NationStates Jolt Archive

How does punctuated equilibrium mesh with the theory of Darwinian evolution? Would it not clash with his ideas?

Punctuated equilibrium claims that science cannot discover the links between species in the fossil record because the change from one species to another occurs too rapidly to leave accurate fossil documentation.

Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

So, are evolutionists willing to "break down" Darwin's theory in an effort to make some form of evolution fit the facts?

Punctuated equilibrium claims that science cannot discover the links between species in the fossil record because the change from one species to another occurs too rapidly to leave accurate fossil documentation.

no it doesn't

no it doesn't

Care to tell me how it doesn't?

There are theories of evolution and there is the fact of evolution. Don't get them confused.

Theories of evolution, like punctuated equilibrium, seek to explain how evolution happened.

The fact of evolution is simply that over time ancient species have changed into the ones we see around us today. I call it a fact because the ammount of evidence supporting it makes it almost certainly true. It's as much a fact as heliocentric theory.

There are theories of evolution and there is the fact of evolution. Don't get them confused.

Theories of evolution, like punctuated equilibrium, seek to explain how evolution happened.

The fact of evolution is simply that over time ancient species have changed into the ones we see around us today. I call it a fact because the ammount of evidence supporting it makes it almost certainly true. It's as much a fact as heliocentric theory.

True, I do believe in evolution, in the definition of things changing (i.e., a seed growing and blooming). But I'm speaking of Darwinian evolution. Two very different things.

True, I do believe in evolution, in the definition of things changing (i.e., a seed growing and blooming). But I'm speaking of Darwinian evolution. Two very different things.
Let's clear something up. Do you beleive that the current forms of life on this planet evolved from earlier forms of life?

Let's clear something up. Do you beleive that the current forms of life on this planet evolved from earlier forms of life?

To a certain extent. I do not believe we began from primordial ooze. But I do believe we constantly change; in the earlier parts of our life, we get better; in the later parts, we begin to deteriorate.

If that's cleared up, can we move on? Are you trying to prove that I somehow believe in darwinism?

But I do believe we constantly change; in the earlier parts of our life, we get better; in the later parts, we begin to deteriorate.

What? Is that evolution?

To a certain extent. I do not believe we began from primordial ooze. But I do believe we constantly change; in the earlier parts of our life, we get better; in the later parts, we begin to deteriorate.

If that's cleared up, can we move on? Are you trying to prove that I somehow believe in darwinism?
No, I mean do you beleive that the species we see today came from earlier species? I'm leaving primordial ooze out, since it's got nothing to do with evolution, and I'm not talking about us changing personally. I'm talking about whether you beleive one species can evolve into another.

What? Is that evolution?
No, it's not. It's aging.

To a certain extent. I do not believe we began from primordial ooze. But I do believe we constantly change; in the earlier parts of our life, we get better; in the later parts, we begin to deteriorate.


Thats not evolution. Thats aging. Dont mix terms up it just add pages on to the thread where everyone sorts out what the other is saying.

What? Is that evolution?

Do you not understand? I said I believe in the evolution of which we change; not Darwinism. We age. That's been proven, am I correct?

Why won't anyone touch on the topic of which I started this thread?

No, I mean do you beleive that the species we see today came from earlier species? I'm leaving primordial ooze out, since it's got nothing to do with evolution, and I'm not talking about us changing personally. I'm talking about whether you beleive one species can evolve into another.

Absolutely not.

Care to tell me how it doesn't?

well, seeing as gould and eldrege came up with the whole idea based on several extremely well documented fossil transitions, the claim is just silly.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

well, seeing as gould and eldrege came up with the whole idea based on several extremely well documented fossil transitions, the claim is just silly.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

Interesting.
However, I would like it if one person would just try to answer my question.

Absolutely not.

Man, i've never met a guy who didnt even beleive in microevolution before. You sir a rare species (if you'll excuse the pun). Even most hardcore creationists accept that there is some change.

Do you not understand? I said I believe in the evolution of which we change; not Darwinism. We age. That's been proven, am I correct?

