universal values?

[Knotted]

You're falling for it because you either want to agree or don't understand it. Put on your critical thinking cap.

No matter how anyone describes it, or redefines it, the fact is the fossil record shows that some animals went off and evolved more in a certain time frame compared to their parent population.

What Gould and others were doing (trying to keep neo-darwinists happy) in bioevolingouese was to make pe look 'darwinian' by basically playing a game of momentarily focusing attention only on the species that went off and evolved and describing its change in darwinistic terms. But the problem arises with the comparison of the two populations. Of the two species we typically know more about the parent species: - its (lesser) change during - its much longer fossil history (longer documented time scale). When held up to each other pe is pe - not darwinian.

Playing games with terminology is just a way to disguise the situation and disguising the situation is the way to make pe look darwinian when it's not.

I have no problem with any of the above, except for this unjustified assertion that it is some sort of critique of Darwinism. Since when have evolutionary biologists ever thought that all species evolve at the same rate all the time?

You've demolished a ludicrous strawman. Big deal.

 

[Knotted]

Also if you are going down the road of arguing that Gould was systematically lying in order to appease Darwinian orthodoxy, then you are casting aspertions on his character. You then go on to treat him as some sort of definitive authority. If you are going to have a definitive authority then surely you would want one that is sincere?

If your theory is that Gould had another non-Darwinian version of punctuated equilibrium as opposed to the perfectly Darwinian one that he wrote about, where is this alternative theory? Are you reading it from his mind?

 

[Knotted]

For dilute micro

The period of genetic reorganisation and relaxed selection-pressure is not only a period of permitting rapid evolutionary change, but also offers an otherwise unavailable opportunity for a drastic ecological change of a somewhat unbalanced genetic system.

Rapidly evolving peripherally isolated populations may be the place of origin of many evolutionary novelties. Their isolation and comparatively small size may explain phenomena of rapid evolution and lack of documentation in the fossil record, hitherto puzzling to the paleontologist.

The theory you describe above was not original to Gould and Eldridge even if they used it. If you think it is not compatible with "Darwinism", then evolutionary theory hasn't been "Darwinist" since 1954 and it isn't just Gould who is systematically lying about this "fact", it is Mayr and pretty much everyone else in the field.

 

[dilute micro]

I have no problem with any of the above, except for this unjustified assertion that it is some sort of critique of Darwinism. Since when have evolutionary biologists ever thought that all species evolve at the same rate all the time?

You've demolished a ludicrous strawman. Big deal.

It's not about the evolution of 'all species' - just the punctuated one and its parent.

 

[Knotted]

Common ancestry.

 

[dilute micro]

Common ancestry.

So you believe you've got a grasp on pe, right?

 

[Knotted]

The point was not about pe. The point is that if as you assert that "Darwinism" insists that speciation involves both branches evolving at the same rate, then it is corollary of this insistence (using the doctrine of common ancestry) that all species evolve at the same rate.

This is a ludicrous strawman.

Edit: To be clear -
The point I am making is not that punctuated equilibrium says something other than what you have been saying, but rather that
1) You have not demonstrated that it is inconsistent with evolution by natural selection.
2) You have not understood that this aspect of punctuated evolution that you think is inconsistent with evolution by natural selection is older than punctuated equilibrium and was developed by Ernst Mayr - so we need not even talk about punctuated equilibrium.
3) Your characterisation of "Darwinism" seems to be bizarre and if I follow your logic it should insist that all species evolve at the same rate (whatever "same rate" would mean). I can only wonder what you mean by "Darwinism".

 

[littlebabyjesus]

dm, you think you have a grasp on this despite what others tell you.

Stop and consider, please, that you are wrong, that you do not understand this subject as well as you thought you did.

 

[Santino]

Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms...

...the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form...

 

[Knotted]

I've quoted that to dilute micro before but to no avail.

 

[dilute micro]

I swear there was a darwin facepalm out there somewhere...

 

[dilute micro]

dm, you think you have a grasp on this despite what others tell you.

Stop and consider, please, that you are wrong, that you do not understand this subject as well as you thought you did.

Why don't you stop and consider that you're wrong?

In order to understand why it's not darwinian you have to know what darwinian evolution predicts. The whole purpose of pe was to address the lack of gradual evidence in the fossil record. Darwin's theory is clear on this - that we should be finding transitional forms. That's not what's been found. Things appear fully formed - basically stay that way throughout their fossil record - and then disappear. And this is the overwhelming majority of the animals dug up.

