Show one complete lineage in evolution

quote:

---

Not me but you guys need to show the scientic method can be applied to past and gone events.

---

Forensic science and archaeology. Just two examples that are more well known.

quote:

---

The discovery of evolutionary rate change (your words/premise) is not the result of the scientific method.
Just reinterpretation of data already received.

---

That is what the scientific method does, interpret data. The interpretations are trustworthy because they are based on objective evidence and not on subjective opinion or faith. Also, the scientific method requires that all theories be falsifiable by objective data. The changing rates are supported by observation of both the fossil record and population genetics, both of which are objective measurements. PE and Gradualism are scientific theories arrived at through the scientific method.

Robert Byers,The scientific method works as follows. A hypothesis is inductively derived from an observation. In order to be deductively tested, new data must be discovered which meets the predictions of the hypothesis. The hypothesis must be knowably wrong, hence there are potential falsifications which require the hypothesis to be rewritten or discarded. The more predictions (supporting evidence) a hypothesis has, the less tentative it becomes.Do you agree? Why not?In which case the alleged existence of subatomic particles isn't science, either. New data, not the same.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 08-07-2004 08:27 AM

---

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

Yes your wording seems correct. There is slight problem in my mind about what is a mutation and what is migration (as opposed to Croizat "translation in space and form-making")(especially if one takes "selection" as 'abstraction' as I sometimes want to do)for ON migration there is "inertia" in some of the material but can we tell molecularly whether and organic kinetics on locomotion is not due differences velocity wise between a set of nuclei(of atoms) and "fields" BEYOND the molecular bond rather than to splitting a lineage. Gould seemed to THINK instead about overlapping "ACROSS" space (in the rocks) but he cared not for the the effect on thermodynamic deduction as I have indicated above, instead realizing that the geometric visualizabilty he thought up was DIFFERENT than that proposed up to the time the he and Eldgridge attempted to relate stastically different trilobites in the NEUS strata.Perhaps I am not clear because I do not know what Gould meant by "time" for it is obvious that if two different kinds of PHYSICAL PROCESS are involved in any PE (which might use different aposteriori (from the changing organisms perspective of any kind) then although the "rates" would be the same PHILOSOPHICALLY they might be different taxogenically (hence a differnce of translation in space DURING FORM MAKING and locomotion that is migration while selection of mutants could still "translate" the space (via a wierd idea on algebra for instance in the gene calculations of relative frequency etc)(same occuurred to quantum mechanics beyond a classical consideration).If one admits the strong temporal inequalities of Georgi Gladyshev (for which I see not a reason to NOT so think) then it is hard to understand how there are not more than one process involved but how to relate the SYSTEM to Gould's ideas of mass exticntion upsetting relative frequency of PE I have not thought up.Either way there are ways to think of multiple time process WIHTHOUT having to evoke the GEOMETRY of a staircase (which Gould did (in his stats))but at this point issues of philosophy can not really be ignored when one is trying to figure out in the judgement if one is more justifying ones "logic" more from a philosphical explanation or a qualitative vs quantitative difference from the mathematical maturity.Eversince I was reading French work on Wright's effective population number I became unconvinced that Provine's suggestion that Hawiian DROSOPHILA was a case from which to adjudicate quantiative differences between Fisher and Wright if just because the work of Rene Thom would trump (any symbol involved). That's me though. There was apparently (and this from Richard Lewontin himself) much talk about castastrophe theory explaining extinction but Dick refused to admit topology as general in his TRIPLE HELIX (which is what I MEAN by the word ("condition")) but if I understand the STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY correctly Gould is only arguing within a variable and not function so if the function of time from Reimanns localization WAS a Cauchy viewpoint in GROUP THEORY OF THE SHIFTING BALANCE I see no mathmatical reason not to pursue pointsets here and I could with time justify this philosophically but the question for me was more about how Gould tries to tie Creationism to ADAPATIONISM (or nonadaptive traits instead) which I think is just the attempt to use Physics of nonlinearity as Provine did with the analogy of phase transitions to Wright when I was able to read Wright that any "supplementary time and space information" if that was ONLY about Lotka-Voltera REACTION and yet I was able to think further in Croizat's writings on the SET that these collection localities as point woule PRESENT. I did not say represent. That is what is yet to writ.