Why won't anyone touch on the topic of which I started this thread?

So you don't believe in evolution.

As for the original topic, I am not anywhere near as informed as I should be, but from what I understand PE does not at all conflict with the Darwin quote you posted.

PE has nothing to do with the process of evolution. It just states that when a subset of a species becomes geographically seperated from the rest of its species, evolutionary pressures due to environmental changes become more pronounced and may speed up the evolutionary process.

Man, i've never met a guy who didnt even beleive in microevolution before. You sir a rare species (if you'll excuse the pun). Even most hardcore creationists accept that there is some change.

First of all, I'm a girl, mmkay?

Second, I never said I don't believe in microevolution. We were speaking of macro, if you don't mind.

Darwin's theory of evolution is one theory. Punctuated equilibrium is another theory. They're theories of HOW EVOLUTION HAPPENED. They are separate from the fact that evolution has happened. I tried to make that clear in my first post on this thread, then Lochiel tried to muddy the issue and, it seems, tried to get me to endorse the old Darwinian theory through trickery. Maybe it was a mistake, but creationists seem to make too many mistakes to chalk all of them up to accident.

I have a feeling that this individual learned a misrepresented form of punctuated equilibrium from a Christian website. It took me two minutes of reading on Wikipedia to realize that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

First of all, I'm a girl, mmkay?

Second, I never said I don't believe in microevolution. We were speaking of macro, if you don't mind.

ok ma'am. You said you didnt beleive species changed whatsoever, so you can see how i got there.

Darwin's theory of evolution is one theory. Punctuated equilibrium is another theory. They're theories of HOW EVOLUTION HAPPENED. They are separate from the fact that evolution has happened. I tried to make that clear in my first post on this thread, then Lochiel tried to muddy the issue and, it seems, tried to get me to endorse the old Darwinian theory through trickery. Maybe it was a mistake, but creationists seem to make too many mistakes to chalk all of them up to accident.

Explain, then. I'd like to know where I went wrong.
I want someone to answer my question, but obviously, all you want to do is dance around what you know and what you don't know.

well, PE does conflict just a little with Darwinisms Gradualization theory where everything is constantly changing vs. PE's things stay the same for a long period of time and then quickly change (tho, quick changes are still millions of years)

I have a feeling that this individual learned a misrepresented form of punctuated equilibrium from a Christian website. It took me two minutes of reading on Wikipedia to realize that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Good God, I'm a girl... And no, I haven't been reading Christian websites.

well, PE does conflict just a little with Darwinisms Gradualization theory where everything is constantly changing vs. PE's things stay the same for a long period of time and then quickly change (tho, quick changes are still millions of years)

Thank you very much. Finally, someone who understands.

Interesting.
However, I would like it if one person would just try to answer my question.
Punctuated equilibrium's changes still take place over many generations. It's not instant. It doesn't invalidate evolution. We're just talking about a process occuring in a hundred thousand years or so rather than a million for example. In geological time it's quick, but in human terms it's still fucking slow.

EDIT: I pulled the numbers out of thin air to illustrate the point.

Explain, then. I'd like to know where I went wrong.
I want someone to answer my question, but obviously, all you want to do is dance around what you know and what you don't know.

I dont see the point. Punctuated equilibrium is not what you stated in your first post, and it is not an obstacle to evolutionary theory. Read the link on the previous page.

Good God, I'm a girl... And no, I haven't been reading Christian websites.

Sorry, simple mistake.

As for an answer to your question, read post 17.

Second, I never said I don't believe in microevolution. We were speaking of macro, if you don't mind.
They're more or less the same damn thing. Macroevolution simply refers to changes at the species level or above. Incidentally, these changes have been observed, so macroevolution is a fact. I win. You lose.

Interesting.
However, I would like it if one person would just try to answer my question.

From the talk origins link, which you appear to have ignored.

"[Punctuated equilibrium] sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent a significant portion of their original work examining two separate lines of evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites) demonstrating the issues behind [Punctuated equilibrium] (1972). Similarly, discussion of actual paleontological evidence consumes a significant proportion of pages in Gould and Eldredge 1977."

