Re: The Hypothesis That Ends All Debate
- From: "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:23:09 +0100
"Claudius Denk" <claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:VnCHj.3147$p24.2389@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
New species don't just spring up out of the blue. They are part and
parcel to new biomes (ecosystems). Likewise new biomes don't just
spring up out of the blue, they are the result of changes in
environments/climatic conditions.
Manifest nonsense.
Evolution 101. This is basic stuff here Paul. Your comment shows how completely you have
your head up your ass.
It's not Evolution 101. But, let's say
that this supposition or theory appears
on some Evolution courses. That does
not make it true. For a start there is the
small matter of evidence.
Here's the way speciation works. Ecosystems experience a change in
climate.
Climate is changing now.
Delusional.
Nearly everybody agrees that things have
got warmer recently. The only debate is
about the cause.
There was a huge
change 12 kya. How many new species are
forming now? How many formed 12 kya?
Many. Look it up you nitwit.
Wrong. The answer is 'none'. NOT
a single species dates to 12 kya nor
thereabouts.
The change in climate causes a period of extreme stress
whereupon a whole set of niches disappear and a whole new set of
niches appear.
Give some examples from either now or
12 kya.
Do your own research.
This dodge impresses no one. It must
disgust even you. You can find no
examples because there are none.
Your theory falls at the very first test.
Species evolve in a punctuated fashion. (If you don't know what this
means then I suggest doing some research on a concept called
punctuated equilibrium.) And, like I said above, they evolve a whole
host of strategies and traits at once to fit the lifestyle
requirements of the new niche. Consequently hominid evolution could
only have produced the dramatic shift to bipedalism if it coincided
with a complete shift to a new lifestyle
True.
that involved the requirements of a new niche
True
in a new ecosystem.
Wrong. Populations can 'opportunistically'
find completely dfferent solution.
I suppose this is your excuse for the absurdities of your hypothetical nonsense.
The foolishness of your theory is obvious.
What proportion of sister species occupy
different ecosystems? Do gorillas live in a
different one from chimpanzees? Or bonobos?
Do the different species of gibbon live in
different regions? Do chiff-chaffs occupy a
different ecosystem from willow warblers?
Get any book on any branch of organic
life and check the ecosystems of related
species.
Your theory is based on nonsense --
even IF you think it's Evolution 101.
Paul.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Hypothesis That Ends All Debate
- From: Claudius Denk
- Re: The Hypothesis That Ends All Debate
- References:
- The Hypothesis That Ends All Debate
- From: claudiusdenk
- Re: The Hypothesis That Ends All Debate
- From: Paul Crowley
- Re: The Hypothesis That Ends All Debate
- From: Claudius Denk
- The Hypothesis That Ends All Debate
- Prev by Date: Re: Follow the Evidence
- Next by Date: Re: Follow the Evidence
- Previous by thread: Re: The Hypothesis That Ends All Debate
- Next by thread: Re: The Hypothesis That Ends All Debate
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading