Does anyone know of a mathematical model for the theory of punctuated equilibrium in evolution?
ask him tomorrow he will be able to answer ..... monday he is a genius
I found this paper:
Aya, I've always assumed that the Mandelbrot Set was at the root of all evolution, with either the "starting make-up of Z" or else some element of C determining the rate at which changes would occur. I would think that the metabollic rate of any animal is built into the Z, but we can imagine how the C would eventually lead to changes (slowing down) as any animals a) matures individually and b) advanced as a more "developed" species.
Lisa, thanks for the input.
I'm actually interested more in the external effects on change in a species than in any internal structural building blocks.
I was trying to find a correlation between equilibrium in evolutionary development (the periods of stasis) and equilibrium in an economic system.
According to the punctuated equilibrium model, evolution does not develop gradually. There are long periods when species remain exactly the same. Then, under the pressure of events, rapid speciation occurs.
It seems the economy is given to the same sorts of record breaking events followed by long periods of seeming stability.
My life has been a model of punctuated equilibrium.
Or equi-libations and punctuation. I forget which.
Aya, the way I think I'm seeing the Mandelbrot Set apply is that it would apply to the big picture - from external on down to internal. If one thinks of the simple formula it does show how gradual (or dramatic) changes take place. What it doesn't show, of course, is exactly what "every little element of C" is.
I would think that the difference between punctuated evolution (of anything) versus a more gradual process would depend on (to put it in super-simple terms) the "size" and/or complexity and/or make-up of "C". Again, though, this only demonstrates the process by which change occurs, as opposed to showing the exact "elements" of it.
If you use human beings as an example, you can start "out at the universe", go "down to society" and then "down to more immediate external and internal factors" that would make up the "C" in any human being (including all the way "down" to cell growth and genes).
I don't know, but will this help you?
by thetruthhurts20098 years ago
Rules of this forum, no swearing, no straw men arguments and no FSM nonsense. Most importantly remember, Ridicule is not an argument. Enjoy. If want to continue to believe you come from a rocky soup. You...
by Mark Knowles7 years ago
Please keep out of this thread unless you are Mark Knowles or Gardner Osagie.We have both decided on a formal debate, structured as follows:Three rounds of:The Affirmative always goes first(that would be Gardner)Then...
by aka-dj4 years ago
I mentioned the phrase "flaws in evolution" in the context of challenging the constant assertion by may that evolution is a proven well understood and accepted fact, as opposed to a flawed theory.Proponents of...
by daeemomin9 years ago
DARWINISM’S UNSCIENTIFIC FORMULAPlentiful Muddy Water + A Long Time + Many Coincidences = CivilizationWhen the subject of evolution comes up, many people imagine that this is a scientific problem—and that for anyone...
by lovetherain20 months ago
Some people, like Richard Dawkins call evolution a "fact". What do you think? Is evolution a fact or a theory?
by Mark Knowles5 years ago
Some one just accused me of making a personal attack on them because I said they are ignorant of certain facts. Any one who has interacted with me here will know I try not to make personal attacks, other than to make...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.