July 21st, 2010
August 8th, 2008
Disquieting
It reads tene me ne fugia<m> et revoca me ad dom<i>num Evviventium in ar[e]a Callisti.
Stop me so that I do not run away and bring me back to my master Euviventius (Viventius) in the courtyard of Callistus. (CIL XV.7193)
This inscription was written on the bulla (disc) hung on a slave's collar. I was searching for Latin inscriptions and I stumbled onto this. Immediately, I was shocked and disgusted. It reads like the collars people put around their pets today. I sometimes forget that for all its glory and successes, Rome was a civilisation built on slavery, where slaves were considered property and were often beaten or abused. So simple and so damning an indictment.
Latin inscription
Part of an inscribed marble panel found in a Temple to Mithras in Londinium (London, England).
[Deo Mithrae et Soli] invicto
[ab oriente] ad
[occid]entem
To the god Mithras and the undying Sun, from its rising to its setting.
[Deo Mithrae et Soli] invicto
[ab oriente] ad
[occid]entem
To the god Mithras and the undying Sun, from its rising to its setting.
August 7th, 2008
July 31st, 2008
maggie&millie&molly&may
e. e. cummings
maggie and millie and molly and may
went down to the beach(to play one day)
and maggie discovered a shell that sang
so sweetly she couldn't remember her troubles,and
millie befriended a stranded star
whose rays five languid fingers were;
and molly was chased by a horrible thing
which raced sideways while blowing bubbles:and
may came home with a smooth white stone
as small as a world and as large as alone.
For whatever we lose(like a you or a me)
it's always ourselves we find in the sea.
maggie and millie and molly and may
went down to the beach(to play one day)
and maggie discovered a shell that sang
so sweetly she couldn't remember her troubles,and
millie befriended a stranded star
whose rays five languid fingers were;
and molly was chased by a horrible thing
which raced sideways while blowing bubbles:and
may came home with a smooth white stone
as small as a world and as large as alone.
For whatever we lose(like a you or a me)
it's always ourselves we find in the sea.
July 27th, 2008
My favourite science blogs:
Laelaps -
Aetiology - IMHO, the best epidemiology blog on the net. I've been a reader for years and I've learned more about pathogens and how freaking scary microbes are than I ever wanted to.
When Pigs Fly Returns - Palaeo-themed blog, with incredibly juicy posts on anything from recently discovered feathered dinosaurs to spinosaur feeding habits.
The Ethical Palaeontologist (yay for the correct spelling!) - Somewhat slower on the news-side of things, but I go here for the wit+sarcasm=awesome commentary on anything dinosaur related.
Pharyngula - Still the foremost blog about evolutionary biology in the business.
Tetrapod Zoology - Hands down win. It basically has everything that you could want. Plus a dose of cryptozoology-debunking.
Laelaps -
Aetiology - IMHO, the best epidemiology blog on the net. I've been a reader for years and I've learned more about pathogens and how freaking scary microbes are than I ever wanted to.
When Pigs Fly Returns - Palaeo-themed blog, with incredibly juicy posts on anything from recently discovered feathered dinosaurs to spinosaur feeding habits.
The Ethical Palaeontologist (yay for the correct spelling!) - Somewhat slower on the news-side of things, but I go here for the wit+sarcasm=awesome commentary on anything dinosaur related.
Pharyngula - Still the foremost blog about evolutionary biology in the business.
Tetrapod Zoology - Hands down win. It basically has everything that you could want. Plus a dose of cryptozoology-debunking.
July 20th, 2008
You may not seem to belong where you are but you make the best of things.
You may not have a lot of experience in life but you make up for it
with your intelligence.
Which nerd are you???
Stinky, stinky, 12-year-old Darwin
To Dear Friend, January 4, 1822
My Dear friend,
you must know that after my Geography, she said I should go down to ask for Richards poney, just as I was going, she said she must ask me not a very decent question, that was whether I wash all over every morning no then she said it was quite disgustin then she asked me if I did every other morning, and I said no then she said how often I did, and I said once a week, then she said of cour you wash your feet every day, and I said no, then she begun saying how very disgusting and went on that way a good while, then she said I ought to do it, I said I would wash my neck and shoulders, then she said you had better do it all over then I said upon my word I would not,
then she told me, and made me promise I would not tell, then I said, why I only wash my fett once a month at school, which I confess is nasty, but I cannot help it, for we have nothing to do it with, so then Caroline pretended to be quite sick, and left the room, so then I went and told erasumus, and he bust out in laughing and said I had better tell he to come and wash them her self, besides that she said she did not like sitting by me or Erasmus for we smelt of not washing all over, there we sat arguing away for a good while.
