Punctuated equilibrium vs spontaneous generation

From a post in another thread: No problem; and indeed you are incorrect on this one.The term spontaneous generation is an odd one. Context in the above has been lost; it was originally used here as a reference to the spontaneous generation of feathers in a genomes that codes for scales.Indeed, that has nothing to do with evolution, or with Gould, or with punctuated equilibrium. Gould has some strong comments on the persistent misrepresentation of his views by various creationist writers. You'll do better to read Gould himself rather than trust what is written about punctuated equilibrium in creationist sources.Serendipitously, Gould's comments on these misrepresentations refer to feathers!Here is an extract, taken from this site: You can reasonably equate the views of Goldschmidt with spontaneous generation; but not those of Gould.
The talkorigins archive has a good FAQ for those who want to find out more about Punctuated Equilibria.Cheers -- Sylas

Thank you for starting this. I'm in a time pinch right now, and can't respond until later. Be back.

Ok, I'm back. But not for long; soon to be gone. ? Are we discussing PE or defending Gould?I've read much about PE, both from creationist and evolutionist sources (and I referenced your provided link as well), and it certainly appears to me that Gould and Eldredge were trying to explain the LACK of transitional forms.See, Gould knew his camp had a major problem; the LACK of transitional forms between the pre-cambrian and the cambrian explosion. If evolution was correct, there should have been a series of transitional forms between the two periods. Instead, there ARE NONE. Darwin and others claimed the missing links were due to incomplete study (translation: we haven't dug through enough dirt yet). After 100 years of digging in the dirt, Gould and associates knew there was a problem. So, from 1972 to about 1981 Gould's main idea was: I can't say it much better than Dr Don Batten did when he said: Hey, sorry I'm quoting from a creationist website, but you quoted from yours. Another the pre-cambrian and cambrian problems are not the only difficulty Gould had. The "family trees" (numberous charts and graphs available on the web) are most embarrassing for the evolutionist camp. Look at just one example here. Do you know what the "shaded" parts of the branches are? Yes, you know. The shaded part indicate confirmed fossil evidence. The unshaded parts are pure science fiction, sometimes supported by "artist's conception". Look closely and you'll notice something; there is NO FOSSIL EVIDENCE in the "forks" of the branches (where the scientists claim there is a "transition". Pretty wild. And they actually teach this stuff to the kids. The family tree you're looking at if for dinosaurs. The human family tree looks the same; no shading at the "forks". But yet we teach the kids that man evolved from monkeys, or primates, or some kind of hairy creature that walked upright, or didn't walk upright, or whatever. And all without evidence.I would enjoy continuing this topic further, because this topic will lead us all over the place. But I'm sorry I can't continue. My time on this forum was over last Thursday, but I received special dispensation to continue until last Saturday. As you can see, I'm now in blatant violation of a prior agreement.My obit will be posted in the coffee house shortly. Thanks for the time.

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

The reason this refers to feathers is actually Gould's way to introduce his take on the TRIUNE BRAIN where some PEOPLE thought that mammal and bird brains were simply stacked ON TOP of reptile and amphibians' ones. The anatomy belies otherwise. He is arguing (in interview) about a patricular take on the relation of dinos and mammals. But if one looks more closely at feathers in error one can find just about any pattern one might prefer personally to interpret theoretically if one is willing to to a little molecular investigation. Gould's last book ties these traits all the way to the simple perceptive difference of black and white that I have only seen denied or downplayed by Wolfram.

It just occured to me, that the evolution of the structure and procedures of this forum is a variety of punctuated equilibrium.To "the common member", rather radical changes may seem to spontaneously appear, with no evidence (fossil record) of the evolutionary pathway.Now this "fossil record" may indeed actually exist. It may just be lost in some topic that you haven't read, or don't remember.Another possibility (and this is really where punk eek comes in), is that the roots of the evolutionary change happened in the narrow and largely unseen environment of the "Private Administration Forum". A lot of evolution happens in the PAF first, only to later "spontaneously" appear in the public forum.Now, I really don't want this turning into an administrative procedures topic. But I do think that administrative procedures can very much be a punctuated equilibrium evolution.By the way, there is also another punctuated equilibrium topic that pretty much went nowhere: Punctuated Equilibria.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

I guess this post warrants further reply (despite that it is over a year and a half old, and that Skeptick is no longer with us).The quotes and

quote:

---

Look closely and you'll notice something; there is NO FOSSIL EVIDENCE in the "forks" of the branches (where the scientists claim there is a "transition".

