Niles Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria (Page 5) zeffur: Only illiterate people use the phrase "I could care less" when the proper phrase is "I couldn't care less."  AchillesSinatra: Some of my best friends in the science forum are illiterate. You're not like the rest. AchillesSinatra: To restate, my intention here, as laid out in the OP, is to refute the following two claims: 1. There exists something that can sensibly be called "THE theory of evolution", and 2. The theory of evolution "fits all the facts" Near the start of their seminal 1972 paper on punctuated equilibria, Niles Eldredge and co-author Stephen Jay Gould specify the position they are militating against: the traditional Darwin-based theory of slow, steady, adaptive evolution. They refer to it as "phyletic gradualism". Gould and Eldredge identify the following four tenets of phyletic gradualism (and I quote): (1) New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendents (2) The transformation is even and slow (3) The transformation involves large numbers, usually the entire ancestral population (4) The transformation occurs over all or a large part of the ancestral species' geographical range One of the testable implications of phyletic gradualism is (and I quote again): "Ideally, the fossil record for the origin of a new species should consist of a long sequence of continuous, insensibly graded intermediate forms linking ancestor and descendant" Now, as some of you may have discovered yourselves, you can show a frothing Darwinian pretty much anything you like and still be told, "That's perfectly in accordance with my theory. My theory fits all the facts  ".On the other hand, both thoughtful Darwinians (including CD himself) and their opponents have been aware since the publication of 'Origin' that phyletic gradualism does not fit all the facts: The fossil record does not typically consist of "a long sequence of continuous, insensibly graded intermediate forms linking ancestor and descendant". Few are more keenly aware of this theoretical embarrassment than paleontologists such as Eldredge and Gould themselves. Does this mean, then, that phyletic gradualism is falsified and must be abandoned? Well, loyal patrons of my "Falsifiability" thread will hopefully be aware by now that there is rarely, if ever, a definitive refutation in empirical science. If its defenders are stubborn -- and ingenuous! -- enough, a seemingly troubled theory can always be shielded from falsification by (say) appeal to unrecognized forces or hidden variables, by postulating an undiscovered planet or subatomic particle, or by conjuring up a cosmological constant (as Einstein did). Darwin's own theory-saving pretext, and the excuse that has been echoed ever since, for the fact-theory incongruity is that of "incompleteness of the fossil record". The fossils unearthed so far, we are told, constitute a non-representative sample. Gould and Elredge are having none of this. Now, make no mistake, punctuated equilibria is not being offered as a supplement or additive to phyletic gradualism, but a rival theory, as betrayed in the full title of their paper: "Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism". G&E go on to list their own four tenets of punctuated equilibria as a contrast to those of phyletic gradualism adumbrated above (and I quote once more): (1) New species arise by the splitting of lineages (2) New species develop rapidly (3) A small sub-population of the ancestral form gives rise to the new species (4) The new species originates in a very small part of the ancestral species' geographical extent -- in an isolated area at the periphery of the range Conclusion: "THE theory of evolution", you say? Er, which one?  "Fits/explains all the facts", you say? Er, what does? (Edited by AchillesSinatra) zeffur: Blah blah blah--no evolution theory 'fits the facts'--and they never have & never shall! They are all shite theories that aren't worth the medium they are document on/within. The ToE/neo-evolution & Punctuated Equilibria are the remnants of confused minds seeking to understand, but never able to comprehend the truth. The truth is...wait for it: No one knows for certain--and certainly can't prove--how life originated on earth & there is NO credible evidence that shows 'evolution' has ANY merit whatsoever. All real variations are merely the natural expressions of heredity that have nothing to do with genetic improvement mutations--as far as we know & can prove. There are NO new KINDs of organisms. The only reasonable explanation for whole organisms that have suddenly popped into the fossil record is that they were brought to or created on earth--to my knowledge, there is NO OTHER reasonable explanation for what we see in the fossil record! Evolutionists have had over 150 years to try to prove their 'evolution' guesses are true/valid & they have failed miserably. Enough of their baseless rubbish & con games! (Edited by zeffur)  theHating: Claughty from the internet says: Pretty sure punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism are hypothesis and models, respectively, and are not separate theories. In fact THE theory of evolution is "...the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more offspring." Me thinks he didn't read your whole post. theHating: I only got that one response before the mods told me to remove my thread and post it to /debateevolution theHating: Yeah, i was pretty shocked to see a moderator not read anything and call me a creationist AchillesSinatra: Try the "Philosophy and Science forums". The head mod there is super clever. And a friend of mine  theHating: The current understanding of fitness is dispositional . That is to say, fitness is a disposition of a trait to reproduce better than competitors. -Evolution and Philosophy A Good Tautology is Hard to Find by John Wilkins. AchillesSinatra: Yes, I've read the dispositional interpretation And no, it's not orthodoxy. Wanna hear Ernst Mayr? theHating: That "the theory" exists as the sum of it's parts (natural selection, common descent, speciation...)? AchillesSinatra: Of course it doesn't. Depends who you read, pal. Dawkins says yes, like any normal frothing Darwinian. Others say no. AchillesSinatra: What Gould, Eldredge and their epigones will tell you is: "Of course, macro-evolution occurs. But Darwinian forces alone cannot account for it" theHating: Hahaha i love you achilles. For a while, i thought you were just trying to sterilize natural selection. AchillesSinatra: Of course, natural selection is rubbish. Think about this: All ships have traits conducive only to seaworthiness? True? Of course not. Some features conducive to seaworthiness? How could it be otherwise? (Edited by AchillesSinatra) AchillesSinatra: What's the theory again? Organisms have some traits conducive to being alive? Well, if they didn't.... you tell me? | Science Chat Room Similar Conversations |