I remain your affectionately
Justice w a nose as big as your fist
From blog of Cambridge North America. Darwin = rascal = new hero.
March 24th, 2008
Job 6:5-7
Job 6:7-8
Job 6: 2-3
Job 4:5 But now it has come to you, and you are impatient; it touches you, and you are dismayed.
Job 6:21
For now you are like it; you fear ruin; yea you fear.
For now, you are like that river: Now Iyov gives a penetrating and startling insight into human nature. He turns to his friends with the following... "Rather than comforting me you have taken the position of my prosecutor. You have taken up the side of G-d because you cannot bear the discomfort that my suffering causes you. You are afraid that if G-d deals with the righteous Iyov with such severity there can be no hope that you will receive anything better. Because you fear for your own skin you are afraid to defend me."
5. Does the wild ass bray when he has grass? Or does the ox low over his fodder?
6. Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? Or is there any taste in the white of an egg?
7. My soul refuses to touch them; they are to me as loathsome food.
Animals are satisfied with food, regardless of their taste. A wild ass does not bray when he has grass, nor does the ox low over his fodder. They are satisfied with their lot.
Job would like to be an animal, he would eat whatever came his way, the good and the bad (like Eliphaz suggests that Job accept the good and the bad), if only the food was there for him. In other words, he would accept his fate, if only there were good reasons to accept them. He's not picky, it's just that Eliphaz's answers are like food without salt, he cannot digest them. Humans cannot eat food without taste, likewise Job cannot accept Eliphaz's answers without just cause. Job is NOT like an animal, dumbly accepting his situation for good or ill.Job 6:7-8
8. Oh that I might have my request; and that G-d would grant me the thing that I long for!
Job's request = firstly, for God to listen.
What Job wants granted = death.
9. Even that it would please G-d to trample on me; that he would let loose his hand, and cut me off!
Job wishes God would loosen the protection of His hand that keeps him from dying.
Job 6: 2-3
2. Oh that my vexation were thoroughly weighed, and my calamity laid in the balances!
3. For now it would be heavier than the sand of the sea: therefore my words are stammering.
If my sin Eliphaz, was to complain about Hashem's afflictions, then let my anger and His afflictions be weighed, because I can PROVE to you that G-d's affliction far outweighs my own little outburst. In fact, I'm doing a pretty darn good job of being restrained in the face of this gross injustice - no, there is no justification for G-d's attack on me.
This is in response to Eliphaz's suggestion that Job has sinned by being too hasty:Job 4:5 But now it has come to you, and you are impatient; it touches you, and you are dismayed.
Job 6:21
For now you are like it; you fear ruin; yea you fear.
For now, you are like that river: Now Iyov gives a penetrating and startling insight into human nature. He turns to his friends with the following... "Rather than comforting me you have taken the position of my prosecutor. You have taken up the side of G-d because you cannot bear the discomfort that my suffering causes you. You are afraid that if G-d deals with the righteous Iyov with such severity there can be no hope that you will receive anything better. Because you fear for your own skin you are afraid to defend me."
March 23rd, 2008
Job 3
Job cannot curse God and he cannot curse his parents for his birth, thus maintaining his righteousness even in the face of injustice, but he does curse the creations of God - the day/night are represented here as abstract creative forces, and THIS Job slams: "Let the day perish...let that night be barren..."
Job also indulges himself in a perverse death fantasy:
Job 3:11 "Why did I not die at birth, come forth from the womb and expire?"
Job 5:19
In six troubles He will save you, and in the seventh no harm will touch you.
Because of your suffering through six troubles, the seventh will not touch you? Suffering serves a purpose?
1) Famine - line 20
2) The Sword - line 20
3) The Tongue - line 21
4) Beasts of the Land (Thieves?) - line 23
5) Destruction - line 21b "...and shall not fear destruction when it comes."
6) Stones of the Field - Rashi explains that these are a type of men, which doesn't make all that much sense to me...
