Burgess Shale provides evidence of evolutionary leaps

Burgess Shale provides evidence of evolutionary leaps

“The Burgess Shale adds to evidence that evolution proceeded with bouts of rapid diversification interspersed with extinctions,” says this article in the Smithsonian, thus bolstering my contention that evolution does take leaps.


See entire article:
http://evolutionaryleaps.com/2012/01/burgess-shale-provides-evidence-of-evolutionary-leaps/


3 thoughts on “Burgess Shale provides evidence of evolutionary leaps

  1. Robert,

    This is an area I have been studying.
    4.5 billion years to today.
    How the planet MUST have been in order for life to be created and change as we loose water and land appeared. How much faster the planets rotation and closer to the sun. How meteors hit water and the shock is displaced over liquid. Where salt came from and it’s influence on oceans solar absorption/deflection. Circulation by velocity and planetary tilting.
    When land animals started to appear and why carbon dating has trouble dating back beyond the millions of years due to much of the planet was under water.

    None of these have been looked at adequately due to the study of a bad policy on temperature data by the consensus of scientists.
    The models they recreate is of a cylinder planet due to having to average out data. An orb is totally unique and every point on the planet is unique due to many, may factors which have been ignored for strictly the temperature data.
    Even that is garbage when they use the grid square method. 129,600 grid squares and many do not have any weather station data. So, where does the data come in to represent that grid square?

  2. RE: “It basically tells us—as do many other events in the fossil record—that evolution is much more complex than we understand by studying organisms today,” says Doug Erwin, a paleobiologist at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History.

    =================================================

    Doug is good people. He taught me well. In his lectures, he described the concept of “hopeful monsters” – the organisms involved in evolutionary leaps. He also described a more refined notion of niches. Niches are like little mesas in the “evolutionary landscape” – but they are not fixed, they are constantly moving around. “Hopeful monsters” play “king of the hill” and try to knock the current “king” off of his hill / mesa.

Comments are closed.