 

[IMR]

Why don't you stop and consider that you're wrong?

In order to understand why it's not darwinian you have to know what darwinian evolution predicts. The whole purpose of pe was to address the lack of gradual evidence in the fossil record. Darwin's theory is clear on this - that we should be finding transitional forms. That's not what's been found. Things appear fully formed - basically stay that way throughout their fossil record - and then disappear. And this is the overwhelming majority of the animals dug up.

There are abundant examples of fossils demonstrating changes within lineages: horses and cetaceans spring to mind immediately.

 

[IMR]

From amphibians to reptiles: plenty of Carboniferous reptiliomorphs here:

http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/190Reptilomorpha/190.200.html

 

[IMR]

Things appear fully formed - basically stay that way throughout their fossil record - and then disappear.

The fossil record for Homo sapiens sapiens shows all sorts of changes over less than 150,000 years: chins becoming stronger, skulls thinner, brow ridges less prominent, leg bones less robust. Even human fossils from 20-30,000 years ago show some slight skeletal differences to today.

Just because a number of fossils from different times have the same species label slapped on them, doesn't automatically mean they're identical, or show no evidence of change.

 

[dilute micro]

There are abundant examples of fossils demonstrating changes within lineages: horses and cetaceans spring to mind immediately.

abundant?

So you disagree with Eldredge, Gould and others that hardly any intermediates are found.

 

[DotCommunist]

archaeopteryx

 

[Knotted]

There's a good article in the New Scientist on the fossil record here. Unfortunately you need to be a subscriber to read the full article...

 

[dilute micro]

The fossil record for Homo sapiens sapiens shows all sorts of changes over less than 150,000 years: chins becoming stronger, skulls thinner, brow ridges less prominent, leg bones less robust. Even human fossils from 20-30,000 years ago show some slight skeletal differences to today.

Just because a number of fossils from different times have the same species label slapped on them, doesn't automatically mean they're identical, or show no evidence of change.

Unfortunately that's not the type of change Gould was talking about. Stasis doesn't mean no changes at all.

 

[Knotted]

Oh ferchrissake.

 

[IMR]

abundant?

So you disagree with Eldredge, Gould and others that hardly any intermediates are found.

I disagree with your statement that there are hardly any intermediates to be found. Gould's interpretation of the Burgess Shale fauna in Wonderful Life had serious flaws (although in fairness many others were similarly overenthusiastic), so I don't see any reason to agree with him unthinkingly on other issues.

But let's see what Gould actually said on the matter. In this 1981 article, he outlines three arguments in favour of evolution:

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?

Read the whole thing here: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

 

[dilute micro]

Gould called the lack of transitional fossils, "the trade secret of paleontology."

The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.

* Gould, S.J. (1977)
"Evolution's Erratic Pace"
Natural History, vol. 86, May

Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome ... brings terrible distress. ... They may get a little bigger or bumpier. But they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, it's not evolution so you don't talk about it.

* Gould, Stephen Jay (1980)
Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, February 14, 1980

tasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. [T]he overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution).

* Gould, S.J. (1993)
"Cordelia's Dilemma"
Natural History, February, p. 15

[W]ell represented species are usually stable throughout their temporal range, or alter so little and in such superficial ways (usually in size alone), that an extrapolation of observed change into longer periods of geological time could not possibly yield the extensive modifications that mark general pathways of evolution in larger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best, nothing much happens to most species.

* Gould, S.J., 1988
"Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness"
Natural History, Vol. 97, No. 12, December, p.14

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Stasis.html



Here's Eldredge:

"Each new generation, it seems, produces a few young paleontologists eager to document examples of evolutionary change in their fossils. The changes they have always looked for have, of course, been of the gradual, progressive sort. More often than not their efforts have gone unrewarded - their fossils, rather than exhibiting the expected pattern, just seem to persist virtually unchanged. - This extraordinary conservatism looked, to the paleontologist keen on finding evolutionary change, as if no evolution had occurred. Thus studies documenting conservative persistence rather than gradual evolutionary change were considered failures, and, more than not, were not even published. Most paleontologists were aware of the stability, the lack of change we call stasis. - But insofar as evolution itself is concerned, paleontologists usually saw stasis as "no results" rather than as a contradiction of the prediction of gradual, progressive evolutionary change. Gaps in the record continue (to this day) to be invoked as the prime reason why so few cases of gradual change are found." - Evolutionary Tempos and Modes: A Paleontological Perspective

