Show one complete lineage in evolution

It is possible to "construe" Provine UNDERSTANING "IN" PE as just a ^rate^ variation, as a bit of a simplification on Gould's ideas,but only on the basis of asserting for grammetological means to diffentiate Simpsonian and Personian landscapes TO THE TELEPHONE CALL he had with Wright in the 80s while still asserting two DIFFERENT incomprehensibilites in frequency selection graphing & gene combinations individually. This is a very "hairy" topic not even a touch down will solve immediately. I'll try to flesh some in later. Best Brad. Guold's visualization of PE is however not merely thus understood unless time can have any NEW (aguhhh -old) signification. It cant even if one tries on purpose.

Robert,Did you understand post 121? Is Brad agreeing with me or you?Mark

Good point about creationists asking for fossil links in the name os scietific evidence.
THE official line is, rightly, that fossils are evidence of something but scientific evidence of nothing. (again scientific evidence versus regular evidence sneaking in here)
However many make the mistake of accepting fossil links as science and then go on to contend about gaps.I must say you did give a good explanation of how PE works in the whole thing. Better then many in text books I've read on the subject.Yet the point remaims that PE replaced a previous idea.
And the idea of 100%-all- the-time gradualism being replaced is a great example of why evolutionary subjects are not science.
They are untested (indeed untestable) hypothesis claiming to be scientific theory.
So over they go when as they all will in time.
The "tests" wern't overthrown. There were never any tests. It was never a scientific assertion.
Rob

I was more on your side Mark. But there is a real problem with the words or claims about national styles in the most elite scientists' logoses that indicated to me at least, that there is too much anglo-saxon philosophy in decrying for anti-Lysenkosism or whathaveyou on nonadapativness etc. I am not sure if B. Russel's claims about Kant and the dx/dy interpretations would still hold in the content of evolutionary biology as this is something I am still investigating. I was sort of impressed and then not impressed with Robinson's (70s) infintesimals (and transfinites), but I have not been able dynamically to associate this formality with any natural selection problems, though niche construction seems a field possibly open, to this(%%), of, my own abivalence.I do think that Will Provine was mistaken to THINK that gene combinations *can not* be written on a 01 line axis but I think, if I am not mistaken, that the reason Wright &could not& be more clear, when discussing the population mean, was that the DIFFERENCE in the math used in approximating things between Fisher and himself was indifferent (as to the math) between couples and certain pathways of infinite divisibility. Wright had his "own" philosophy of correlation paht variables as you would know. I can be individually corrected on this issue, but if one tried to think about all the posts I did with/on Gladyshev's work, then (as far as any dx/dy was involved) it was possible for me to go futher. I am sorry that this did not come across. I will try to re-work/write it.DO I NEED TO LINK, the Names I use, to make this more understandable?

Nosyned. You wrote finely of how the process worked.
For the record I have Darwin's book and he most certainly felt there was enough fossil evidence to draw conclusive results. (Though of coarse the gaps bothered him and he thought time would reveal them ; they didn't and so PE)You said I have the idea that because a scientific theory is subject to change etc that creationism will win.Not at all NNThe whole point about PE was that it was a good example of how ToE was not a study of science but history.
PE is a change of speculation on past events and It NEVER had to overthrow all the tests of the previous idea. There were not any to overthrow. It is all observation and interpretation. But no testing or any science at all.Again why did the testing and falsification fail for a hundred years to reveal the error?? Why did all the testing in that time confirm the error?
In both cases the answer is there were no testing/falsification going on. Because it is impossible to test the past. And so PE is a result of an idea that was never based on the scientific method.
PE is accepted because it corrects an embarrassment of ToE.
Yet it reveals a greater embarrassment. And this will become an drum for creationists to beat in the future.
Rob

Brad Mcfall seems to be questioning me or you that PE is "just" a rate change. (I think)You said a lot but i will deal with your saying " it was inference based upon the evidence at the time".Mark in North America this is not science. This is garden or common way of drawing conclusions.Science is about a hypothesis that tests,falsifies etc and if it stands you have a theory.A scientific theory is presented by acedemia to the public as something solidly based on a conclusion of a process of evidence testing (and being able to be tested).
Not just Inference on bits of data.
Yet another defination of science is introduced to defend an obvious matter. PE corrected a error in ToE. And this error was easily corrected because it was based not on science but historical inquiry.
PE overthrew no tests etc for there were none.
And creationists 30 years ago could of said there is no evidence for total gradualism and they would of been right. Here's PE. PE is a retreat even if not yet understood as such.
Rob

