| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
| Ishmael wrote: | Is it worth a little sideslip to say whether the torrid zone has to be diminished globally, or can you do it locally?
It depends on how hot it got. If we had a pole that was, in summertime, twice as high above freezing as it currently is below (as the charts suggest), I don't even know if you could float past the Torrid zone. |
You hadn't mentioned this. Obviously they could because an awning at the back end plus sea breezes would get them through, no sweat. But it's irrelevant because the technology for sea voyages was developed way after when your model requires it. Insofar as I have understood it.
| Evidently, even fish species kept to their appropriate water temperatures |
We have discovered, thanks to global warming, that this is very important. Not just fish species but the sea birds (et al) that feed on them can't survive even small changes in water temperature.
| A mountain range across the torrid zone might facilitate crossing, but only for cold-adapted species, and they were all in the far north (in the frigid zone). |
Yes, looks a non-starter.
| For all intents and purposes, the torrid zone is impregnable during interglacial periods (which is, most of the time). |
I'll buy it.
| But my key argument is this: All evolution occurs exclusively in the northern frigid zone, during interglacial eras (it's the only area and time period where environmental "change" is occurring, as species colonize the virgin land, and sufficient time is available). Extinctions occur during chaotic glacial periods when northern "frigid" species invade the temperate zones and no-longer-torrid equatorial zone (we are one of those invasive species). |
I'm not buying this but I'm in the market.
| The Earth then returns to stasis and the cycle begins anew. |
I don't think you've gone into this sufficiently for me to comment. I did find, with SLOP, that every step is a logical one. Even, dare I say, an unarguable one.
| Side Thought: I wonder if there's any chance there were just six major mass extinctions? |
This is definitely not a road to go down at this stage. First of all, it is not necessary. And second of all, there is not the remotest hope of counting mass distinctions with our current knowledge. Identifying any of them has been a major bugbear.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | I don't think you've gone into this sufficiently for me to comment. I did find, with SLOP, that every step is a logical one. Even, dare I say, an unarguable one. |
You can wipe out trees with SLOP. Sure. Problem is, you can't get the ice you need until after the trees are gone.
Your erosion models are useful. But I ultimately found it impossible to use them either to shift poles or (in this case), destroy plant life. I'm a soft SLOPist.
Long ago I discovered what actually moves the poles: Archimedes' Lever. That's the same mechanism that periodically killed all the trees.
Shhhh..... but for now we are blaming it on a comet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | But my key argument is this: All evolution occurs exclusively in the northern frigid zone, during interglacial eras (it's the only area and time period where environmental "change" is occurring, as species colonize the virgin land, and sufficient time is available). Extinctions occur during chaotic glacial periods when northern "frigid" species invade the temperate zones and no-longer-torrid equatorial zone (we are one of those invasive species). |
I'm not buying this but I'm in the market. |
Well we know that evolution most definitely isn't occurring anywhere else. The evidence is overwhelming. Everywhere we look, nothing ever changes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | I don't think you've gone into this sufficiently for me to comment. I did find, with SLOP, that every step is a logical one. Even, dare I say, an unarguable one.
You can wipe out trees with SLOP. Sure. |
I hadn't considered it but, no, you can't. On a wide scale, for sure, but on your required scale, probably not.
| Problem is, you can't get the ice you need until after the trees are gone. |
Certainly SLOP will benefit from your 'trees gone/temperatures fall' factor but I did have other arrows in that quiver. (I forget what they are.)
| Your erosion models are useful. But I ultimately found it impossible to use them either to shift poles or (in this case), destroy plant life. I'm a soft SLOPist. |
It's not the erosion that does the work, it's the march of the continental divides caused by differential erosion that does the heavy lifting.
| Long ago I discovered what actually moves the poles: Archimedes' Lever. That's the same mechanism that periodically killed all the trees. |
Isn't SLOP an Archimedes Lever? Puny barriers holding in vast forces.
| Shhhh..... but for now we are blaming it on a comet. |
I suppose we will both have to confront the Iridium Layer at some stage.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Well we know that evolution most definitely isn't occurring anywhere else. |
I think 'most definitely' is putting it too strong.
| The evidence is overwhelming. |
I think 'overwhelming' is putting it too strong. Tell me what we would see if evolution was taking place all around us.
| Everywhere we look, nothing ever changes. |
Mmm... [And I'm agreeing with you!]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | The evidence is overwhelming. |
I think 'overwhelming' is putting it too strong. Tell me what we would see if evolution was taking place all around us. |
Intermediate forms and constant change. Were evolution occuring everywhere at all times, it would be impossible to classify dinosaurs. Every dinosaur we found, assuming a random sampling over eons, would be a unique animal. But all ecologies discovered from our past exist in perfect stasis. Not only are stegosaurus the same for apparently millions of years: Their food is the same, their predators are the same; everything around them is the same. Nothing ever changes.
Scientists recognize this problem. That's why they came up with punctuated equilibrium and hypothesized that evolution occurred in always in unique environments somehow quartered off from the global ecology. They haven't identified where these were.
I have.
And we know I am right because every single mass extinction has resulted in replacement by a plurality of species characterized specifically by superior cold adaptation. The nature of evolution itself points to the location of that mysterious place where it is happening.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | It's not the erosion that does the work, it's the march of the continental divides caused by differential erosion that does the heavy lifting. |
A question that just occurred to me.....
What if there were no rivers?
It may be that rivers are not normal at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Nice one. My 50% shareholding is looking a bit dickey. I do not accept your arguments about evolution, by the way, but nor do I feel philosophically disposed to contest them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
Oh well. I'll probably just keep the rest of it to myself then. Unless I ever find time to write a book or do a YouTube series.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Don't understand. I thought it was going exceptionally well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
It is. For me. But if you're not with me on these basic principles, you ain't gonna follow me where next I'm going.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Perhaps I didn't make my position clear. (It's happening a lot lately.) I find your new thesis a tremendously exciting one and I thought I was being helpful.
Just because I don't immediately endorse some aspect or other of it does not mean I won't accept it either ex hypothesi or comme ci, comme ça.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
Alright. We'll see where it goes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
HYPERBOREANS: MARGIN NOTE
In what I must describe as a remarkable coincidence I, today, encountered an internet posting in which the author, by way of metaphor, described the key processes I have been discussing in this series of short essays.
Consequently, I have learned that scientists actually have arrived at some of the conclusions I have been presenting that I thought were wholly original. My idea that that interglacial periods are times of stasis---yup; they've got there already. My idea that glacial periods are times of chaos--yup; they've got there too. Even my notion that the return to order from chaos is the seedbed of new life forms: They seem to have that notion as well! Scientists even recognize the evolutionary potential of virgin environments, employing a phrase to describe the process of new life colonizing these environments as "primary succession," and recognize that life moving into regions formerly occupied by glaciers is an instance of primary succession.
Rather disappointing.
On the other hand, it lays down a stronger foundation (than would be my own musings) for what will be presented as my grand conclusion. I do take solace that there remains no apparent recognition of phenomenon such as the Wallace Line as artifacts of interglacial periods past and the changes to life those periods yielded.
An excerpt from that post:When a glacier retreats the soil needs to recompose itself to become habitable again. This interregnum is necessarily chaotic. New, opportunistic species come in to claim their small space. They are not optimal or durable along any kind of meaningful timeline but they are *necessary* for constructing a new equilibrium. They introduce new possibilities and expose new risks and reconstitute a kind of looseness in the system that allows for fertility and growth.
(If you are curious, the posting can be read here. Incidentally; I encountered it elsewhere on a message forum, so it could not have been served up to me as the consequence of some AI software reading my thoughts.)
I don't know yet how far-along they are toward reaching my conclusions but my position (using their language) may be rendered as follows.
Primary succession is the only opportunity afforded life for evolution. Evolution occurs in no other circumstances. However; primary succession is neutered where it occurs within an established ecosystem. If a new island rises from the sea, just off-shore of a mainland, no new forms of life will emerge there. It will simply be integrated within the established ecology. Primary succession results in true evolutionary change (speciation) only where it occurs on a frontier of significant size, maintained for a significant time, characterized by alien climate conditions.
Allowing potential for exceptions, the only place and time on Earth where such conditions have been present is in the far north or south during long interglacial periods. In other environments, during brief glacial periods (such as our own time), natural selection eliminates species but does not create new ones.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | HYPERBOREANS: MARGIN NOTE In what I must describe as a remarkable coincidence I, today, encountered an internet posting in which the author, by way of metaphor, described the key processes I have been discussing in this series of short essays. |
Seek and ye shall find.
| Consequently, I have learned that scientists actually have arrived at some of the conclusions I have been presenting that I thought were wholly original. My idea that that interglacial periods are times of stasis---yup; they've got there already. My idea that glacial periods are times of chaos--yup; they've got there too. Even my notion that the return to order from chaos is the seedbed of new life forms: They seem to have that notion as well! Scientists even recognize the evolutionary potential of virgin environments, employing a phrase to describe the process of new life colonizing these environments as "primary succession," and recognize that life moving into regions formerly occupied by glaciers is an instance of primary succession. |
This is both comforting and irritating, isn't it?
I wrote that before seeing this.
| On the other hand, it lays down a stronger foundation (than would be my own musings) for what will be presented as my grand conclusion. I do take solace that there remains no apparent recognition of phenomenon such as the Wallace Line as artifacts of interglacial periods past and the changes to life those periods yielded. |
I think you will find 'scientists actually have arrived' means that nobody will be familiar with it but you won't get marks for originality anyway.
| An excerpt from that post: When a glacier retreats the soil needs to recompose itself to become habitable again. This interregnum is necessarily chaotic. New, opportunistic species come in to claim their small space. They are not optimal or durable along any kind of meaningful timeline but they are *necessary* for constructing a new equilibrium. They introduce new possibilities and expose new risks and reconstitute a kind of looseness in the system that allows for fertility and growth. |
You've got nothing to worry about from this routine bit of 'academic chat'. Anyone could have come up with this.
| I've subsequently googled this phrase, "primary succession," in combination with "interglacial period," and discovered that scientists are discussing the implications of life colonizing a post-glacial north. For example: Ecosystem Birth near Melting Glaciers: A Review on the Pioneer Role of Ground-Dwelling Arthropods. |
'Discussing the implications' = academic chat. If they had actually done any systematic work looking at the fossils, we'd have all heard about it.
| I don't know yet how far-along they are toward reaching my conclusions |
They haven't even started, believe me.
| but my position (using their language) may be rendered as follows. Primary succession is the only opportunity afforded life for evolution. Evolution occurs in no other circumstances. |
Do you really need such absolutism?
| However; primary succession is neutered where it occurs within an established ecosystem. If a new island rises from the sea, just off-shore of a mainland, no new forms of life will emerge there. It will simply be integrated within the established ecology. Primary succession results in true evolutionary change (speciation) only where it occurs on a frontier of significant size, maintained for a significant time, characterized by alien climate conditions. |
OK
| Allowing potential for exceptions, the only place and time on Earth where such conditions have been present is in the far north or south during long interglacial periods. In other environments, during brief glacial periods (such as our own time), natural selection eliminates species but does not create new ones. |
OK
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
