Replies

I think you are the one who needs to "explain" your sweeping generalizations

Such as?

as well as your lack of a spell checker.

Wow, I misplace a space (typing "certainlys eem" instead of "certainly seem"), and suddenly you go off on a cheap spelling flame. How utterly childish of you.

If you go back "hundreds" of years you get into Lamarkism and beyond.

So?

Hardly support for Darwinian gradualism, natural selection through random genetic mutation.

Learn to read. I spoke of "observations over the past several hundred years" being consistent in their support of Darwinian evolution. The fact that Darwinian theory itself was first published in 1859 doesn't change the fact that observations made prior to that date still provide support for the theory. Or did it escape your attention that even Darwin himself cited pre-1859 observations as being supportive of his theory? Indeed, the pattern of those observations was what had strongly suggested evolution to him (and others, such as Wallace) in the first place.

One of the very frustrating things about these threads is the lack of knowledge of the history of science.

Indeed, which is why I wish you'd stop sniping about my accurate statement of the timespan over which evidence supporting evolution has been gathered -- apparently based on your ignorance of the history of this field of biology.

As to the evidence against Darwinian gradualism,

Oh look, "shifting the goalposts". Why are you trying to change the subject all of a sudden? "Gradualism" is distinct from jwalsh07's "small changes over long periods of time" (since even punctuated equilibrium proceeds via "small changes over long periods of time"), and is worlds apart from your "Darwin got it wrong concluding random genetic mutation leading to natural selection from a 'war of the survival of the fittest' is the agent of change within species". Don't try to change the subject when you've stuck your foot in your mouth.

It appears that your "lack of knowledge of the history of science" causes you to misunderstand what is meant by "gradualism" in the field of evolutionary biology. It is not, as you falsely believe, synonymous with the concept of slow evolutionary change (slow by the standards of a human lifetime, that is), nor is it synonymous with the concept of relatively minor changes per generation eventually accumulating into large species-level changes. It denotes only the outmoded notion that evolutionary change occurs at a slow and *STEADY* continuous pace.

As for "Darwinian gradualism", there is no such thing, since Darwin himself did not believe in gradualism in this sense. Classic gradualism only came into vogue *after* Darwin, as subsequent thinkers overlooked or discounted Darwin's own caveats about the likely intermittency of evolution. Strict gradualism at the species level was mostly abandoned at the time of the Modern Synthesis in the 1930's and 40's, but phyletic gradualism was still considered likely to be true until questions were raised about it in the 1970's (primarily by Gould and Eldrige). But this was just a return to Darwin's original view of NONgradualism:

I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed." (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 140-141)
But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification. (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 152)
"It is a more important consideration ... that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change." (Darwin, Ch. 10, "On the imperfection of the geological record," p. 428)
"Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]
[All quotes from Darwin's 1859 "On the Origin of Species"]

This is classic Puncuated Equilibrium -- from Darwin himself. But then, if you weren't suffering from a "lack of knowledge of the history of science", you'd already know this.

you might read Gould,

I have indeed, which is why I know that you *haven't*, because no one who has actually read Gould could possibly mischaracterize his writings as poorly and inaccurately as you have here:

who developed the PunkEek theory because he candidly recognized there was no evidence in support of gradualism.

Complete BS, son. Admit it -- you haven't read Gould, you've just read creationist propaganda about his work, and their dishonest out-of-context quotes from Gould.

Let's see what Gould *ACTUALLY* says on this subject, shall we?

"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record."
- Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182
"It [PE] represents no departure from Darwinian mechanisms."
-- Gould and Eldredge 1977, Section IV, "PE as the basis for a Theory of Macroevolution", page 139
"Evolution is a theory of organic change, but it does not imply, as many people assume, that ceaseless flux is the irreducible state of nature and that structure is but a temporary incarnation of the moment. Change is more often a rapid transition between stable states than a continuous transformation at slow and steady rates."
-- Gould, Stephen Jay 1980. "A Quahog is a Quahog", The Panda's Thumb. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., pp. 204-13
"Many colleagues thought that we had raised the old anti-Darwinian specter of macromutationism, or truly sudden speciation in a single generation by a large and incredibly lucky mutation. I do not know why this happened; I think that all our articles and public statements were clear in separating human from geological rapidity. The theory, after all, is rooted in this distinction —- for punctuated equilibrium is the recognition that gradualism on our mortal measuring rod of three score years and ten translates to suddenness at the planet's temporal scale."
-- S. J. Gould, "Opus 200"
"For a variety of reasons, small isolated populations have unusual potential for effective change: for example, favorable genes can quickly spread throughout the population, while the interaction of random change (rarely important in large populations) with natural selection provides another effective pathway for substantial evolution. Even with these possibilities for accelerated change, the formation of a new species from a peripherally isolated population would be glacially slow by the usual standard of our lifetimes. Suppose the process took five to ten thousand years. We might stand in the midst of this peripheral isolate for all our earthly days and see nothing in the way of major change. But now we come to the nub of punctuated equilibrium. Five to ten thousand years may be an eternity in human time, but such an interval represents an earthly instant in almost any geological situation—a single bedding plane (not a gradual sequence through meters of strata)."
-- Ibid.
"What then is the expected geological expression of speciation in a peripherally isolated population? The answer is, and must be, punctuated equilibrium. The speciation event occurs in a geological instant and in a region of limited extent at some distance from the parental population. In other words, punctuated equilibrium—and not gradualism—is the expected geological translation for the standard account of speciation in evolutionary theory. Species arise in a geological moment—the punctuation (slow by our standards, abrupt by the planet's). [...] Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication, primarily because they did not think at geological scales."
-- Ibid.
"Charles Darwin often remarked that his revolutionary work had two distinct aims: first, to demonstrate the fact of evolution (the genealogical connection of all organisms and a history of life regulated by "descent with modification"); second, to advance the theory of natural selection as the most important mechanism of evolution. Darwin triumphed in his first aim (American creationism of the Christian far right notwithstanding). Virtually all thinking people accept the factuality of evolution, and no conclusion in science enjoys better documentation. Darwin also succeeded substantially in his second aim. Natural selection, an immensely powerful idea with radical philosophical implications, is surely a major cause of evolution, as validated in theory and demonstrated by countless experiments.
S. J. Gould, "The New York Review of Books", Volume 44, Number 10 · June 12, 1997
"...may I state for the record that I (along with all other Darwinian pluralists) do not deny either the existence and central importance of adaptation, or the production of adaptation by natural selection. Yes, eyes are for seeing and feet are for moving. And, yes again, I know of no scientific mechanism other than natural selection with the proven power to build structures of such eminently workable design."
-- Ibid.