Job 3:19-21
Verse 20. "Why is light given to him that is in misery, and life to the bitter in soul;"
Job cannot curse God and he cannot curse his parents for his birth, thus maintaining his righteousness even in the face of injustice, but he does curse the creations of God - the day/night are represented here as abstract creative forces, and THIS Job slams: "Let the day perish...let that night be barren..."
Job also indulges himself in a perverse death fantasy:
Job 3:11 "Why did I not die at birth, come forth from the womb and expire?"
Job 5:19
In six troubles He will save you, and in the seventh no harm will touch you.
Because of your suffering through six troubles, the seventh will not touch you? Suffering serves a purpose?
1) Famine - line 20
2) The Sword - line 20
3) The Tongue - line 21
4) Beasts of the Land (Thieves?) - line 23
5) Destruction - line 21b "...and shall not fear destruction when it comes."
6) Stones of the Field - Rashi explains that these are a type of men, which doesn't make all that much sense to me...
Job 3:19-21
Verse 20. "Why is light given to him that is in misery, and life to the bitter in soul;"
Verse 21. "Who long for death, but it does not come;"
Verse 22. "And dig for it more than hidden treasures; who rejoice exceedingly, and are glad, when they find a grave."
Interpretation 1
People who are so depressed that they actively seek out death.
Interpretation 2
People who are so depressed with life that they actively seek out death but it does not come, but just at the moment when they find this great treasure and regain a love for life, it is then they find a grave. So: And dig for it more than hidden treasures; who rejoice exceedingly [when they do find it], and are glad, [but then this is] when they find a grave."
Interpretation 2
People who are so depressed with life that they actively seek out death but it does not come, but just at the moment when they find this great treasure and regain a love for life, it is then they find a grave. So: And dig for it more than hidden treasures; who rejoice exceedingly [when they do find it], and are glad, [but then this is] when they find a grave."
March 22nd, 2008
Job 2:3 The LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man who fears G-d and turns away from evil. He still persists in his integrity, although you incited me against him, to destroy him for no reason.
This verse establishes that G-d destroys people for a reason.
What is that reason? A simple contextual reading of Job might suggest that G-d destroys people as a punishment for their sin. And since Job has not sinned, G-d is troubled by Job's unjust destruction.
But what about other alternative readings? These are not mutually exclusive by the way, they 're actually saying similar things.
1) Suffering is a test meant to prove our fidelity to G-d (slightly different from suffering as punishment for sin).
What G-d does to Job is first and foremost, a test of loyalty. But since Job does not turn away from Him, this test of loyalty is useless and serves no purpose. Therefore, G-d has destroyed Job for no reason.
2) Suffering makes us grow as individuals.
Job does not grow as an individual by the end. He does not gain any new insights, other than a renewed sense of humility. His possessions and a new family are given to him at the end, thus Job is restored to who he previously was - there was no (or little) spiritual growth.
Therefore, G-d has destroyed Job for no reason.
This verse establishes that G-d destroys people for a reason.
What is that reason? A simple contextual reading of Job might suggest that G-d destroys people as a punishment for their sin. And since Job has not sinned, G-d is troubled by Job's unjust destruction.
But what about other alternative readings? These are not mutually exclusive by the way, they 're actually saying similar things.
1) Suffering is a test meant to prove our fidelity to G-d (slightly different from suffering as punishment for sin).
What G-d does to Job is first and foremost, a test of loyalty. But since Job does not turn away from Him, this test of loyalty is useless and serves no purpose. Therefore, G-d has destroyed Job for no reason.
2) Suffering makes us grow as individuals.
Job does not grow as an individual by the end. He does not gain any new insights, other than a renewed sense of humility. His possessions and a new family are given to him at the end, thus Job is restored to who he previously was - there was no (or little) spiritual growth.
Therefore, G-d has destroyed Job for no reason.
What does Job mean here?
1:21. "And said, "Naked I came out of my mother's womb and naked shall I return there. G-d gave and G-d has taken away. Blessed is G-d's name."
1) A statement of description. Perhaps Job was expecting an imminent death at this exact moment of devastation, which is why he expects to die stripped of all possessions. So he's saying: "If God wills it, I will die in my current state."
2) God gave me everything, He can take everything away. I can't be justified in complaining because my possessions are actually all His.
Contrast Job 1:22 with Job 2:10
1:22 In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrongdoing.
2: 10 In all this Job did not sin with his lips.
