Stasis and Evolution

So I ask you, how is it that you think the fossil record shows stasis, when it actually shows rapid turnover of species in a period of just a few million years? This is not stasis: this is change over time.

So, in summary, my position is that Arphy’s view (that stasis should not happen if things evolve) comes from an oversimplified understanding of evolution, and of the processes and functions of life.

dwise writes: Why? Punc Eq makes an enormous amount of sense. And, to be honest, I'm sure that most "evos" here agree with it to some extane and do not see it as a minority view.

mrjack writes: There have now been several decades of study into punctuated equilibrium, and the the predominant finding is that it represents a misreading of the geological record.

Chapter nine, ‘Punctuated Equilibrium and the Validation of Macroevolutionary Theory’ is a Trojan horse for creationists. Although unintended, in this chapter Gould provides a completely updated and superbly annotated treasure trove (almost three hundred pages) for creationists to foil arguments from any scientist who claims that there is ample evidence for gradualism in the fossil record. On the lack of change in the fossil record Gould states:
‘ the tale itself illustrates the central fact of the fossil record so well[the] geologically abrupt origin and subsequent extended stasis of most species Anatomy may fluctuate through time, but the last remnants of a species look pretty much like the first representatives’ (p. 749).Quoting none other than George Gaylord Simpson (p. 755):‘ the greatest and most biologically astute paleontologist of the 20th century acknowledged the literal appearance of stasis and geologically abrupt origin as the outstanding general fact of the fossil record and as a pattern which would pose one of the most important theoretical problems in the whole history of life’ (p. 755) [emphasis added].Gould provides additional creationist evidence stating:‘The long term stasis following a geologically abrupt origin of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists’ (p. 752).‘The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section (first occurrence) without obvious ancestors in underlying beds, are stable once established and disappear higher up without leaving any descendants’ (p. 753).Gould provides additional testimony for predominant stasis in numerous species, and to eliminate any possibility of confusion he hammers on with ‘but stasis is data’, and ‘Say it ten times before breakfast every day for a week, and the argument will surely seep in by osmosis: stasis is data; stasis is data ’ (p. 759).Gould then debunks the ‘ exceedingly few cases that became textbook "classics of the coiling of Gryphaea and the increasing body size of horses etc. (p. 760). (Interestingly, nearly all these ‘classics’ have since been disproved, thus providing another testimony for the temporary triumph of hope and expectation over evidence).’He continues:‘Indeed proclamations for the supposed truth of gradualismasserted against every working paleontologist’s knowledge of its rarityemerged largely from such a restriction of attention to exceedingly rare cases under the false belief that they alone provided a record of evolution at all! The falsification of most textbook classics upon restudy only accentuates the fallacy of the case study method and its root in prior expectation rather than objective
reading of the fossil record’ (p. 773).

This is clear evidence of change over time, isn’t it?

So, the debate must only be about how much change occurs over time, right?

Do you accept this argument?

‘Of great interest to paleontologists and evolutionary biologists alike is the occurrence of relict or holdover
faunas, also known as Lazarus taxa. These taxa, mostly at family,
genus, and species levels, appear to leapfrog large intervals of geologic time, including the recovery phases
following mass extinctions. They seem to elude our most concerted
sampling efforts, failing to be accounted for over considerable
intervals of time.’

in reverse

at a rate several hundred times faster

Evolutionists have invented a unit called the ‘darwin’ for measuring the speed of change in the form (body size, leg length, etc.) of a species. In the case of the Anolis sagrei lizards, the rate of change ranged up to 2,117 darwinswhereas evolutionists had only ‘measured’ rates of 0.1 to 1.0 darwins over the ‘millions of years in the fossil record’. For the guppies in Trinidad, the rates were even higher: from 3,700 to 45,000 darwins. Artificial selection experiments on laboratory mice show rates of up to 200,000 darwins.

the theory of evolution (of which speciation is the keystone)

from creationist author "John Woodmorappe," a high school teacher

because you need to explain the extremely rapid diversification of species after the ark grounded in order to keep the number of "kinds" on the ark to a minimum

then you can't complain about paleontologists who see a much slower rate of speciation as a part of evolution.

You don't get to pick and choose the results you like because of your religious beliefs. If you are going to pretend to follow the scientific method, then you have to follow it! Even if it leads to conclusions you don't like.

I'm quite certain that this is incorrect (and the article you cited doesn't say anything about it, either).

arphy writes:or for some other reason like that

One such surprise occurred on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada, when a sponge of Upper Triassic ‘age’ (the standard geological time scale is used for communication purposes only) was discovered in a carbonate formation.1 It was named Nucha? vancouverensis sp. nov. Now, the formation where the sponge was found is considered a standard reference for the North American Triassic because of its ammonoid index fossils. Surprisingly, the sponge is nearly identical to one previously found only in the Middle Cambrian of western New South Wales, Australia, named Nucha naucum.2
In spite of the obvious similarity, because the Vancouver Island specimen was not exactly the same as its Australian counterpart, a question mark was placed after its genus name and it was given a different species name. Still, the researcher who reported the find, George Stanley, believes the similarities are striking enough to put the fossil in the same genus.

So, can you provide me with some objective criteria whereby you judge which types of change are possible and which types are not? I suspect that "types of change," in the end, will still end up being "amounts of change," anyway.

If it can happen rapidly, why can't it happen slowly?

You should take all arguments with a grain of salt.

Which of these types of change, in your mind, count as significant change?

There is no reason to believe that natural selection cannot act on small changes.

I have to disagree with Arphy that if things are evolving then stasis shouldn't happen. I take your point that if the the organism is being successful, then natural selection should hold it in stasis

Darwin talks about statis in The Origin