Brad,I am not sure I understood your post, but PE uses the same mutation rate as gradualism, and the same filter (ie natural selection) as gradualism. However, PE adds one other factor, the ability of beneficial mutations to quickly become entrenched in smaller populations, quicker than in larger populations. After the smaller population speciates, then they will quickly migrate out and replace the previous species. So it really isn't a matter of grammatical use for "gradual", but rather a mechanism (ie smaller populations) that causes a different rate using the same mechanisms. In comparison to the human lifespan, both could be considered "gradual" but in comparison there are real differences.

quote:

---

THE official line is, rightly, that fossils are evidence of something but scientific evidence of nothing.

---

Fossils are objectively measured observations that support the predictions of the theory of evolution. It doesn't get more scientific than that. Could you please show creationist predictions in regards to what fossils should look like, which layers these fossils should be found in, and how they are related to each other? Evolution is able to do all three; creationism is only able to bitch about evolution.

quote:

---

Yet the point remaims that PE replaced a previous idea.

---

The point doesn't remain. Gradualism is still a viable theory, just not a theory that is accurate in all situations. Populations can evolve through gradualism, but at other times they evolve through PE. For instance, if I said that "All freight in the US is transported on the railway system," I would be wrong since it also goes by truck and by air. However, this doesn't mean that the railway system has been 'replace', only that it isn't correct in every situation.

quote:

---

They are untested (indeed untestable) hypothesis claiming to be scientific theory.

---

Bull. Look at the example of the marine invertebrate example of PE. The theory of PE states that there should be an isolated area where gradual evolution is seen. Then, there should be a rapid migration out of that smaller area. This is exactly what we see, one area with gradual evolution and another area where the new species appears rapidly in the fossil record. Also, PE is supported by genetic studies. It has been shown that beneficial mutations spread faster in a smaller population. So this is why you see quicker adaptation in a smaller population than in a larger population. It also makes sense that at some point this smaller sub-population will be able to outcompete its ancestors and take over their territory. PE is testable and supported, no ifd, ands, or buts.

quote:

---

The "tests" wern't overthrown. There were never any tests. It was never a scientific assertion.

---

Bull. Fossils were placed in objectively constructed phylogenies based on their morphology. These phylogenies were then compared to the order they are found in within the fossil record. This is a TEST of two independently measured observations. Guess what, evolution passes the test. Evolution has always been tested, and continues to be tested no matter how many times you say otherwise. We have shown you time after time HOW to test evolution, and each time you feign to discuss those tests. Instead, you flee back to your comfortable place and cry "INJUSTICE."Here is mark24's description of phylogeny (cladistics) and stratigraphy. Can you please explain how this isn't a test of past events by using the model of the theory of evolution?