The difference between the verses suggests that Job did sin, just not with his lips. Why does Job impugn God with wrongdoing only after he is afflicted by sores, not after the deaths of his children? Was ha satan right when he said that Job was selfish?
Or perhaps, it was the sum cumulation of both personal loss and personal illness that finally pushed Job into sinning, and nothing to do with Job's personal shortcomings. Everyone has their breaking point after all,
1:21. "And said, "Naked I came out of my mother's womb and naked shall I return there. G-d gave and G-d has taken away. Blessed is G-d's name."
1) A statement of description. Perhaps Job was expecting an imminent death at this exact moment of devastation, which is why he expects to die stripped of all possessions. So he's saying: "If God wills it, I will die in my current state."
2) God gave me everything, He can take everything away. I can't be justified in complaining because my possessions are actually all His.
Contrast Job 1:22 with Job 2:10
1:22 In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrongdoing.
2: 10 In all this Job did not sin with his lips.
The difference between the verses suggests that Job did sin, just not with his lips. Why does Job impugn God with wrongdoing only after he is afflicted by sores, not after the deaths of his children? Was ha satan right when he said that Job was selfish?
Or perhaps, it was the sum cumulation of both personal loss and personal illness that finally pushed Job into sinning, and nothing to do with Job's personal shortcomings. Everyone has their breaking point after all,
February 10th, 2008
Proverbs 1:17-18
For in vain is the net baited while the bird is looking on; yet they lie in wait - to kill themselves! and set an ambush - for their own lives!
In vain, the hunters bait the net because the birds are looking on and know what the hunters are up to. Yet the hunters continue to lie in wait, thinking that they will kill the birds when they will kill themselves! And the hunters set an ambush, for their own lives!
For in vain is the net baited while the bird is looking on; yet they lie in wait - to kill themselves! and set an ambush - for their own lives!
In vain, the hunters bait the net because the birds are looking on and know what the hunters are up to. Yet the hunters continue to lie in wait, thinking that they will kill the birds when they will kill themselves! And the hunters set an ambush, for their own lives!
July 6th, 2006
July 5th, 2006
[quote][i]“No one over in our camp, absolutely no one is saying that mutations have to be as significant as whole-sale structure altering!”[/i]
No they aren’t. Not wholesale anyway. But people in your camp are claiming that critters made it all the way from a single cells to mega-fauna, like the one you mention, by way of selected, advantageous DNA replication errors.[/quote]Yes we are.
[quote]
If this is true, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of living and extinct reptiles, amphibs, fish, birds and mammals, then the fossil record should be absolutely gushing with the remains of “billions” of (retail?) slightly-altered, mutated forms. But it is not. The reality is that what they almost always find is something that has been found before. [/quote]
How many people are in the United States? Almost 300 million people. If all the people in the United States dropped dead right now, how many do you think will be fossilised? Most will die in their houses, on the paved streets, the roads, their cars or in their beds. How many Americans do you think will be covered quickly by sediment (ash, dirt, rock) and be spared the decomposition of bacteria? How many Americans will undergo a mineralisation process, transforming the empty spaces left over from decomposition into minerals?
Now how many Americans will survive the millions of years underneath astounding pressures and heat beneath the Earth's surface? How many bones will be scattered or torn apart by slow geologic forces?
Many millions of years from now, how many American fossils will be found by our descendants? How many Americans will be located in a favourable location that is gradually eroded, exposing the fossil? How many Americans will be located under mountains, or buried deep underground and far from the reach of weathering processes? How many Americans will our descendants stumble across?
I predict out of 300 million people, less than a dozen or so bones will fossilise, collectively representing America's entire population. And those bones could be anywhere in a few million years. Melted, destroyed when continental crust is subducted. Buried deep in the core of a mountain. Underneath a lake. Underneath a building.
Fossilisation is a rare process. You have to die in the right place at the right time. Even if your body survives decomposition and manages to get fossilised, someone has to find you. Think how big the world is. Now do you see why you are totally, utterly wrong when you expect to find billions of fossils?
Fossils are like a brief snapshot of time. They don't tell you everything. We don't expect to find everything, because we know fossilisation is a rare process. It's a testament to how old the Earth is that we have hundreds of thousands of fossils. Millions more lurk beneath the surface.
[quote]However, evolutionary theorists,[/quote]Yes, us evolutionary theorists. Just like the gravity theorists, or the germ theorists, or the atomic matter theorists, or the plate tectonics theorists, or quantum gravity theorists, or general relativity theorists, or those electromagnetic theorists. Yes, us theorists.
