Show one complete lineage in evolution

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}}}

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}}}

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}}}

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}}}

Stand if you must, I still say that terminology is confusing. what we are both saying is {{an ancestor old enough to be a common ancestor to all humans but no older}}. Personally, I don't find recent or oldest or earliest to have all the connotations needed to fully express the image.Note that it does not (cannot? need not?) account for multiple interrelations -- as in mom and dad are both related to the same person on the Mayflower. Article does say that men having many wives might explain why the "y-chromosome adam" calculates younger than eve -- evading the possibility that men just don't evolve as fast as women ....Note also that a "bottleneck" event (mentioned in the wikipedia article) apparently happened some 100,000 years ago:BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man And this would also affect the calculations -- a comparison from just before that event would likely result in an older "most recent oldest possible common maybe ancestor" genetically modern type person.

---

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

Have you tried the Therapsids tonight?
they have a flavour reminiscent of chicken ...seriously, they show evolution from a reptilian ear structure to a mammal ear structure, complete with intermediate double jointed jaw.http://www.geocities.com/...naveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm

---

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

you mean scientists do not divide into camps over competing theories and tend to overstate their cases sometimes? never get hidebound in their thoughts? I shocked!there are many unspoken assumptions that go into papers and if ones like assuming a constant rate for the purpose of calculation is not mentioned ...personally I think everyone needs their cages rattled from time to time to see if some old assumptions need further study.

---

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

the problem I have is with the connotations of "recent" meaning a very ancient (group of) being(s) -- it doesn't really capture the picture. Yes the oldest common ancestor would be the original bacteria 3.5 million years ago. it is a problem of semantics. perhaps one should only say "the comman ancestor" ...and the genetic age is not a bound but an indicator of a bound: the age is not absolute and depends on the mathematical model to be correct, which in turn depends on a steady rate of genetic change.the 160,000 year old fossils are a bound, and it is highly likely that many generations preceded them.

One question that has come to me in the last week, is that if the apparent age of the "genetic adam" is less than the apparant age of "genetic eve" -- would this not argue for more doubling up of genetic markers in the adam lineage than the eve lineage ... and would this not be more indicative of early behavior similar to bonobos (where females roam and join bands where males stay) versus chimpanzees (where males roam and join bands where females stay)?It would be interesting to do the same kind of analysis on chimpanzees and bonobos to see if there is a trend in this regard.

---

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

Why should there be "great lines of lineage all over the place" -- are you saying that "macro"evolution occurred more often than "micro"evolution? By what reasoning would you make this claim other than to be incredulous or deceitful?Funny that neither you nor john answer my post about the therapsids which addresses a series of transitional fossils that cover the change from reptile to mammal, a change in CLASS, 4 levels above species in the standard structure taxonomy ....
(See http://www.msu.edu/~nixonjos/armadillo/taxonomy.html for more on taxonomy)See: http://EvC Forum: Show one complete lineage in evolution for the post in question.It will be interesting to see which creationist dance you choose to get around it.You also have not answered the question about where the genetic difference is between "macro"evolution and "micro"evolution ... some marker that would say all type A are canines, all type B are felines, etc. ... but which just doesn't appear to exist in any organism studied to date (all differences are indistinguishable from "micro" changes)?See http://EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?Without a mechanism to differentiate "macro"evolution from "micro"evolution at the genetic level there is no valid reason to make such a distinction anywhere else.Enjoy.

---

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

Predictable ... that is the two step followed by the dosado ...The Two Step: (1) claim there are no examples of "macro"evolution, then when presented by evidence (2) claim it "requires one to analysis a series of fossils" (ignoring that it has already been done by several independent people, none of which have claimed that the series does not show what it shows). This is also a typical god-of-the-gaps type creationist response.If you truly are unable to properly analyze them yourself, then the best you can claim is that you personally are not sure about the evidence for "macro"evolution and can no longer claim that there is none. Any other claim is hypocritical, for all you are doing is refusing to educate yourself on the topic.All mammals are descendants of therapsids, so in one sense there are many examples living today: the way you chew your food and the way you hear is evidence that you are part of the therapsid "kind" of organism.The Dosado: turn your back on the evidence so that later you can say you didn't see it.You are the one claiming that there is a fundamental difference between "micro"evolution and "macro"evolution, so it is very much something you have to prove: what is the genetic difference between them?For evolutionists there is no difference between "micro" and "macro" and the lack of difference in the genetic code between the types of changes for species differentiation (~= your "micro") and the types of changes at all higher levels of differentiation (~= your "macro") is solid evidence for evolution at all levels being the same basic process. In other words "macro" = "micro" at the genetic level and evidence for "micro" = evidence for "macro" ... the evidence for one is, at the genetic level, is at the gentic level, evidence for the other.Again, you need to refute this argument and show that there is a genetic difference, or your continued claims that there is no evidence for "macro"evolution is hypocritical if not malicious in intent.Enjoy.

