Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,207
- 2,512
Here is an observation:
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'.-Stephen Jay Gould "Evolution's Erratic Pace",Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977
And:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History
My post said nothing whatever about "transitional forms".
Quote Originally Posted by Barbarian View Post
"Allopatric speciation suggests that species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume and the process of gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments.[15] If this is the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the fossil record indicates. Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow. In addition, pressure from natural selection is especially intense, as peripheral isolated populations exist at the outer edges of ecological tolerance. If most evolution happens in these rare instances of allopatric speciation then evidence of gradual evolution in the fossil record should be rare. This stimulating hypothesis was alluded to by Mayr in the closing paragraph of his 1954 paper (p. 179)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
Notice that Gould's point was that gradual, sympatric speciation should be rare, as the evidence shows it is. But notice that it's not absent. It's just not the normal mode. Gould mentions horses, for example. I can show you why it's gradual, with many slight changes over a very long time, if you like.
He noted that the fossil record is consistent with Mayr's data, and a punctuated equilibrium, with most speciation taking place in small, isolated populations at the edge of the range of the species. So the theory is well-established, because it best fits the evidence.
Since the observable science supports Gould's theory, most scientists have gone over to it. It is, as we discussed earlier, consistent with Darwinian theory.
No. Observable science was "Generally sudden appearance, fully formed." Big difference.
No. It's based on data and observation.
For creation, yes. Creationism, no.
Barbarian observes:
Remember, the "creation model" includes evolution, since that is how God did it..
We're not in a court of law. Science is quite a bit more rigorous in terms of evidence. So you're going to have to pull it up a notch or two.
Obviously, creation is based on faith, and therefore, "not in evidence." But here, most of us agree that creation is a fact, even if we differ because God didn't say in detail how He did it.
Seems like a pretty good assumption. "Life began." But of course, it doesn't assume any particular origin. So, if you want to believe that God did it the way He did, that's fine. Or if you want to take Genesis as a literal history, that works, too. Or whatever.
We can only point out that the evidence shows that the first chapter of Genesis can't be reworked into a literal history.
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'.-Stephen Jay Gould "Evolution's Erratic Pace",Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977
And:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History
My post said nothing whatever about "transitional forms".
Quote Originally Posted by Barbarian View Post
"Allopatric speciation suggests that species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume and the process of gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments.[15] If this is the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the fossil record indicates. Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow. In addition, pressure from natural selection is especially intense, as peripheral isolated populations exist at the outer edges of ecological tolerance. If most evolution happens in these rare instances of allopatric speciation then evidence of gradual evolution in the fossil record should be rare. This stimulating hypothesis was alluded to by Mayr in the closing paragraph of his 1954 paper (p. 179)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
Notice that Gould's point was that gradual, sympatric speciation should be rare, as the evidence shows it is. But notice that it's not absent. It's just not the normal mode. Gould mentions horses, for example. I can show you why it's gradual, with many slight changes over a very long time, if you like.
He noted that the fossil record is consistent with Mayr's data, and a punctuated equilibrium, with most speciation taking place in small, isolated populations at the edge of the range of the species. So the theory is well-established, because it best fits the evidence.
Since the observable science supports Gould's theory, most scientists have gone over to it. It is, as we discussed earlier, consistent with Darwinian theory.
No. Observable science was "Generally sudden appearance, fully formed." Big difference.
No. It's based on data and observation.
For creation, yes. Creationism, no.
Barbarian observes:
Remember, the "creation model" includes evolution, since that is how God did it..
We're not in a court of law. Science is quite a bit more rigorous in terms of evidence. So you're going to have to pull it up a notch or two.
Obviously, creation is based on faith, and therefore, "not in evidence." But here, most of us agree that creation is a fact, even if we differ because God didn't say in detail how He did it.
Seems like a pretty good assumption. "Life began." But of course, it doesn't assume any particular origin. So, if you want to believe that God did it the way He did, that's fine. Or if you want to take Genesis as a literal history, that works, too. Or whatever.
We can only point out that the evidence shows that the first chapter of Genesis can't be reworked into a literal history.