Or as accurately summarized by another author:

"But Gould, Eldredge and Stanley are talking about the failure of the fossil record to document fine-scale transitions between pairs of species, and its dramatic documentation of rapid evolutionary bursts involving multiple speciation events -- so-called adaptive radiations. They are not talking about any failure of the fossil record to document the existence of intermediate forms (to the contrary, there are so many intermediates for many well-preserved taxa that it is notoriously difficult to identify true ancestors even when the fossil record is very complete). Nor are Gould, Eldredge, and Stanley talking about any failure of the fossil record to document large-scale trends, which do exist, however jerky they may be. Furthermore, fine-scale transitions are not absent from the fossil record but are merely underrepresented. Eldredge, Gould. and Stanley reason that this is the unsurprising consequence of known mechanisms of speciation. Additionally, certain ecological conditions may favor speciation and rapid evolution, so new taxa may appear abruptly in the fossil record in association with adaptive radiation. Since creationists acknowledge that fine-scale transitions (including those resulting in reproductive isolation) exist and since the fossil record clearly documents large-scale "transitions," it would seem that the creationists have no case. Indeed. they do not. Their case is an artifact of misrepresentation to the lay public of exactly what the fossil record fails to document."
-- Laurie R. Godfrey, "Scientific Creationism: The Art of Distortion", 1984

How many more quotes would you like me to provide to show you how badly you've misrepresented Gould? No one who has *actually* read Gould (which clearly leaves out yourself) could possibly have missed his frequent statements of conviction of the strength of the vast amount of evidence for Darwinian selection as the main engine of evolutionary change. Who lied to you and told you otherwise? And why are you repeating that propaganda here without verifying it yourself?

When change occurs in organisms it occurs quickly and directly, without need for random mutation, many mutations of an organism and the good old "battle for survival of the fittest."

Uh huh... And where did you "learn" *this* amazing non-fact? Just for fun, let's see you cite three studies which support your fantasy. There are countless thousands which prove you wrong. Here's one for starters:

Dynamics of adaptation and diversification: a 10,000-generation experiment with bacterial populations.

I'm sorry, what's that you were blathering about earlier? Something about, "Darwin theorized that random mutation would create many different versions of an organism who would compete against each other for resources until all but the best adapted to the environment have died out. Well there's just no evidence for that."? There are mountains of evidence for exactly that. Where on Earth did you get the bizarre notion that there's "just no evidence" for it?

Little do you know how little you know. So don't presume to try to teach your grandpa to suck eggs, son.

We know that change occurs, what is often referred to as the "fact" of evolution. What we don't yet know is the change agent.

*You* may not, but biologists have known -- and verified it -- for more than a century. Try reading some actual science journals for a change, instead of those creationist tracts which have led you astray and failed to teach you any actual biology.

I think we are in for some interesting surprises in the future as we unravel the secrets of the genome and the other structures and mechanisms that work with it and on it.

No doubt we are -- there have been many fascinating and interesting surprises already -- but you're not going to learn them from whatever sources you've been getting your current misinformation.

Look, contrary to the cartoon-version of evolutionary biologists put forth by the creationists, no biologist believes that natural selection is the *only* agent of evolutionary change. Not even Darwin believed that:

"As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position—namely at the close of the Introduction—the following words: "I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification." This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misrepresentation."
Charles Darwin, 1872 edition of The Origin of Species.

Biologists have long recognized that many other factors help shape evolution, include neutral drift, stochastic interventions such as meteor strikes, genetic predispositions, "lucky" developmental breakthroughs, geographic separations, and more. But as Gould (remember him?) succinctly wrote:

"I do not deny that natural selection has helped us to explain phenomena at scales very distant from individual organisms, from the behavior of an ant colony to the survival of a redwood forest. But selection cannot suffice as a full explanation for many aspects of evolution; for other types and styles of causes become relevant, or even prevalent, in domains both far above and far below the traditional Darwinian locus of the organism. These other causes are not, as the ultras often claim, the product of thinly veiled attempts to smuggle purpose back into biology. These additional principles are as directionless, nonteleological, and materialistic as natural selection itself -— but they operate differently from Darwin's central mechanism. In other words, I agree with Darwin that natural selection is "not the exclusive means of modification."
-- S. J. Gould

So if you were hoping for some movement to remove natural selection as the well-documented central mechanism of adaptation, or for some "god of the gaps" mechanism to spring forth to satisfy yearnings for teleology, I'm afraid you're likely to be disappointed.