Robert, Nope, it's science. Even in North America. Correct, & if new data requires modification of a theory, then that's what happens. It happens all over the world, even in North America. You are equivocating.Even a well tested scientific theory has undergone stages where the theory was revised. Or perhaps you think atomic theory ISN'T inference on bits of data? No-one has ever seen an electron, neutron, or proton. They are all inferred from data. An interpretation of data.You are now going to whine that evolution is inference/interpretation about the past. So what? The key issue is that you claim that inference & interpretation is somehow wrong, yet accept the rest of science (that incidentally doesn't contradict your religion) that is based upon nothing but inference & interpretation.I believe the word "hypocrite" is not too strong a word at this juncture. More baseless assertions.The scientific method can be just as easily applied to a past event as a present one. If you disagree, then you need to show why. Call it a historical science if you wish, it's still science.A hypothesis is inductively derived, it must have predictions (supporting evidence), & potential falsifications that may lead to the discarding or modification of the theory in order to be deductively tested. Evolution meets the standards of the scientific method, it is science. I'm afraid it is you who are clueless as to what science is. There were, I point out the test of phyletic gradualism in post 99.You know, Robert, if assertions were the way to truth, you'd be my guru. But the fact is that a debate with you consists of you ignoring everything that is presented to you, & then, mantra-like, just cut & paste your original assertions despite them having been refuted.Let me try to put this another way that will get through your creationist bible blind skull. A test (in this case, a falsification) of pure phyletic gradualism would be to find evidence of rate change, rather than rate constancy. Seeing rate change TESTS (what about this presents such an impenetrable cognitive problem to you?) the 100% pure phyletic gradualism hypothesis. Of course, seeing rate constancy elsewhere means BOTH occur. Therefore pure phyletic gradualism is falsified, & replaced with a better understanding of evolution.Please, please, please tell me how the discovery of evolutionary rate change isn't a test of phyletic gradualism?Loudmouth in post 128 reiterates a point I have made/linked to, several times to you & Skeptic, & have been ignored every time. Allow me to link to post 4 once again. And again, please explain how cladistics matching stratigraphy isn't a test of evolution? You'd be all over it if it failed that test, I'm sure. It's like understanding that electrons AND protons exist, & hey, they are BOTH constituent parts of atoms. Funnily enough I don't see you complaining to physicists that the discovery of the neutron represents a "retreat" in atomic theory. Logic so perverse can only be creationist in origin. But then consistency/logic was never a strong point, was it?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Robert, glad to learn you have a copy of Darwin's book On the Origin of Species. Have you read it? What we now refer to as Punctuated Equilibrium was discussed by Darwin in the book, as specifically posited by Dr. Hugh Falconer, and it was fully consistent with Darwinian evolution: You seem to think that PE somehow is a problem for evolution, but it wasn't in Darwin's time, and it still isn't. Darwinian evolution has examples of both gradual and punctuated modes. Diatoms are an excellent example of smooth & gradual evolution, and Eldredge discusses an example of punctuated evolution in his transitional trilobite fossils.

You addressed me so i will out of respect respond. BUT
You misunderstand the discussion. We are beyond whether PE is a problem for evolution.
The matter being discussed was whether PE introduction itself was evidence that the whole matter is a subject of history and not a subject controled by the scientific method. And so not science. Very different .Rob

quote:

---

The matter being discussed was whether PE introduction itself was evidence that the whole matter is a subject of history and not a subject controled by the scientific method. And so not science. Very different.

---

Eh? Do you mean that something is not science if new data arises?That makes no sense. any given theory exists in a real world in whcih time necessarily passes and new data becomes available. The incorporation of new data, or the falsification of historical data by new data, is not outside the bounds of the sicentific method.

Loudmouth.
You still insist that PE did not replace a previous idea.
I insist it did. We have hit a wall on what should not be in contention. I never meant or said that gradualism wasn't a viable theory.I'm not contending that.Your example of marine invertebrates makes my point of what science is not. Close attention folks.(first again i would say the observation came first that the fossils changed suddenly and then the idea of PE but no matter)
ALL that you showed was, at best , a kind of prediction. BUT not the scientific method.
The scientific method has prediction as a component but prediction does not equal the scientific method.
The prediction of the marine fossils and location etc was not a test. It was rather a mere interpretation and reinterpretation of data. Speculation with more data.
We are in the anatomy of a concept here but it is the great rub between creationists and evolutionists.
We accept the defination of science or the scientific method and hold you too it. And, I believe, you innocently misunderstand your own concept and its boundaries.The other example is beyond me. Too weighty. I'm being asked to analysis intricate subjects. Our contention is not grade four math but neither is it calculus.
Rob

MARK. In our discussion We have come to a agreement.
As you said in your way evolution is inference/interpretation.
This is the point/rub.
Our oppenants will present to us and the public that evolution is not mere i/i but is the result of the scientic method with its strick rules for what qualifies as a science theory. Inference/interpretation is not thier slogan at all.
If in North america evolution was relugated to i/i then we would be very happy.Not me but you guys need to show the scientic method can be applied to past and gone events.The discovery of evolutionary rate change (your words/premise) is not the result of the scientific method.
Just reinterpretation of data already received.
Rob
(p.s.0 You guys are getting weighty and involved. IWe can handle it point by point but not paragraph by

That isn't calculus. If it is beyond you then you will just have to give up. You have to understand an argument before you can refute it. A better approach would be to ask some questions. It can be expressed in smaller words and a more simple way.I'be been trying to suggest to you that you will look foolish if you expound on things that you know nothing about. Now you've stepped into territory that you can't even understand when you are given the information. It might be time to ask questions and make a lot less unfounded assertions.But here's a clue. The creationist organizations don't seem to have a coherent answer either. This might be because there isn't one.