selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
Jacob, I wish you could stop being Jacob just for a minute, stop arguing for the sake of it, and read what Croolis is saying. It's a question of definition.
Minimum Atmospheric CO2 percentage for plant life!
- Thread starter deema
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
SammyQ
Established Member
Talking of definition:
Because they went away??? And did the dinosaurs not "evolve", as you'd say, across those 150 million years? Were the same dinosaurs at the beginning of your 150 million year period around at the end of your 150 million year period or had they changed? What caused them to come into being, and go away? I don't care about the timescale. It's not stable, it's just slow
Ever been to Chicxulub? There is just nothing like a good fact in the face of frenzied mangling of same.
Because they went away??? And did the dinosaurs not "evolve", as you'd say, across those 150 million years? Were the same dinosaurs at the beginning of your 150 million year period around at the end of your 150 million year period or had they changed? What caused them to come into being, and go away? I don't care about the timescale. It's not stable, it's just slow
Ever been to Chicxulub? There is just nothing like a good fact in the face of frenzied mangling of same.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
What is?
SammyQ
Established Member
More TOSH:
"It's almost as though systems had evolved to take advantage of change". This line I don't like. It's, what's that word, anthropormorphising (ye gods did I spell that right) or something. It's like saying a magnet takes advantage of a bit of ferrous. Or that water getting under the sodding eaves of my shed through surface tension is taking advantage of the wall. Nothing evolved in that sense, nothing took advantage. Some physics happened."
Croolis, are you "hangry" again?
Of course sysytems evolve! They emphatically DO 'take advantage' of change - in a metaphorical sense; I am not employing anthropomorphism here. Nature abhors a vaccuum (though Gawd knows we see too much of it on this forum) and we get "pioneer species" or "opportunistic species" or "colonist species" moving in to exploit a 'space' in air, sea or land that has been opened up by Nature or the idiots collectively known as "Man". Every species may then adapt, once there - in that the most suitable genetic combinations succeed better than 'poorer' (less suited) selections.. Try reading up on staccato evolution versus Darwinian evolution. It's a lot faster than we think. So, systems, collectively, can be seen (and any experienced Ecologist will bear this out) to "take advantage of change".
The pressure to perpetuate our genes (Thank you Richard Dawkins, and many others) drives adaptation across all species and every population, community and ecosysytem within our biosphere. When the conditions pertaining change - at any of the three/four major levels - only those genetic permutations most suited to that change to 'new' conditions survive, and procreate, leading to changes in their numbers subsequently. Ergo, living systems evolve, numerically and physiologically - and in doing so, take advantage of chance. Ah, we could say they take advantage of change - by selecting new genomes more suited to survival. Enter, stage right, Charlie Darwin.
"It's almost as though systems had evolved to take advantage of change". This line I don't like. It's, what's that word, anthropormorphising (ye gods did I spell that right) or something. It's like saying a magnet takes advantage of a bit of ferrous. Or that water getting under the sodding eaves of my shed through surface tension is taking advantage of the wall. Nothing evolved in that sense, nothing took advantage. Some physics happened."
Croolis, are you "hangry" again?
Of course sysytems evolve! They emphatically DO 'take advantage' of change - in a metaphorical sense; I am not employing anthropomorphism here. Nature abhors a vaccuum (though Gawd knows we see too much of it on this forum) and we get "pioneer species" or "opportunistic species" or "colonist species" moving in to exploit a 'space' in air, sea or land that has been opened up by Nature or the idiots collectively known as "Man". Every species may then adapt, once there - in that the most suitable genetic combinations succeed better than 'poorer' (less suited) selections.. Try reading up on staccato evolution versus Darwinian evolution. It's a lot faster than we think. So, systems, collectively, can be seen (and any experienced Ecologist will bear this out) to "take advantage of change".
The pressure to perpetuate our genes (Thank you Richard Dawkins, and many others) drives adaptation across all species and every population, community and ecosysytem within our biosphere. When the conditions pertaining change - at any of the three/four major levels - only those genetic permutations most suited to that change to 'new' conditions survive, and procreate, leading to changes in their numbers subsequently. Ergo, living systems evolve, numerically and physiologically - and in doing so, take advantage of chance. Ah, we could say they take advantage of change - by selecting new genomes more suited to survival. Enter, stage right, Charlie Darwin.
SammyQ
Established Member
Shut the door. Gently!