[quote]Punctuated Equilibrium. The theory formulated to explain why there is no fossil evidence.[/quote]
Oh please. Do I make wild, unasserted stabs at your creationist position? No. Why don't you get a source who claims that punk eek was specifically formed to explain 'why there is no fossil evidence'.
[quote] It says that those wholesale changes took place in compressed time periods in response to pressure exerted by the selection fairy. Of course when they are involved in explaining the tedious details of this disputed idea, they have to forget about all those absolutely indispensable mutations. [/quote]I suggest you go learn about punk eek and what it actually says.
Punk eek has to do with the rate of speciation (that is, the rate at which species diverged from one another. This is 'macroevolution'). The theory was created to explain why transitional fossils between species were rare when compared to transitional fossils between higher taxa, which we have [i]a lot[/i] of. Punk eek is an explanation for the patterns we see in the fossil record.
Gradualism is the concept in modern evolution that species evolve at the same rate. Basically, a population changes at the same gradual rate until it forms a new population. So we should see in the fossil record (if it was perfect of course), a clear transition between points A and G. We should find examples of A, B, C, D, E, F and G. Again, I must stress that this is only when the fossil record is perfect. We all know that fossilisation does not happen all the time.
We don't always see this clear transition between species. Gradualism relies on poor fossilisation as an explanation.
Punk eek is an alternate explanation for the [i]sparity of species fossils[/i]. Punk eek is [i]still gradualism[/i], because the species are still evolving incrementally.
So what [i]does[/i] punk eek say? It says that in some cases, species do not evolve at the same rate.
Instead of the whole population evolving, only a small part of the population evolves. And the evolution is not slow, but rapid (in terms of geologic scale. It still is measured in tens of thousands of years). After this change occurs, the new species/population migrates back into the old population. This leads to a fossil record where an old species is 'suddenly' replaced with a new one with no transitionals in between.
For example. Lets say that there is a species of butterflies living on one side of a river. One day, a group of these butterflies flies over to the other side. They are still the same species. This migrating group can still reproduce with the population on the other side of the river.
One day, the river floods and becomes much wider. It becomes impossible to cross. There are now two populations. They are still the same species. Many years pass. The original population are evolving slowly. Gradually The new population on the other hand, face new selective pressures from this new and strange habitat. Each population gets their own mutations. Slowly but surely, the populations are moving genetically apart.
Many years later, the river dries up. There are now two species. Years of evolution have changed the two populations (maybe their reproductive organs do not match anymore, maybe their wings are a different colour and do not attract each other). They are two seperate species. The new species crosses the river, reversing the migration that was mirrored by their ancestors thousands of years ago. The old species has died out. The new species takes over. The new butterflies die and get fossilised.
This is how it looks in the fossil record.
Old butterflies
Old butterflies
Old butterflies
Old butterflies
Old butterflies
Old butterflies
Old butterflies
Old butterflies
Old butterflies
Old butterflies
Old butterflies
Different species of butterfly
Different butterfly
Different butterfly
Different butterfly
Different butterfly
Different butterfly
Different butterfly
Different butterfly
Different butterfly
The old species has been gradually evolving, while the new species has been undergoing some strong evolution. When they cross back, it looks like a new species has popped up from nowhere. If punk eek has happened, we should expect to find the transitional fossils of the new species in their new habitat.
Punk eek explains patterns in the fossil record. Punk eek has all to do with location.
Punk eek says that the old species of butterfly is in [b]statis[/b] or[b] equilibrium[/b]. It's undergoing little evolution. The new species on the other hand, is evolving quickly. It's[b] punctuating[/b] the usual stability and statis.
Lets go over your statement again.
[quote]Punctuated Equilibrium. The theory formulated to explain why there is no fossil evidence.[/quote]Wrong. The theory is an explanation of why there are relatively few species fossils in one particular spot. There are plenty of transitional fossils across higher taxa.
[quote]For instance, you said “[i]Evolution doesn't need lots of mutation[/i]". Well just how in the sam hill can you get from a eukaryote to an elephant without them?[/quote]Elephants are eukaryotes. So I guess you want to know how eukaryotes evolved into eukaryotes?
No they aren’t. Not wholesale anyway. But people in your camp are claiming that critters made it all the way from a single cells to mega-fauna, like the one you mention, by way of selected, advantageous DNA replication errors.[/quote]Yes we are.
[quote]
If this is true, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of living and extinct reptiles, amphibs, fish, birds and mammals, then the fossil record should be absolutely gushing with the remains of “billions” of (retail?) slightly-altered, mutated forms. But it is not. The reality is that what they almost always find is something that has been found before. [/quote]
How many people are in the United States? Almost 300 million people. If all the people in the United States dropped dead right now, how many do you think will be fossilised? Most will die in their houses, on the paved streets, the roads, their cars or in their beds. How many Americans do you think will be covered quickly by sediment (ash, dirt, rock) and be spared the decomposition of bacteria? How many Americans will undergo a mineralisation process, transforming the empty spaces left over from decomposition into minerals?
Now how many Americans will survive the millions of years underneath astounding pressures and heat beneath the Earth's surface? How many bones will be scattered or torn apart by slow geologic forces?
Many millions of years from now, how many American fossils will be found by our descendants? How many Americans will be located in a favourable location that is gradually eroded, exposing the fossil? How many Americans will be located under mountains, or buried deep underground and far from the reach of weathering processes? How many Americans will our descendants stumble across?
I predict out of 300 million people, less than a dozen or so bones will fossilise, collectively representing America's entire population. And those bones could be anywhere in a few million years. Melted, destroyed when continental crust is subducted. Buried deep in the core of a mountain. Underneath a lake. Underneath a building.
Fossilisation is a rare process. You have to die in the right place at the right time. Even if your body survives decomposition and manages to get fossilised, someone has to find you. Think how big the world is. Now do you see why you are totally, utterly wrong when you expect to find billions of fossils?
Fossils are like a brief snapshot of time. They don't tell you everything. We don't expect to find everything, because we know fossilisation is a rare process. It's a testament to how old the Earth is that we have hundreds of thousands of fossils. Millions more lurk beneath the surface.
[quote]However, evolutionary theorists,[/quote]Yes, us evolutionary theorists. Just like the gravity theorists, or the germ theorists, or the atomic matter theorists, or the plate tectonics theorists, or quantum gravity theorists, or general relativity theorists, or those electromagnetic theorists. Yes, us theorists.
[quote]Punctuated Equilibrium. The theory formulated to explain why there is no fossil evidence.[/quote]
Oh please. Do I make wild, unasserted stabs at your creationist position? No. Why don't you get a source who claims that punk eek was specifically formed to explain 'why there is no fossil evidence'.
[quote] It says that those wholesale changes took place in compressed time periods in response to pressure exerted by the selection fairy. Of course when they are involved in explaining the tedious details of this disputed idea, they have to forget about all those absolutely indispensable mutations. [/quote]I suggest you go learn about punk eek and what it actually says.
Punk eek has to do with the rate of speciation (that is, the rate at which species diverged from one another. This is 'macroevolution'). The theory was created to explain why transitional fossils between species were rare when compared to transitional fossils between higher taxa, which we have [i]a lot[/i] of. Punk eek is an explanation for the patterns we see in the fossil record.
Gradualism is the concept in modern evolution that species evolve at the same rate. Basically, a population changes at the same gradual rate until it forms a new population. So we should see in the fossil record (if it was perfect of course), a clear transition between points A and G. We should find examples of A, B, C, D, E, F and G. Again, I must stress that this is only when the fossil record is perfect. We all know that fossilisation does not happen all the time.
We don't always see this clear transition between species. Gradualism relies on poor fossilisation as an explanation.
Punk eek is an alternate explanation for the [i]sparity of species fossils[/i]. Punk eek is [i]still gradualism[/i], because the species are still evolving incrementally.
So what [i]does[/i] punk eek say? It says that in some cases, species do not evolve at the same rate.
Instead of the whole population evolving, only a small part of the population evolves. And the evolution is not slow, but rapid (in terms of geologic scale. It still is measured in tens of thousands of years). After this change occurs, the new species/population migrates back into the old population. This leads to a fossil record where an old species is 'suddenly' replaced with a new one with no transitionals in between.
For example. Lets say that there is a species of butterflies living on one side of a river. One day, a group of these butterflies flies over to the other side. They are still the same species. This migrating group can still reproduce with the population on the other side of the river.
