That is the thing though Ken, from an academic view I'm neither right or wrong. I'm more than happy to admit when I'm wrong when its proven, or even when its probable, but discussing evolution to the level you're going to is a complex debate and to me you were basing what you were saying on quite a simple model. I could be wrong, I might be right... but its a never-ending discussion and becomes pointless if everyone remains in their fixed positions (which happens a lot, especially with marine biologists... they're some of the most clever and at the same time stubborn individuals on the planet)
The absolutes came from your initial statement that 'this does not happen on any time scale that you could actually observe'. That may be true for some species, but not all. And the whole Anthropocene era stuff... a premature decision when the climate change debate should still be going on with vigor. Especially considering the (again simplistic) models used to determine it have been proven wrong again and again. There was more I read into, but frankly I'm boring myself aside from anyone else... its one of those discussions best suited around a campfire with a good bottle of something alcoholic.
A briefer version is probably that science isn't always right, and that is what is so interesting about it. A continual debate, bringing in new evidence or challenging existing theories, is healthy science... this almost consensus based science, ie the majority of scientists think this so it must be right, is doing us no favours. I've no doubt, just like the generations before us, we'll look back at our current thinking about evolution, the big bang and particularly climate change with a chuckle at how naive we're being. With the technological advancements we're experiencing at the moment, I hope I live long enough to see the complex ancestor simulations that are being discussed.. I'd be fascinated to see an engine based on Holling's theories.
It's true. Discussions of this kind are pointless on internet forums.
It's especially hard when one can never be sure if someone seriously believes what they're writing or are just 'trolling' in want of something better to do.
I think I'll just apologise for using such simple arguments. It was not my intention to patronise anyone I just wasn't sure what the level of understanding was in the room.
I should also apologise for trying to force my ideas on anyone else, I should have just pointed out a differing viewpoint and left it at that.
I should also apologise for sidetracking the thread and potentially boring anyone. I realise I tend to get a bit carried away when discussing certain topics. It comes from my own issues, I only really feel able to engage properly in a discussion when I feel that I know what I'm talking about. So when a topic comes around (no matter how tangentially) that I can turn to something I'm confident about discussing I get too excited and run with it.
Finally I'd like to apologise for being too forthright. After rereading some of the things I posted I think they may come across as rather pompous and dismissive. I can only say that I do have issues of needing to be 'right', so if/when I'm contradicted I then have to prove that I was correct. This is especially true when things are clearly correct and logical in my own mind. I have a real fear for my mental health, so when someone disagrees with me I take it as a personal slight and get on my high horse and argue, lest it be shown that I was actually wrong, (to me this would be like admitting my mind wasn't working properly).
Believe me when I say I have too much time on my hands for thinking about stuff written on the forums and I desperately need to get out more.
If I get carried away with my assertions again, I'd find it beneficial for someone to remind me to take some time to smell the coffee...