Extinction arose when the selective pressures became extremely high, ie they went way over the limitation of the cost of selection and it drove the species to extinction.
But certainly, you are not proposing that this is 'normal' in the existence of a species. A species that selective pressures are pushing towards extinction is certainly not evolving, it is at the end of the road. (Even if the selective pressures stop for whatever reason, there is still a chance that species will undergo genetic meltdown because of a lack of genetic diversity)
This is why I am talking about the period in the existence of a species, where selective pressures where normal, and it's the whole point: during that period, can it even stay in stasis ?
Yes, extinction does seem to be normal and almost universal.
slevesque writes:
jar writes:
Neo-Darwinian evolution is a century old term and guess what, it is no longer way back then. We have learned much, particularly in the last half century or so, and the Theory of Evolution itself has evolved since then.
With all due respect to dr. Mayr, even if the term had a given definition back in 1895, does not mean that definition hasn't changed with time. The wiki quote you provided certainly shows this when it says that
quote:
Despite this, publications such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, use this term to refer to current evolutionary theory. This term is also used in the scientific literature, with the academic publishers Blackwell Publishing referring to "neo-Darwinism as practised today", and some figures in the study of evolution like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, using the term in their writings and lectures.
I understand that ''Neo-Darwinian evolution'' is globally understood within the scientific community to describe the modern synthesis.
Note the qualifiers even there. "As practiced today". "current evolutionary theory".
Return to the question I asked back in
Message 4; "Further, what does the topic title even mean? What exactly is "NeoDarwinian evolution"? What was "Neo-Darwinian evolution" then years ago? How about a quarter century ago?"
You are answering the very question YOU asked in the topic.
Theories change as do critters; both evolve. The existing Lazurus species are NOT identical to examples from millions of years ago.
There are examples of insects that gained wings, lost wings and then regained entirely different wings then in the earlier iteration. Modern Coelacanth are not the same as ancient ones. Modern Horseshoe Crabs are not the same as ancient ones.
I think part of the issue can be seen in what I quoted above. You say "A species that selective pressures are pushing towards extinction is certainly not evolving, it is at the end of the road. " But that too is evolution. Evolution does not mean improving or even surviving. Critters can evolve into failures as well as evolve into successes.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
™ Version 4.2
(1)