evidence?

I am well aware that Gould and Eldredge invented the term, and that is how they defined it. However, definitions change (see the discussion about "spontaneous generation" vs. "abiogenesis", as an example). I would contend that the dominant view of PE currently ignores the difference between cladogenesis and anagenesis, and simply focuses on periods of gradualism interrupted by rapid change, regardless of whether the species splits or changes as a whole. Of course, this is wildly off topic. ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Rei, Every source I have seen defines PE as being related to cladogenesis. This why there is discussion as to the validity of PE as a theory, as opposed to phyletic rate changes.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-28-2003]

And almost every dictionary that I've seen defines spontaneous generation and abiogenesis with almost identical definitions. And yet, people don't use them in the same way. All I'm saying, is in most of the discussions I've been in, PE is used to refer to the rapid rate of change of a group of organisms when selective factors change, regardless or not there are members of the same species elsewhere.Even on talkorigins.org's discussion of PE, they mention that it *usually* occurs with cladogenesis.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 09-28-2003]

Ya know I am not so certain to what extent a particular species *must* be tied to a puncutation. It is prima facie unlikely that Gould left a loop hole to uncouple the relation but from a phenetic point of view there is no apriori reason preciesly as you have suggested. Mark is going to insist I differnentiate rate and acceleration to which we do not have enought info to change some correlation of species data to cause of removing chance dispersal OR vicariance. But like you I have my own history of participation in these "talks".[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-28-2003]

Rei, If PE is being used without cladogenesis, then it is wrong, pure & simple. Punctuated equilibrium was invoked to describe rapid evolution of organisms after speciation. Generally, it is assumed that the daughter population will be small & in a different habitat to the parent population. Hence a relatively high potential for NS to get to work, & the chance of the alleles under selective pressure to be fixed is high due to small pop size.If everyone is defining PE without cladogenesis, then Gould & Eldredge really wasted their time in making the distinction between their theory & the bog standard phyletic-evolution-rate-change that had been under scrutiny for decades. The idea they raised is lost. Worse, the phyletic rate change theory that is supported by loads of evidence, makes it appear the PE is supported by evidence when it most definately isn't.Using the terms interchangeably introduces an ambiguity that can only serve to confuse. I think PE is controversial enough, & misunderstood enough, without equivocation of this kind. Where?Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-28-2003]

quote:

---

Punctuated equilibrium was invoked to describe rapid evolution of organisms after speciation. Generally, it is assumed that the daughter population will be small & in a different habitat to the parent population. Hence a relatively high potential for NS to get to work, & the chance of the alleles under selective pressure to be fixed is high due to small pop size.
If everyone is defining PE without cladogenesis, then Gould & Eldredge really wasted their time in making the distinction between their theory & the bog standard phyletic-evolution-rate-change that had been under scrutiny for decades. The idea they raised is lost. Worse, the phyletic rate change theory that is supported by loads of evidence, makes it appear the PE is supported by evidence when it most definately isn't.
Using the terms interchangeably introduces an ambiguity that can only serve to confuse. I think PE is controversial enough, & misunderstood enough, without equivocation of this kind.

---

this is very interesting Mark24- Isee that you have actually said something to which I will and do respect but it appears that your language may have overdetermined what we already know. You have made this possible to understand by saying "that had been under scrutiny for decades" but you do likely then know that if one is reading Wright on what may be "construed" in this literature as the Founder Effect of Mayr or the French mathematical alteration of the presentation known as a "wright effect" or even all the hoopla over Carson's Hawiian Drosophila it is far from clear how to ORIENT change over time (rate) before and after a speciation. If one ASSUMED that the concept of species used in these discussions were unitary/homogenous THAT would be wrong. Instead you sum up AFTER the issue of "speciation" is established and yet as this is EvC and not E or EorC you must recognize that you may be talking to someone here WHO IS STILL NOT willing to accept that Darwin's taxonomic "improvement" (by descent with modification) CATEGORIZES the traits that are still nonetheless transmissible by Mendelian "mechanics" (as if we really know what was denoted by that phrase). I can understand youre not interested in this position but it would be wrong indeed to say necessarily that any superfludity of suffiency such remands a confusion in terms IF ONE IS TRYING TO ADVANCE THE UNDERSTANDING OF MENDELISM WITH RESPECT TO BIOLOGICAL CHANGE without being committed to the voluminous literature of speciation. You know that mathematicians put up a parameter against the assertion that the math involved in this dissusion was free from criticism. It is not that some kind of quantiative model can not be put forward but it turns out the common sense language as you used in your post is more telling than ANY attempt to relate ALL of the mathematical symbols proposed to be involved. THIS IS why Gould was able to provide us with a new "language" to extend the core indviduality of Darwinism. I KNOW WHAT GOULD IS Getting at but I do not have a particular opinion about exactly what is to be said about rates because I had thought I would have filled up my fluid interest in it when Croizat was accused of not following the current ideas of "rates" (which I suppose is what you presented and represent) but I COULD FOLLOW Croizat but not Mayr becuase it appeared that his statments about speciation dependend much on ORNITHOLGICAL CLINES which simply do no look correct to me when formally extended to herpetological geographic distributions. And because of this, not some issue of mimciry or polymorphism I have decided to purse Wright's tact instead of the Brits comment on Wright's brain of looking at evolution in terms of mendelism. I do hope you did not say that if I concentrated only on the French scientist's proposed symbolism I could not find a way to show that all of this confusion IS becuase of using a transitivity across the reproductive isolation of the landbridge vicarent to the longitude but not latidute to a speciation THAT MUST BE AN ANCESTOR. But let me not necessarily get ahead of what either you or I may have said. When I tried to apply your "genearaliztion" of smaller daughter species to herpetology I started to work out three seperate cases that do not or need not have followed this teaching so I could not consider it despite it being taught as a general understanding.1)The worm snake SPEICES divisions may? be traced to collecting from North to South south of Chicago to Alabama or Mississippi
2)Dusky salamanders form GUILDS and it may be that merely by the female placing the egges either under rocks or over them determines the matrix of the guild no matter which group speciated first (except for any accident of course)
3)Ambystoma unisexuals science is a mess
4)I have some more speculative ideas of speciation in toads which are even MORE removed from the idea of the smaller daughter founder.myfeeling is that this IS an ornithological bias and reading Croizat confirmed this impression but a feeling is not an objectivity.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-28-2003]

The precise wording is "Most speciation is cladogenesis rather than anagenesis." Not all. "Most".Punctuated Equilibria------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Rei, Which is different to , most PE "*usually* occurs with cladogenesis". The ratio of anagenesis & cladogenesis as regards speciation isn't an issue.All PE occurs with cladogenesis. It isn't PE without it.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-29-2003]

If someone told you "Most people in this town prefer Skippy peanut butter to Jif peanut butter.", would you interpret that to mean that there is no Jif peanut butter in the town?Or are you saying that talkorigins, in their PE faq, misrepresent Gould's views?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Rei, I am not saying talkorigins misrepresents Gould at all, & I'm not sure where you get this from.You said: "It", in context, is punctuated equilibrium. Presumably you meant that PE *usually* occurs with cladogenesis, but not always?But it turns out that "it" isn't PE at all, since you then write: "It" has become something other than PE? I'm guessing the full quote says something along the lines of "most instances of speciation are cladogenesis rather than anagenesis". Hence there is no reason to believe that Gould said anything other than words to the effect, PE is associated with cladogenesis all the time, not some of the time. Nope, but neither Gould or Eldredge said that anagenetic evolution never occurred, & neither do I. They stated their belief that most speciation was allopatric (& therefore cladogenetic), & that most adaptive evolution occurred at cladogenesis, they named this punctuated equilibrium, therefore everything else ISN'T punctuated equilibrium. Anagenetic/phyletic rate change is EXCLUDED from PE. In the same way that Skippy peanut butter is excluded from being Jif peanut butter. They belong to different sets.Do you think Gould & Eldredge went to the trouble of formulating a theory, so people could lump PE in with exactly the kind of rate change that they went to such trouble to separate PE from? Essentially you have ignored everything they said, & thought, mmm, I like the title punctuated equilibrium, I'll use that to cover evolutionary rate changes, regardless of whether they occur anagenetically, or cladogenetically. Apart from coining the term "punctuated equilibrium", Gould & Eldredge may as well have not existed as far as PE goes.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-29-2003]

