November 14, 2014 at 11:45 pm #17957
I have found this text on some site in internet:
1. Biological evolution
The term evolution introduced to biology Charles de Bonnet, Swiss naturalist from XVIII c. A biological evolution we call process of transformations of organisms within many generations, both with reference to transformations of their construction as and functions. It leads from more simple forms to more complex and developed. Eleven billions years took evolution to reach biological phase, but only three 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 because of passing of time (like optical delusion when we see close objects more precisely than far). I think that this development can be described the best by so called Logistic development.
In 1972 J.S.Gould and N.Eldredge proposed new conception of evolution (arising of specieses) called Punctuationalism. In this theory speciation, takes place very quickly in not large populations. Can last thousands and even hundreds of years, what in scales of the geologic time counted in millions and hundreds of millions of years, has a punctual character. Sigmoid development describes exactly this conception, though hitherto was not at all considered its use in this intent.
In mathematics logistic development coupled is with Normal distribution model. Turns out that also this model, which founds some applications in different disciplines, has important meaning for biology. 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. Moreover the same conception describes evolution on higher levels, Mega (whole biological evolution) and Giga (three phases of gigaevolution) – see diag 2. Gradual changes on these levels can – in a greater temporal scale – show differentiation. In reference to biological megaevolution logistic theory clearly illustrates and can explain so called "Cambrian explosion" (590-545 millions of years). It shows that development after achievement of certain critical level suddenly accelerates (see end of text – mechanism of evolutional processes).
Quick biological phase was preceded by relatively stable astrophysicochemical phase. Attainment of relatively stable civilizaional [psychosociocultural] phase should take us hundreds years. On diagram 3 we can see Gigaevolution with more details. Cosmological megaevolution was leading from primordial explosion [nb. logistic development is its perfect model] to arising of matter. Physical from fundamental particles and interactions to atoms and chemical elements. Chemical from inorganic to organic compounds. Biological from simple cells to intelligent hominids. Civilizational megaevolution is leading from simple religious culture to complex cosmical culture. It consists of three main subprocesses connected with three types of civilization, dependently from their cosmic range:
– Type I, planetary, is connected with transition inside simple religious culture, about 10000 BC
– Type II, civilization which is entering in interplanetary space, is connected with transition from simple religious culture to complex scientific culture, present and future time
– Type III, which is entering in interstellar space, far future
Gregory Podgorniak (2008)
rest of text here: http://studia.scienceontheweb.net/evolution.php
June 13, 2015 at 1:59 pm #115728
Processes of gigaevolution and biological megaevolution possess common turning point, it was appearance of fish-amphibia similar to genus Ichthyostega [370 millions of years]. According to mechanism of evolutional processes [see p.3] a limiting factor designating this turning point and developmental limits was environment (properties of environment). It designates framework both for mega as well as giga evolution.
Conception of microevolution of Gould-Eldredge can get confirmation from the point of view of my theory of biomegaevolution, considering that evidences confirming its rightness seem to be more convincing than evidences in interest of Punctuationalism. Hitherto conception of Gould-Eldredge was treated harshly. There is not its in basic manuals from a scope of biology.
Logistic development 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 liquefaction of gas, is just some form of quantitative change. Marxists are using conception of change where quantitative changes transform to qualitative change. But firstly it is philosophy – so usually speaking about nothing, their whole conception is very unclear and in some part basing on philosophy of G.F.Hegel which is worse unclear. Secondly, this idea is containing fundamental mistake that there is a difference between qualitative and quantitative change. One from subprocesses of sociomegaevolution we can see below. Primordial phase of development of civilization was dominated by religious thinking, at present we are during transfer into scientific phase.
August 2, 2015 at 4:49 pm #115748
Mechanism of described mega and giga evolutional processes is based on three rules:
(1) First predicates that no development cannot last endlessly.
