Kaichos Man,
A Happy New Year to you too.
quote:
Punc eq is such an opportunistic painted harlot of a theory that you generally have to bang on and on about the lack of transitionals in the fossil record to force it out of the cupboard.
Creationists generally misunderstand what Gould was trying to say (you may not fall into that category of course).
The lack of transitionals that Gould was talking about was small-scale, ie between what would be considered very similar species, neighbours on the tree of life. Creationists these days accept that this kind of evolution occurs, in fact they are vastly over-optimistic about what it can achieve in 6000 years.
Creationists generally mean by lack of transitionals a lack of transitionals between major groups, and they often quote Gould in support of that view.
But it's not what he meant.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
If this is not news to you, then there's always a chance it may be news to somebody else... There is no justification for using Gould to criticise macroevolution.
I'm probably off topic and will now shut up.
Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.
Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