I do not see what difference you're focusing on between "most" and "usually". To the best of my knowledge, "in most cases" = "usually". The line which says "most" is under the main tenets of PE. So, I need to ask again: is this incorrect? Because, if this is correct, then under the theory of PE, there would be some anagenesis.Also, again, we're not talking about how Gould and Eldridge initially defined the term. We're discussing how it is currently used; that is why I referred to TalkOrigins in the first place.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

.[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-29-2003]

Mark24 is likely "focusing" on or should i say NOT focusing ? on a statistical decompostion result that may have permitted Gould to write, THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY p765 "Punctuated equilibrium is not a theory about all forms of rapidity, at any scale or level, in biology. Punctuated equilibrium addresses the origin and deployment of species in geological time. Punctuational styles of change characterize other phenomena at other scales as well (see Section V of this chapter) - catastrophic mass extinction triggered by bolide impacts, for example - and proponents of punctuated equilibrium would become dull specialists if they did not take an interest in the different mechanisms responsible for similarites in the general features of stability and change across nature's varied domains, for science has always sought unity in this form of abstraction."Why Mark24 insists on trucating the discussin linguistically (for fear of having something else reavelead in the empirical verification of PE?) is beyond me. Gould was NEVER afraid of any word. I have a hard time getting my root canal around them all.Gould's next sentence was, "But punctuated equilibrium - a particular punctuational theory of change and stability for one central phenomenon of evolution - does not directly address the potentially coordinated history of faunas, or the limits of viable mutations change between a parental organism and its offspring in the next generation."I, Brad McFal, am unconvinced that the physics of electrotonics CAN NOT be ordinated to this possible coordination such as to extend the possible relative frequency in PE naturally but Mark24 seems to want to resist both KINDS of potential suppostions by a READING of past time. I can see if MARK24 selected either suggestion as to what PE IS NOT (now) either by saying that my construction is tooooo Far out.. to be on the cve radar or that IT"" was changed in discussion as per Rei's questions of evc??, but attempting to univocalize a plurivocal situation I can not do even if the word of God is easier to read.I tried to get a degree to follow this kind of thought up but the chickens already ate the grain. I was left pecking at mica.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-29-2003]

Rei,I am wrong. There, I said it! The root cause of my incorrectness is that I was comparing cladogenetic evolution with anagenetic evolution. But Gould & Eldredge compared cladogenetic evolution with phyletic gradualism, I inadvertently set up my own straw man in arguing the way I did.The evidence is consistent with anagenetic evolution, & anagenetic evolution is consistent with Mayr & Simpson et al, theorising from long before. In a sense, PE itself set up a strawman by comparing itself to phyletic gradualism rather than anagenetic rate change, since strict phyletic gradualism was already long gone by 1972. It basically didn’t have anything to argue with.As such, I’ll change my objection slightly; the central claim of punctuated equilibrium is unsupported by evidence.Sorry for the misconception.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

I haven't been following this topic, but I now point out that there is an active "Punk Eeek" topic at Evolution vs. PE. I will also post a link back to this topic, at that one.I will make no judgement on if the current discussion is on topic or not. But, as being a "Welcome, Visitors!" forum topic, this one is perhaps long overdue to be closed.Perhaps the discussion should be continued at the above cited?Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-30-2003]