(2) Second that unopposed development has autogenous tendency to self accelerating in compliance with simple rule of duplication or multiplication quantity of evolutional improvements (a model of this process can be sequence of numbers …0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8…). Simple organisms possess small quantity of adaptive and constructional solutions, multiplication their quantity does not bring through longer time greater results. Only after achievement of certain level of complication their multiplication effects with impetuous development. Similarily as duplication of small values does not bring through longer time greater effects, only after achievement of certain level appears impetuous increase.
(3) Third predicates that when self accelerating evolution meets limiting factors then begins more and more quickly slowdown, in compliance with simple rule of partition (which a model can be sequence of numbers …8, 4, 2, 1, 0.5, 0.25…). Complex organisms possess huge quantity of adaptive and constructional solutions, and after achievement of certain level of complication further impetuous increasing of number of complications becomes impossible. They meet limiting factors, which more and more diminish quantity of evolutional improvements. Similarily as first partition of great values brings visible results, later partition of small values does not bring greater effects.
October 7, 2015 at 1:39 pm #115791
* It can be assume that extinction events are connected clearly with logistic development. Each such event
can mean a jump on higher level of evolution. For example last Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event of
reptilia tied in with transition on higher level of evolutional development and with a capture of environment
June 9, 2019 at 11:46 am #116429
see this again
November 27, 2019 at 1:46 pm #116451
rest of text:
What I would like to emphasize is each so called qualitative change, for example the transition of water into ice, or steam into water, is actually a cumulative quantitative change; that is, a quantitative change taking place quickly over a short period of time.
December 2, 2019 at 4:22 pm #116453
the author of text came from Poland
December 2, 2019 at 4:31 pm #116454
August 7, 2020 at 3:36 pm #117259
rest of text:
Were it not for the fall of the meteorite 66 million years ago, intelligent reptiles would control the Earth now or in the future. I would add that since intelligent beings of the homo sapiens type have appeared on our planet, it can be expected that also other beings of this type will appear on other planets. In addition, these intelligent reptiles would also probably resemble homo sapiens.
October 10, 2021 at 10:31 pm #119290
With “Ichthyostega” it appears to be either amphibian or reptile…
Taxonomy charts illustrate that reptiles are a group that diverge from amphibians,
at the point where the tetrapod is capable of living exclusively on land,
or is it a semi-aquatic tetrapod.
Evolution tends to focus squarely on framing groupings of species to be ancestor or descendant.
The terms “reptile” or “amphibian” or “mammal” don’t explicity imply an evolutionary pathway.
A tetrapod is described as a reptile if it has scales and lives on rocks.
Similarly, an amphibian would be a semi-aquatic tetrapod.
A mammal would be a tetrapod that has fur, rather than scales.
A fish is usually a description of a purely aquatic tetrapod,
although using the term “fish” to represent aquatic animals that are not tetrapods,
is technically also socially normative…
Evolution tends to most often conflate the usage of this terminology,
against the taxonomical nomenclature that would more directly reference a hierarchal chain,
of descendant species that were derived from a common ancestor.
Terms in evolution tend to be used interchangably to the point where,
specieal taxonomy (taxonomy of species) and basic categories of life
(describe if the animal is lizard or reptile, if a plant is flower or bush),
are not corresonding 1:1 and thusly, confusion of species taxonomy with descriptive categorization,
may result in much of the taxonomy in terms of domains of life are incorrect,
many of the conclusions based solely on the fossil record are lacking evidence or proof,
paleontology and classification are not synchronicity (“asynchroneous”) since
you can look at many different “theories of evolution” … without reaching a conclusion
about the entire point of taxonomical nomenclature (Domain,Class,Phylum,Species,etc.)
And many of the conclusions lack evidence or proof, look for example the presence of chitin,
in various single-cell or multi-cell eukaryotes, (prokaryotes, etc.)
Viewing this quote from an external source (uncited source)
Hydrogen bonding between monomers in chitin make it very strong. Pure chitin is translucent and flexible. However, in many animals, chitin is combined with other molecules to form a composite material. For example, in mollusks and crustaceans it combines with calcium carbonate to form hard and often colorful shells. In insects, chitin is often stacked into crystals that produce iridescent colors used for biomimicry, communication, and to attract mates.
Chitin Sources and Functions
Chitin is primarily a structural material in organisms. It is the main component of fungal cell walls. It forms the exoskeletons of insects and crustaceans. It forms the radulae (teeth) of mollusks and the beaks of cephalopods. Chitin also occurs in vertebrates. Fish scales and some amphibian scales contain chitin.”
Therefore since chitin is seen as a quasi-skeletal component to prevent compound degradation,
its varying presence in different taxonomical groups, can reveal the dynamics of how in each
usage case for chitin, corresponds to an evolutionary lineage:
(partial excerpts from another source that is not cited for reference)
“Chitin in Arthropods
…The exoskeletons of all of those creatures carry with it chitin deposited in conjunction with structural. Mixed with completely different proteins, additionally, it makes the wings of the many insects as a more versatile material.”
“Chitin in Fungi
…In fungi, chitins are employed to make a semipermeable membrane. very similar to cellulose in plants, the chitin is deposited extracellularly with proteins and different molecules. This forms a rigid cell wall between cells, that facilitate the organisms to retain their form.”
“Chitin in Mollusks
…In mollusks like snails, chitin could be a part of the radulae, an organ that appears sort of a spiked tongue.”
“Chitin vs Cellulose
…The difference between chitin and cellulose is that it is the main organic polymer found in the cell wall of fungi and cellulose is the significant organic polymer found in the primary cell walls of the plant cells.”
Consider that these types of molecules are illustrating how much of the scope,
of previously-acknowledged taxonomical classification, is obviously incorrect, since it doesn’t
correspond with the knowledge about how these types of organisms function on a cellular level,
and also the evolutionary taxonomy, completely ignores the fact that multi-cellularity has evolved
from single-cellularity numerous times on numerous occasions.
That is a discrepancy to distinguish about evolutionary taxonomy, taxonomical nomenclature,
and also unreconcilable imcompatibility among multiple,
different already-established knowledge banks.
(The supposed facts don’t correspond with one another)
We see in these groups, of either single-celled or multi-celled organisms,
that the presence of chitin and its utilization, is in a conflict with the available listings,
in terms of how these taxonomical groups are classified, or categorized,
into an evolutionary lineage or an evolutionary pathway.
(How can the evidence of chitin be ignored,
when splitting these groups into prokaryote or eukaryote factions)
–Another ideation about the “new theory of evolution” that evolution is wrong,
since the entire taxonomical distribution fails to adequately represent the overall knowledge bank
October 10, 2021 at 10:32 pm #119291
Follow-up on that last post,
basically to summarize looking at alternative view distinguish prokaryote from eukaryote,
then distinguish single-cell from multi-cell,
(prokaryote can have different distinction between single or multi cellularity)
and then comparing body segmentation vs cell structures,
comparing the presence of chitin within an exoskeleton (there are various types of exoskeletons),
the presence of chitin compared to the utilization of a semi-permeable cell membrane,
also comparing multiple types of cell walls that have different fundamental characteristics,
and different explainations about how their presence could occur.
(I’d apologize since this post was also not proven to be true, also and most likely delete in future, “awaiting moderation” and antispam etc.)
October 10, 2021 at 10:32 pm #119292
Another digression except also to give another example for clarity,
look the subphylum “Chelicerata” is it really clear this group should be contained
by a lineage since some of its groups are conisidered to reproduce asexually,
and sexual reproduction was a prerequisite to qualify at 1-2 orders above it.
How can an evolutionary lineage go from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction and
then go back and forth again (that is ignoring the concept of hereditary evolution)
I know that this is too many questions at once anyway
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.