I'd like to make a general comment on statis and gradualism in evolution.
One of the problems in discussing evolution today is the earlier insistence om gradualism seems to creationists to mean that evidence of stsis is evidence against evolution.
As has been said Darwin in "The Origin of the Species" discusses statis, but in much argument early proponents of evolution stressed gradualism.
The reason for this is rooted in the beliefs and theories of the time.
Contrary to popular belief, Darwin's contribution to evolutionary theory was not evolution
itself but the
mechanism of evolution: Natural Selection.
Amongst scientific circles in Darwin's time, the
idea of evolution - that is, at its most basic, the change of species over time - was accepted generaly as a working model. Although the fossil record was very incomplete compared to today, enough was known to be sure that organisms in the past were highly different from the present.
The problem was the
mechanism. At the time, most favoured a saltationist approach: the sudden appearance of new species (either naturally or by special creation) and a catastrophic approach to geology: by this time
multiple catastrphism, not just the Biblical flood, which was viewed by many as the last in a series.
Hence, in argung for Darwin's gradualist approach (and the similar gradualist approach in geology), the arguments de-emphasised the statist feature of evolution (and the occasional catastrophic event in geology) in order to win the basic argument: that most changes are gradualist.
The consequence of this today is that arguments for statis in evolution (and catastrophism in geology) seem to produce argument against evolution. It is important to note that not only are these arguments fallacious, but they were not held, in the simplistic form, by the originators of evolutionary theory.
For Whigs admit no force but argument.
™ Version 4.2