One day, the river floods and becomes much wider. It becomes impossible to cross. There are now two populations. They are still the same species. Many years pass. The original population are evolving slowly. Gradually The new population on the other hand, face new selective pressures from this new and strange habitat. Each population gets their own mutations. Slowly but surely, the populations are moving genetically apart.
Many years later, the river dries up. There are now two species. Years of evolution have changed the two populations (maybe their reproductive organs do not match anymore, maybe their wings are a different colour and do not attract each other). They are two seperate species. The new species crosses the river, reversing the migration that was mirrored by their ancestors thousands of years ago. The old species has died out. The new species takes over. The new butterflies die and get fossilised.
This is how it looks in the fossil record.
Old butterflies
Old butterflies
Old butterflies
Old butterflies
Old butterflies
Old butterflies
Old butterflies
Old butterflies
Old butterflies
Old butterflies
Old butterflies
Different species of butterfly
Different butterfly
Different butterfly
Different butterfly
Different butterfly
Different butterfly
Different butterfly
Different butterfly
Different butterfly
The old species has been gradually evolving, while the new species has been undergoing some strong evolution. When they cross back, it looks like a new species has popped up from nowhere. If punk eek has happened, we should expect to find the transitional fossils of the new species in their new habitat.
Punk eek explains patterns in the fossil record. Punk eek has all to do with location.
Punk eek says that the old species of butterfly is in [b]statis[/b] or[b] equilibrium[/b]. It's undergoing little evolution. The new species on the other hand, is evolving quickly. It's[b] punctuating[/b] the usual stability and statis.
Lets go over your statement again.
[quote]Punctuated Equilibrium. The theory formulated to explain why there is no fossil evidence.[/quote]Wrong. The theory is an explanation of why there are relatively few species fossils in one particular spot. There are plenty of transitional fossils across higher taxa.
[quote]For instance, you said “[i]Evolution doesn't need lots of mutation[/i]". Well just how in the sam hill can you get from a eukaryote to an elephant without them?[/quote]Elephants are eukaryotes. So I guess you want to know how eukaryotes evolved into eukaryotes?
July 4th, 2006
It’s important to understand that when biologists say the mutational process is random, we mean that it is not directed by any predictable and verifiable natural force or agent. There is nothing determining definitively that a mutation will occur at a particular nucleotide.
July 1st, 2006
I'm watching the Rocky Horror Picture Show. I forgot how good it was. Man, it's hilarious.
For a hypothesis to fall within the realm of science, it must be constructed in such a way that it potentially can be shown to be wrong—otherwise the hypothesis cannot be tested against evidence from the natural world. This demand that a hypothesis be “falsifiable” is one of the defining characteristics of scientific explanations.
For every fact of biology, we can pose questions of an evolutionary nature - which makes evolutionary biology a source of inexhaustible challenge and delight.
For every fact of biology, we can pose questions of an evolutionary nature - which makes evolutionary biology a source of inexhaustible challenge and delight.
7. The rate of mutation is too low for mutation by itself to shift an entire population from one genotype to another. Instead, the change in genotype proportions within a population can occur by either of two principal processes: random fluctuations in proportions (random genetic drift) or nonrandom changes due to the superior survival and/or reproduction of some genotypes compared to others (natural selection). Natural selection and random genetic drift can operate simultaneously.
Number 7 troubled me for a bit. Couldn't mutation change a key gene that resulted in phenotype changes that made an individual unable to reproduce with members of its own species?
Of course a mutation could do that, but the key word is individual. Evolution has to do with populations. Speciation cannot take place solely because of random mutation, unless that same mutation occurs across the members of that population at the same time. Which is unlikely to say the least. That mutation has to be heritable for the trait to spread, but if that mutation makes it unable for that individual to reproduce with un-mutated members, then the individual will die without passing on his genes. That makes the mutation unheritable.
And so speciation cannot be caused solely by mutation.
Number 7 troubled me for a bit. Couldn't mutation change a key gene that resulted in phenotype changes that made an individual unable to reproduce with members of its own species?
Of course a mutation could do that, but the key word is individual. Evolution has to do with populations. Speciation cannot take place solely because of random mutation, unless that same mutation occurs across the members of that population at the same time. Which is unlikely to say the least. That mutation has to be heritable for the trait to spread, but if that mutation makes it unable for that individual to reproduce with un-mutated members, then the individual will die without passing on his genes. That makes the mutation unheritable.
And so speciation cannot be caused solely by mutation.