Actually if you had read Ediacaran's post closely you would see that punkeek (PE) is not a new idea, but a reframing of one of the original of Darwin's theories as given in Origin of Species -- I'll repeat the relevant part: This is a classic statement of what punkeek is, as put forward by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould: periods of relatively rapid change followed by periods of stasis.The reason that it needed to be restated was because the field had come to favour steady rate gradualism more than variable rate change.Gradualism does still play a role in many organisms, such as foraminifera, determined by one of Gould's students -- see Geology Dept article 3: Note too, that Dawkins says that punkeek is really not that different from gradualism as the rate of change is still very slow (thousands of years).Definite evidence of gradual evolution occurring over long periods of time (66 million years). This piece of evidence validates the theory that evolution can occur gradually over long periods of time.Now go to the forum topic Differential Dispersal Of Introduced Species (Re: Aspect of Punctuated Equilibrium) and you well see a documented example of very rapid dispersal of a species across the US in only 50 years: (See forum topic for other species with different rates of dispersal)Definite evidence of extreme rapid dispersal of species from a small initial population to one covering a continent. This piece of evidence validates the theory that a new species can, from a small initial population, rapidly disperse successfully into a major ecosystem already "filled" with competing species.Obviously the evidence is that there are many rates of evolution and of dispersal of a newly evolved species, and that the two are independently dependant of many variables.Going back to the foraminifera, we can also see that the rate of evolution was not constant, but did show some variation, especially in regard to severe environmental impact: Definite evidence of variation in the rate of evolution of species with changing environment and competition conditions. This piece of evidence validates the theory that evolution of new species is not a constant fixed rate but dependant on many independent factors.The best example of gradualism in action is also evidence that the rate of speciation is not constant. The best example of rapid dispersal of a new species (bird species introduced into America) is also evidence that the rate of dispersal is highly variable. Again, these two different aspects, speciation and dispersal, are not joined at the hip, and thus there will be examples of {slow speciation slow dispersal}, {slow speciation fast dispersal}, {fast speciation slow dispersal}, {fast speciation fast dispersal} and all the shades in between. The first is gradualism, the last is punkeek, neither are the only solution or paradigm but extremes of the same process.Enjoy.ps -- saying that "The scientific method has prediction as a component but prediction does not equal the scientific method" is like saying that "addition is a component of math but addition does not equal math" -- prediction is one step in the scientific process, it is based on the theory which is based on the observations, and it is designed to test the theory for falsification when properly done.pps -- note that geneticists are also falling into the steady rate gradualism frame of mindset when they calculate the ages for times when species branched or evolved from cousin\ancestors species (mitochondrial "Eve" and y-chromosome "Adam" for instance)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The constant bringing up of forensic and archelogy as evidence that origin studies are science makes the very opposite point.
Why when we discuss such great fields as biology,geology,cosmology, your recourse to show they deal in science is to bring up off-broadway studies. Archelogy may use the scientific method here and there but it is essentialy about pikaxes and dynamite. Its not very scientific. Forensics is also been dealt with as only employing some science. Its workers are not scientists.Loudmouth you again say the interpretation of data qualifies as employing the scientific method. It doesn't. Your rules.
The method is a package deal. Otherwise it has not occured.
As in getting ones licence being 16 or good eyesite or a citizen or mentally competant on thier own do not qualify one for a license. Only all together. a package deal.

You did good research but you misunderstood what Darwin said and so have misunderstood why PE was a correction of an error. Darwin would never of used the word rapid.
PE is not a restatement. This is absurd. (my strongest negative point I've ever used on evcforum)
Mr Gould was a guest on the simpsons for a new idea not repeating evolution 101.I take your point about starlings and raise you one. (though I'm not sur of your point) English sparrows also came in the 1800's and covered North america. In thier case I have read they actually adapted to the different climates. The ones in the north got bigger and different shades. Natural selection? Anyway it happened fast and probably had nothing to do with genes and selection at all.Your P.S analagy is correct. the scientific method is a package deal and only in that deal does it occur.
regards Rob

"nothing to do with genes" !!!???
What did it have to do with, then? Getting into peoples' paint cans?