---

The fossil record is not the only evidence for evolution; it is not even the best evidence for evolution. Now the fossil record is excellent evidence, indeed; however, Darwin did not make use of the fossil record in formulating his theory (it was pretty meager in his day), and there is plenty of evidence in other fields of biology that should remove doubt about the theory of evolution even without the fossil record.Also, as I said, the fossil record does remain excellent evidence for the theory of evolution. The writer of this post does not seem to understand the nature of the evidence.Both of these points have been beaten to death on other threads, but there is no reason, I guess, not to have another go at it.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Thanks for bumping this.In a way, the evcforum example is a poor analogy. For evcforum is not spawning lots of imitators (or maybe it is), so you don't have the propogation to future generations.It does seem to me that we need a good discussion of punk eek. The Gould school and the Dawkins school seem to be disagreeing about something, so the topic ought to have content.

Please note the other (non-bumped) punk eek topic linked to in message 5.My current message (#5) seemed better suited for this topic, but the other topic (IMHO - I started it way back in December 2001) might actually be the better topic.Moose

With such substantial and unanswerable refutations of ToE, it is no wonder you are banned.

I just checked the Member List; it doesn't appear to me that Skeptick was banned.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

I was on the member list while banned and at the time the banning was "permanent."

What seems to have occured is that evos for many, many years claimed the fossil record essentially proved evolution, but that was BS.Some evos began to admit that the fossil record did not show what other evos said it did, and that their models of evolution were incorrect or needed tweaking and so they proposed Punctuated Equilibrium.Since that time, evos have more and more, when challenged, resorted to claiming the fossil record is inconsequential, that evolution has been fully supported as to be well nigh inconstestable based on other evidence, and in making such claims, basically weasel out of the fact that the fossil record appears to show the opposite of evolution.

quote:

---

What seems to have occured is that evos for many, many years claimed the fossil record essentially proved evolution, but that was BS.

​

Some evos began to admit that the fossil record did not show what other evos said it did, and that their models of evolution were incorrect or needed tweaking and so they proposed Punctuated Equilibrium.

---

No, that's just the creationist misrepresentation of what happened.What really seems to have happened is that paleontologists got hung up on an idea of evolution always proceeding at a very slow and more or less constant rate (here I assume that Gould and Eldredge are at least correct regarding their own discipline).The main line of evolutionary theory, on the other hand was working on quite different ideas - and Gould and Eldredge tapped into those to formulate their concept of punctuated equilibria. Which is, in fact, closer to Darwin's views than the "phyletic gradualism" opposed by Gould and Eldredge.Even Gould and Eldredge's view of the evidence is more consistent with evolution than creationism. Creationists generally accept that evolution between species can and does happen - but deny relationships between higher taxonomic groups. Thus if PE were wholly false we should expect to see many more species-level intermediates and if creationism were true we should expect to see no intermediates between higher level groups. It is significant that the intermediates actually found are those that we would expect to see if evolution and PE were true - not those we would expect to see if PE were entirely false and a typical creationist view was correct.w

I'll pull my definition of evolution, fact and theory, out of my signature: as a whole is an environment (a subenvironment of the internet). One of 's subenvironments is the debate board, which in turn is divided in forums, divided into topics, divided into messages. Somehow, the individual members might also be considered individual environments.For now, a far as I know it, this forum is the only environment of Percy's debate board software. But someday Percy may punk eek the internet by selling/leasing out the software to another user.Now, that new user might use the software for another evc forum, which would be the evc debate entering a new environment. That might be considered the same or very simular "species" occupying a new nitch.Or the new user may use the software for an entirely differently themed debate - A more major mutation into a substantially different critter.Certainly not a perfect analogy, but I thought I'd try a new twist on the subject.Completing the above, I now see I'm entering much more into the area of the currently active How do you define the word Evolution? topic. Only marginly on topic for this topic. Well, I'll post it anyway. Maybe I'm a bad moose.Moose

Yes, but if you look at various names on the Member List, little marks appear by the names if the individual has been suspended.On the other hand, I don't think little marks appear if the person is merely restricted to particular forums. {Adminnemooseus inserts - All you say above is correct, at least for the members current status. There would be no indication of a suspension that was later lifted. But all this is very off-topic. Take any further discussion of such to the proper place.}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-16-2005 01:28 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt