March 10, 2009 at 9:28 am #11040
May 18, 2009 at 8:37 pm #90828
I am not an author of this text but I decided to place it on this forum, because it seems to contain interesting and original analyses
(English is not native language of author of this text)
Evolution and systematics
Some fresh analyses
proves that evolution
in each scale is describing
by logistic model
11 billions years takes evolution to reach biological phase, but only 3 to reach first primitive organisms, and only several hundred millions to reach high developed and later intelligent animals.
It is rather sure that it is not only perspective delusion arising becouse of passing of time (like optical delusion when we see close objects more precisely than far). And it is rather sure that such development will not be undergo exponential growth, so it must be under logistic.
In 1972 J.S.Gould and N.Eldredge proposed new conception of evolution (arising of specieses) called Punctuationalism. Logistic model describes exactly this conception, though hitherto was not use in this intent. The same model describe evolution on other levels, mega (whole biological evolution) and giga (three phases of evolution – see diagram)
Quick biological phase was preceded by relatively stable physicochemical phase, attainment of relatively stable civilizational phase can take us hundreds of millions of years, or more.
In mathematics logistic model coupled is with normal distribution model. Turns out that also this model, which founds some applications in different disciplines, has important meaning in biology (see diagram).
Simple plants and gymnosperms include above 150 thousands specieses, angiosperms above 250 t. specieses, fungi 1,5 mln, insects about 1 mln, primitive animals tens thousands, fishes 24,5 t., reptiles 13 t., birds 9350, mammals 4630.
Logistic model can explain also a difference between a qualitative change and quantitative change. It shows that each kind of so called qualitative change, like for example vaporization of water, is just some form of quantitative change.
[ * There is a possibility to use both models on the ground of sociology. Normal distribution model can show clearly inter alia a structure of society, in the aspect of wealthiness and many other aspects. In the case of logistic model situation is more complicated. This model can explain a demograpical, social and civilizational development of last four centuries (in this can be useful metaphor of adolescense and calling of the Comte’s theory maintains that social evolution ran from religious phase to scientific); but in second part of twentieth century arose negative phenomenon of demographic explosion. An accelerative demograpic development which starts about year 1600, should stops about year 1955, at the level of 2,7 billions and it didn’t, and it was evidently negative and maybe even catastrophical phenomenon
** Marxists are using model of change where quantitative changes transform to qualitative change. But firstly, it is philosophy – so speaking about nothing, their whole conception is very unclear and in some part basing on philosophy of G.F.Hegel which is worse unclear, and is example of extremely wrong theory. Secondly, such model is basing on fundamental mistake that there is a difference between qualitative and quantitative change.]
June 1, 2009 at 12:15 pm #90976
new theory of evolution ?
new theory of structure and development of society ?
we will see
June 1, 2009 at 12:28 pm #90978DarbyParticipant
Any manipulation based upon numbers of species is useless – species are designations that someone has bothered to describe in a publication, not an accurate measure of how many species-level "types" there are. If anything, they are a measure of how accessible and popular a group is. There are lots of insect species on the books because hobbyists have a whole long-standing network that allows them to easily record them. Just from an ecological view, there have to be many more animal than plant species (and even more for bacteria), because the niches for them are much more numerous.
June 1, 2009 at 1:09 pm #90980
for what I know then the number of registered specieses is related with the real number of specieses
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.