 11-21-2018 9:11 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Tangle, posted 11-21-2018 1:55 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6271
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 69 of 69 (843809)
11-21-2018 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by RAZD
11-21-2018 11:15 AM


Re: Which are you?
Yeh, their shields are up...

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2018 11:15 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018