---

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

that's the harem scare'em explaination. another is high male mortality from battles with winner take all.but I am interested in the question of whether the different group gender behavior would show up as different "adam" and "eve" ages for the respective populations.

---

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

Some more dancing ... Why should it be the most common? Do you have two (or more?) fathers, two mothers, eight grandfathers and eight grandmothers? This statement is very curious to me, and you have stated something similar before and not provided explanation for it. This appears to be a totally groundless way off base assumption that must contribute to your lack of understanding for it to crop up again. Enlighten me.The evidence for it is in the article and in the cladistics that loudmouth has been talking to you about: every 'daughter' species (ie every mammal) has the jaw and ear features of the therapsids, but there are no (zero, zip, zilch, none, nada) parent species with these features -- they are new with the evolution of the therapsids. Every mammal fossil and skeleton and living creature is a part of the therapsid lineage in this regard (a term that is noticeable cumbersome when there are so many branches ... part of the problem of thinking constrained by terminology).No comment on the transitional nature of the therapsid lineage including the ones with two (count em 2) jaw hinges as the creatures evolve from the reptile style jaw to the mammal style jaw .... must be you accept that as fact and now concede that transitions exist for "macro"evolution. Or did you miss it?In fact I notice a complete absence of discussion on the relevance of the therapsid fossils to the topic at hand ... the old Switcheroo Step. Here we have the Shuffle: when in doubt make an absurd claim that implies that whole fields on knowledge are merely the dabbling of a few ill equipped debutants. Facinating that such a recent and infantile science creates it's own tree of life based on genetic differences including some insights into the branching of species in time, and that they correlate with those same cladistic and stratographic data the loudmouth talks about. Who woulda thunk that eh? The more we know the more it looks like evolution has the answers.The point I was making is that at the genetic level there is no difference between "macro" and "micro" in the evolution of organisms ... that it is all the same process, and unless you can show otherwise it is irrelevant to make the distinction. Yes it is getting off this topic, but you can either concede that there is no difference in the levels of evolution at the genetic level or take up this topic on the appropriate {"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?} thread:
http://EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?There has been a fascinating discussion there by several people, but very little input from the creationist camp. Feel free to step in and correct that situation. Failure to take up this issue I will take as conceding that you cannot provide us with any method to differentiate evolution into two distinct 'kinds' and that such distinction is irrelevant. The High Step. Love the argument of implied authority: whenever you want to make your statement sound more impressive claim it is a valid group position. This is a logical fallacy as the group is not necessarily a source of authority -- which certainly applies to 'creationists' as a whole -- and it implies that you are not the one saying this but getting it from a source -- usually generalized (as here) and not a specific reference.I could also say that "Smiths know that they have the best name in the nation, as shown by the people who willingly pay money to change their name to Smith" and have as valid a statement as the one you just made.Claims of wailing creationists, yours included, notwithstanding the evidence of genetics is that the genetic relationships match the cladistics of classic evolution, specifically with relation to lineages and relationships. Sorry, but claiming something does not make it so.Again, you can take up this issue on the {"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?} forum topic listed above.One point about the genetics that is on topic: it shows that all life is one "lineage" (and repeating the comment about terminology limiting thinking).Still dancing, but not getting far. Try the next step.Enjoy.

---

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

within each group the relative distance markers would be affected by the concentration of markers for the non-mobile sex and diffusion of markers for the mobile sex.Over time some groups would suffer wholesale deaths (fires, earthquakes, etc) and this would tend to remove groups of the concentrated markers while not affecting the diffused markers. Male mobility -> 'older' adam while female mobility -> 'older' eve.Just a thought.

---

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

thanks Mammuthus for the solid information. Do you know if any similar study has been done on either bonobos or chimps? I am curious to see if there is a difference that could show up due to different gender mobility and subsequent behavior patterns.

---

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