dilute micro
esse quam videri
That's the whole reason for pe, knotted, to explain why what's being found didn't meet what Darwin predicted.
universal values?
- Thread starter gnuneo
- Start date
That's the whole reason for pe, knotted, to explain why what's being found didn't meet what Darwin predicted.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
Are we going to do this all day knotted? Because I got shit I need to do.
What Darwin seemed to predict on certain occassions.
What Darwin predicted and what Darwin's theory predict are two different things of course.
An example from a different field:
Newton's theory of gravitation does predicts certain anomalies in the orbit of Uranus given the existence of Neptune. Newton never predicted the existence of Neptune, therefore he never predicted the anomalies in the orbit of Uranus. Does this mean Newton's theory of gravity has been completely falsified, or does it mean that Neptune exists?
What a theory predicts is dependent on what assumptions you make. If for example you are assuming that most speciation is sympatric then Darwin's theory might make different predictions than if you assume that most speciation is allopatric or peripatric.
Make sense?
Its up to you.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
"seemed to predict" - well, what were Gould and Eldredge wasting their time for?
At least you're trying now...
How about this knotted - looks like almost all speciation over the millions of years happened off the radar? What does that tell you?
dilute micro
esse quam videri
Remember that quote Santino posted? Also that article on talk.origins casts doubt on Gould's characterisation of Darwin's beliefs. Not that it really matters, as I explained above. We're assessing the theory not the man.
dilute micro said:
That speciation is hard to pick up on the radar?
It's not as if we don't know about speciation. It's something that's been observed in the laboritory.
From the original paper on punctuated equilibrium.
Punctuated equilibrium was in full accordance with evolutionary orthodoxy. It actually used the dominant theory of speciation at that time - allopatric speciation of small, periphal populations (ie. peripatric speciation) and applied it to the fossil record with positive results. It was a confirmation of the evolutionary orthodoxy. Plus it helps explain why it is difficult to find transitional forms in the fossil record at the species level (although there is an abundance of transitional forms at higher levels). So what's the fuss?
Punctuated equilibrium was in full accordance with evolutionary orthodoxy. It actually used the dominant theory of speciation at that time - allopatric speciation of small, periphal populations (ie. peripatric speciation) and applied it to the fossil record with positive results. It was a confirmation of the evolutionary orthodoxy. Plus it helps explain why it is difficult to find transitional forms in the fossil record at the species level (although there is an abundance of transitional forms at higher levels). So what's the fuss?
dilute micro
esse quam videri
Yes, your elementary understanding of pe and darwinian evolution is simple stuff. That's why you think everything's fine. And if even paleontologists themselves take up issue with the fossil record you've said, "Drivel is drivel regardless of who speaks it."
dilute micro
esse quam videri
No that nearly every animal back then was evolving out of sight of the fossil record. Seem odd at all to you?
Only when it's actually drivel.
No that nearly every animal back then was evolving out of sight of the fossil record. Seem odd at all to you?
Do you see what you did there? You've just confused speciation with all evolution.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
No it wasn't, that's why it was a hard sell in the beginning.
So if we know the overwhelming majority of animals were evolving via pe then shouldn't the schoolbooks be changed to reflect that instead of promoting what Eldredge called the "conventional theory" (like I've been telling you and you've kept denying exists).
What is the conventional theory knotted?
dilute micro
esse quam videri
No... Gould and Eldredge did.
Allopatric speciation.
I don't think they have ever claimed that the overwhelming majority of species evolve via punctuated equilibrium.
Well then wherever they did this they were talking drivel.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
"Allopatric speciation" huh? No it was darwinian gradualism. Phillip Johnson quoted Eldredge in his book Darwin on Trial -
"Either you stick to the conventional theory despite the rather poor fit of the fossils, or you focus on the empirics and say that saltation looks like a reasonable model of the evolutionary process - in which case you must embrace a set of rather dubious biological propositions." - Niles Eldredge
You're bent on denial, knotted. If anything at all disagrees with your strange ideas of darwinism or pe you're going to simply deny it - even when it's from the authors of pe or other darwinists scientists.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
Dogmatic Materialism
February/ March 1997 Boston Review
DM removed [micromutationism] from the quote?
Johnson, Philip - Darwin On Trial
Oops
Critical thinking. 
I can find lots of articles using the quote without attribution.
Could it be Reinventing Darwin: Great Evolutionary Debate by Niles Eldredge?
I've done a search on amazon. It's definately not from that book.
It's so ridiculous that it's surely either fake or taken completely out of context. The fossil record can't possibly show saltations. Saltations do exist, but what's one generation in the rock face?
Similar threads