 

[Knotted]

The quotes you produce do not support your argument. To the layman like me, it either looks like I am missing some major detail or I'm dealing with an idiot. I've read enough about this topic to know that there is no major detail that I am missing. Stasis doesn't demonstrate that there are gaps in the fossil record, it doesn't explain gaps in the fossil record. It doesn't say anything about transitional forms because it asserts that there isn't much transition going on. The hypothesis that stasis is prevalent accounts for the lack of transitional forms only by explaining that there are fewer transitions than you would expect otherwise.

Dilute micro - you are an idiot.

 

[Knotted]

Veritas forum. You've just taken a bunch of quotes from a creationist website. Brilliant. Creationist quote mining. No wonder it doesn't add up.

 

[gorski]

You're not missing a major detail?!? AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, you're know I am NOT a creationist and you know I am not an uncritical "darwinist", so... how about you guys accounting for "other possibilities"...???

 

[Knotted]

Of course there are other possibilities. You for example are above darwinism and above creationism. Basically you're too sexy for either. You don't know enough about the subject to even say something idiotic about it. You are just a bimbo.

 

[dilute micro]

The quotes you produce do not support your argument. To the layman like me, it either looks like I am missing some major detail or I'm dealing with an idiot. I've read enough about this topic to know that there is no major detail that I am missing. Stasis doesn't demonstrate that there are gaps in the fossil record, it doesn't explain gaps in the fossil record. It doesn't say anything about transitional forms because it asserts that there isn't much transition going on. The hypothesis that stasis is prevalent accounts for the lack of transitional forms only by explaining that there are fewer transitions than you would expect otherwise.

Dilute micro - you are an idiot.

Oh my, you went nearly incoherent. 1st, it doesn't matter which site collects quotes - it only matters that the quotes are real. 2nd, the quotes do support "my" argument (actually Gould and Eldredge's argument).

You are missing a major detail - there are hardly any transitional forms to be found in paleontology.

It's a common misconception that the opposite is true. That's because, as in IMR's quote above, Gould said different things depending on who the listening audience was. To his scientists peers he not only acknowledged that the fossil record was lacking transitional forms but chided them for not accepting it. To the general public he cleverly talked up darwinistic gradualism and outright lied when he said, "transitions are often found in the fossil record". As we can see, he knew better.

Funny how critical thinking vanishes on this topic. You demonstrate it by blocking out the meaning and intent of Gould's doublespeak because it's revealed to you by a creationist website (who only bothered to jot them down). You even deny that Gould said it by referring to it as "Creationist quote mining", and for that reason, "it doesn't add up". Well wake up knotted. Go learn.




It's not just Gould and Eldredge. Here's a quote by David Raup, U of Chicago, Field Museum:

"Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descended pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups. Darwin even went so far as to say that if this were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin's time, and he explained this in part on the basis of an incomplete geologic record and in part on the lack of study of that record. We are now more than a hundred years after Darwin and the situation is little changed. Since Darwin a tremendous expansion of paleontological knowledge has taken place, and we know much more about the fossil record than was known in his time, but the basic situation is not much different. We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transitions than we had in Darwin's time, because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail. To be sure, some new intermediate or transitional forms have been found, particularly among vertebrates. But if Darwin were writing today, he would still have to cite a disturbing lack of missing links or transitional forms between the major groups of organisms."

Raup again:

"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian that it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found - yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into the textbooks. .... One of the ironies of the evolution -creation debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this "fact" in their Flood geology." [Science, vol.213, p.289.]

 

[gorski]

Of course there are other possibilities. You for example are above darwinism and above creationism. Basically you're too sexy for either. You don't know enough about the subject to even say something idiotic about it. You are just a bimbo.

What a heavy duty shit to say... when you're nothing but a troll...

 

[Knotted]

@dm: You haven't understood my reply. I couldn't care a less whether you are a creationist or not or where you get your quotes from. You have no ability to string an argument together. It's like trying wrestle with soup.

 

[Knotted]

What a heavy duty shit to say... when you're nothing but a troll...

Gorksi, you don't know the subject, you don't care about the subject. Find something that interests you. I'm not debating your lack of opinion. Your purpose on this thread is to be insulted.