So basically, your definition of Puntuated Equilibrium is incorrect, therefore rendering your question meaningless.

well, PE does conflict just a little with Darwinisms Gradualization theory where everything is constantly changing vs. PE's things stay the same for a long period of time and then quickly change (tho, quick changes are still millions of years)

only if either position is taken to be exclusive of the other. but i don't think anyone seriously holds that position.

Punctuated equilibrium's changes still take place over many generations. It's not instant. It doesn't invalidate evolution. We're just talking about a process occuring in a hundred thousand years or so rather than a million for example. In geological time it's quick, but in human terms it's still fucking slow.

EDIT: I pulled the numbers out of thin air to illustrate the point.

All right...
Then I have a question for you, since you seem to pretty learned in your belief. I am respectful that you're not a dumbass idiot who loves to argue no matter what he/she knows.
Science cannot observe or measure the supernatural, so therefore, creationism is thrown out, correct?
But by this definition, science cannot render judgment on the theory of evolution, because ONE TIME ONLY events fall outside the parameters of the scientific method because such events cannot be repeated, observed, tested, or falsified.
Accordingly, are neither creation or evolution strictly scientific?

So basically, your definition of Puntuated Equilibrium is incorrect, therefore rendering your question meaningless.

precisely. one of the best skills to learn is the ability to spot a bad question. it saves tons of time.

precisely. one of the best skills to learn is the ability to spot a bad question. it saves tons of time.

Well, then excuse my fault. I am wanting to learn each and every side of evolution and creationism.

Science cannot observe or measure the supernatural, so therefore, creationism is thrown out, correct?

nah, creationism gets thrown out for being utterly wrong on every prediction it has ever been construed to make.

But by this definition, science cannot render judgment on the theory of evolution, because ONE TIME ONLY events fall outside the parameters of the scientific method because such events cannot be repeated, observed, tested, or falsified.

every event only happens once.

every event only happens once.

I'm sure you know what I mean. Scientists can recreate formulas.

But by this definition, science cannot render judgment on the theory of evolution, because ONE TIME ONLY events fall outside the parameters of the scientific method because such events cannot be repeated, observed, tested, or falsified.

Abiogenesis isn't evolution. Strike One.

You don't understand that scientists can observe, test, and falsify one time only events. Strike two.

You don't have to repeat an event. You merely have to show that if an event happened again, it would happen the same way. Strike three. You're out.

You don't understand that scientists can observe, test, and falsify one time only events. Strike two.

Not if they weren't there.

Well, then excuse my fault. I am wanting to learn each and every side of evolution and creationism.
You sure as hell aren't acting as if you want to learn about evolution, given the amount of strawmen you're spewing out.

Not if they weren't there.
Events leave evidence that they happened. Seriously, you're just being willfully ignorant now.

Events leave evidence that they happened. Seriously, you're just being willfully ignorant now.

This is futile. I'm sorry, but the only ignorance I'm finding is of the people who aren't even willing to understand. I'm done.

I'm sure you know what I mean. Scientists can recreate formulas.

and by using the available lines of evidence, scientists can reconstruct the past. exactly in the manner that crime scene investigators can. which is exactly the same way that physicists and astronomers can reconstruct not only temporally distant events, like the formation of the solar system, but also physically distant ones like the formation of stars on the other side of the galaxy.

This is futile. I'm sorry, but the only ignorance I'm finding is of the people who aren't even willing to understand. I'm done.
Here I am trying to educate you, but you just ignore everything I say. Glad to see you go.

This is futile. I'm sorry, but the only ignorance I'm finding is of the people who aren't even willing to understand. I'm done.

Understand what? Evolution can be explored using the scientific method, no matter what you think on the subject.

Here I am trying to educate you, but you just ignore everything I say. Glad to see you go.

She just flat out ignored my answer to the original question. At least you got recognized.

She just flat out ignored my answer to the original question. At least you got recognized.
The trick is to make them defensive.