What error? Both phyletic gradualists and those that subscribe to the idea of punctuated equilibrium believe in variable rate change. The only difference is that phyletic gradualists believe that speciation events occur over long periods of geologic time, whereas those that subscribe to punctuated equilibrium believe they occur over short periods of geologic time. Gould over-hyped the punctuated equilibrium theory. It was a restatement of what Darwin had said. What Gould did was caricature the phyletic gradualists as not subscribing to the notion of variable rate change. This was not the case. Phyletic gradualists do believe in variable rate change--where they differ from those who accept punctuated equilibrium is that they believe that speciation events occur over long periods of geologic time. This does not imply the rate of change is not varied. This is why punctuated equilibrium seemed revolutionary. I’m going to have to disagree with you here. Based on my understanding the reason it had to be restated was because gradualism and a steady rate of change had become linked, not because scientists actually subscribed to the notion of a lack of variable rate change. I was under the impression that variable rate change had always been accepted. The problem was the inability to reconcile the connotation of the word gradualism with variable rate change. Use of the word gradualism was believed to imply a steady rate. Nowhere did Darwin imply this however. The Darwin quotation that you provided demonstrates this.

---

"Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom."
--Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

Hahah, well, sure, if you assume that Lamarck was right.

You're right: he used the word short. And, sorry, the phrase is "relatively rapid" -- quite a different meaning when applied to geological time frames, where it can mean thousands of years. The quote from Darwin is in his book: " though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change"Notice he says "measured by years" not thousands of years. You're interpretation is not credible for a couple of reasons: (1) you are arguing as if Darwin and Gould were the only ones involved and (2) the position of Gould was not taken in response to Darwin but to other biologists that made up the gradualist camp.Science changes and adjusts as more information becomes available, that too is part of the scientific process -- usually right after one of those pesky theory tests comes out with an invalid result, and it's back to the drawing board for a new theory that is based not only on all the previous data, but on those latest test results -- there must have been something wrong or incomplete about the first one.This is the complete scientific method: data, evaluation, theory, prediction, test, validation or back to evaluation. Now it seems that you are arguing that evolution is not a science because it does not complete all these steps, but then also say that punkeek is a correction of previous theory to account for additional data that falsifies the previous theory: you can't have it both ways. Obviously you did not read the linked forum topic or you would have seen that the first example given was the European House Sparrow (actually a weaver finch and not a sparrow). And it makes the same point as the Starlings (but the Starlings are better documented and dispersed faster): that rapid dispersal is possible. If you missed the point you may want to go back and read the forum topic as it discusses this in greater detail.Thanks for the passive aggressive compliment.

---

Sorry to disagree back at you, but some were making that link, just as some geneticists are doing today ... because it makes calculations easy and they forget that it is a base assumption for the calculations. (And Yes, Gould "overhyped" it and played it for all he was worth). Nice nik BTW.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Robert,http://EvC Forum: Show one complete lineage in evolution -->EvC Forum: Show one complete lineage in evolutionI am attempting to agree premises. Please address the above.Mark

Ah, thanks for the correction, but would you mind providing me with a link discussing these calculations and how a steady rate is a base assumption for them?

---

"Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom."
--Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

The genetic one that I am most familiar with is the "mitochondrial eve" calculation that puts the first genetically modern human to be some 150,000 years old. There is a good discussion of this (and the "y-chromosome adam") at wikipedia:
Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia The article does a fairly good job of explaining most of the problems with the method, but does not address the question of variable rates of mutation and change that would affect the calculations (ie - the "clock" rate is not steady).Note that recent fossils seem to confirm this basic scenario:
http://www.berkeley.edu/.../releases/2003/06/11_idaltu.shtml ... and also validate the "Out of Africa" theory for modern humans mentioned in the wikipedia article.This seems to work okay when you stay within one species, but then to try to use the same system to say when hominids diverged from chimpanzees it gets into shakier ground IMHO, because you are now lumping speciation events into variations within a species (ie "stasis" rates mixed with "punkeek" rates).As for the older evolutionary gradualism's use of constant rate calculations, these would predominantly stem from when there were no other available dating methods (ie pre-date radiometric methods) and ages were more estimated relativistically. Even after radiometric information was available some of the, by then, 'institutionalized' mindset continued to prevail.Not that all biologists were gradualists: my dad (PhD biol, taught at UofM and Harvard, retired) remembers being surprised, not by the punkeek theory, but that it was supposed to be something new (note this also goes back to my comments regarding Roberts claim that punkeek is a correction).I hope this helps?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I thought mtDNA Eve was the most recent common female ancestor to everyone alive today, not the first genetically modern human. Am I wrong?

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

methinks you mean earliest or oldest common ancestor ... my most recent common ancestor lives in Massachusetts ...but they come to virtually the same thing: would not the oldest common ancestor of all living genetically modern humans also be a genetically modern human? This is mentioned (too?) briefly in the wikipedia article.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}