How does punctuated equilibrium mesh with the theory of Darwinian evolution? Would it not clash with his ideas?

Punctuated equilibrium claims that science cannot discover the links between species in the fossil record because the change from one species to another occurs too rapidly to leave accurate fossil documentation.

Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

So, are evolutionists willing to "break down" Darwin's theory in an effort to make some form of evolution fit the facts?

As far as I can tell, punctuated equilibrium deals more in species microevolution and very little in macroevolution and fossil documentation. I know very little about this particular topic, so if I interpret this wrong feel free to disregard this post. However, punctuated equilibrium can indeed mesh with Darwin's theory of evolution, because puncutated equilibrium never argues the basic idea that species do indeed evolve. It merely attempts to explain the speed differences in this evolution- why species evolve very, very slowly and then suddenly there are drastic changes.

Knowing me, I'm interpreting this wrong- but enough people were going off on tangents that I thought an opinion on the original topic, however misinformed, wouldn't hurt anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

This link will provide those that start threads because they are ignorant about what they are talking about with quite useful information.

Any questions might be directed to me.

And mutations happen slowly and enter a population very gradually. And unless a very strong environment change occurs, it is hard to tell what is evolved or what isn't.

For example, do you know that Europeans are now more resistant to ebola-like viruses (possibly including the Marburg virus too)? This is because the black plague killed most of the people that did not have resistances to that kind of disease (one third of europe's population died). This is natural selection, the survival of the fittest. Only those carrying the genes that gave them resistance to the plague survived and reproduced.

Evolution isn't just a change in appearance. It's a change in the genes of a population, or part of it. Then there might be factors from the outside that only allow those with the right set of genes to survive.

Like the peppered moth case and the industrial revolution.

The moths were white but in some cases, melanism occured and these moths with mutations were black. The moths rested in trees or something (I don't remember the story quite well), camouflaging themselves against the trunks. The blacks ones were easier to spot by predators, so they had harder time reproducing, keeping the population to a minimum (if you had basics on genetics you would understand why this happens). But when the industrial revolution started, the trees became blackened by pollution and the trunks became darker. Then the black moths got an advantage in their camouflage and the white moths became easier to spot by the predators, which lead to an increase in the population of the moths with melanism and a decrease of the original form's population.

This is natural selection for you. (Well, not so natural since it was caused by man, but it's an example of an outside pressure that leads to the advantage of an animal with a certain set of genes over another).


Basically, in a population of a certain species, mutations occur. Various mutations for various genes. And then there are environmental pressures that make those mutations either good, bad or indifferent. And after many generations, most of the population will have inherited those genes that were favorable in the past, the good mutations, since the bad mutations did not allow the others to survive.


If anyone refutes evolution it's because they do not know how it works. They do not know shit about genetics or evolution. They do not have the basis to refute it because they don't know anything about it. It's like me trying to refute the relativity theory, even not knowing anything about it. It's like me stating that king Whatever of the 12th century of England was gay without ever reading or researching about him.

Stop the stupidity now. Seek the truth.

All right...
Then I have a question for you, since you seem to pretty learned in your belief. I am respectful that you're not a dumbass idiot who loves to argue no matter what he/she knows.
Science cannot observe or measure the supernatural, so therefore, creationism is thrown out, correct?
But by this definition, science cannot render judgment on the theory of evolution, because ONE TIME ONLY events fall outside the parameters of the scientific method because such events cannot be repeated, observed, tested, or falsified.
Accordingly, are neither creation or evolution strictly scientific?
Evolution can still be tested. If the fossil record fails to hold it up, like if a human skeleton was found buried next to a T-Rex, evolution would be shot. Creationism can't be tested. It can always fall back on god's supernatural powers.

Something no one else has seen fit to point out:
Punctuated equilibrium and Darwinism are not two different things. PE is a subset of Darwinian evolutionary theory. PE still acknowledges natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, and fits with ALL of Darwin's theory; it just isn't a gradualistic theory like a lot of the others. This does not mean it isn't Darwinism, just that it applies Darwinism to different timescales than gradualism does.