Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwinists? and other names for "evos"
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 72 (163620)
11-27-2004 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jeafl
11-27-2004 10:43 PM


Who knows
Did any Evolutionist object to being called a Darwinist before Eldredge and Gould came on the scene?
Who knows; it is obviously a rather personal reaction.
As far as the rest goes it is not on topic for this thread.
If we are finished with the topic you may open another to discuss that.
Someone I know, well, will close this thread if it goes too far off topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jeafl, posted 11-27-2004 10:43 PM jeafl has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5862 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 17 of 72 (163621)
11-27-2004 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jeafl
11-27-2004 10:43 PM


To be honest, I have no certain knowledge concerning use of the term before the PE debates began I would venture to guess that it had no negative connotations in the past as it seems to now. I do know that many of the biologists of my acquaintence object to the term (when they think about it at all) on that basis. The way the term is used in the debates is Darwinism = pure phyletic gradualism. Which, of course, is why I characterized Eldredge's use of the word as a strawman - I don't know of any evo biologist that considers the original darwinian idea of slow, incremental modification to be the exclusive mode and tempo of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jeafl, posted 11-27-2004 10:43 PM jeafl has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 18 of 72 (163645)
11-28-2004 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by jeafl
11-27-2004 10:43 PM


Your descriptions of both "Darwinism" and "Punc Eeek" are wrong.
Firstly Darwin himself did not describe to the absolute reliance on phyletic gradualism that Gould and Eldredge wrongly attributed to him.
Secondly phyletic gradualism certainly is expected to be visible in the fossil record where it has occurred.
Thirdly punctuated equilibria is also expected to be visible in the fossil record where we have a detailed record of the area where the evolutionary change was centred (it isn't common but it isn't unknwon either).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jeafl, posted 11-27-2004 10:43 PM jeafl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 7:07 AM PaulK has replied

  
jeafl
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 72 (163649)
11-28-2004 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by PaulK
11-28-2004 3:38 AM


If Darwinian gradualism is found in the fossil record, where is the multitude of transitional forms that fossil record should contain?
To my understanding Punct Eek was proposed to explain the lack of transitional fossil forms.
Scientific Creationism (public school edition)
Henry M. Morris, editor
Creation Life Publishers
San Diego, Ca.
1974
0890510016 (paperbound)
According to the fossil record:
Every kingdom and subkingdom that now has living representatives has existed since Cambrian times.
Every phyla of the animal kingdom has existed since Cambrian times.
Every class of the animal kingdom except vertebrates and moss-corals; insects, graptolites and trilobites has existed since Cambrian times.
Vertebrates and moss-corals have existed since Ordovician times.
Insects have existed since Devonian times.
Graptolites existed from Cambrian to Carboniferous times.
Trilobites existed from Cambrian to Permian times.
Every phyla of the plant kingdom except bryophytes, pteridophytes and spermophytes have existed since Triassic times.
Bacteria, algae and fungi have existed since Precambrian times.
Diatoms have existed since Jurassic times.
Every kingdom, phyla, class, order and family and most genera and species appear suddenly in the fossil record, with no transitional precursors.
So my description of Darwinian gradualism and Punct Eek stands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2004 3:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by nator, posted 11-28-2004 9:19 AM jeafl has replied
 Message 22 by Quetzal, posted 11-28-2004 11:05 AM jeafl has not replied
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 11-28-2004 12:04 PM jeafl has replied
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2004 1:56 PM jeafl has replied
 Message 27 by jar, posted 11-28-2004 2:13 PM jeafl has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2160 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 20 of 72 (163662)
11-28-2004 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by jeafl
11-28-2004 7:07 AM


quote:
To my understanding Punct Eek was proposed to explain the lack of transitional fossil forms.
Not true.
Punk Eek was proposed to explain the pace of evolution that was observed in the fossil record.
A form can stay relatively stable for a long time, and forms can change relatively rapidly.
Both of these claims about the pace of evolution were proposed because we have positive evidence to support them, not due to a lack of evidence for transitionals.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-28-2004 09:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 7:07 AM jeafl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 9:34 PM nator has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 725 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 21 of 72 (163665)
11-28-2004 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by jeafl
11-27-2004 10:32 PM


Re: SofF
Speciation within a genus is something that many Creationists and I accept as valid.
I don't argue this point, but since humans and apes are not part of the same species, you have to explain the speciation processes that allowed them to both to development; you must explain macroevolution.
Linnaeus originally classified the chimpanzee in the genus Homo, you know - and the suggestion has been supported pretty strongly to put 'em back there - or move us to Pan.
As to "Darwinist," I would certainly think that the main objection from those in these discussions is that it makes it sound like a religion. "Evolutionist" raises my hackles a bit for the same reason. Either is very often used, especially by folks like Answers in Genesis, to try to imply that biologists and we, their groupies , are merely following some semi-evil religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by jeafl, posted 11-27-2004 10:32 PM jeafl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Quetzal, posted 11-28-2004 11:13 AM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 31 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 9:43 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5862 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 22 of 72 (163666)
11-28-2004 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by jeafl
11-28-2004 7:07 AM


I think we need to move discussion of PE, the Cambrian transition, etc to another (probably pre-existing) thread. It is more than a bit off-topic for this one. I don't disagree with Coragyps and Schraf, among others, who say that use of the term darwinist by the "loyal opposition" is unacceptable because of the "-ist" connotations placed on it. Meaning that construction is usually reserved for the followers of a particular dogma or ideology, which biology manifestly is not. Its use in the internal battles over PE is another reason, but unrelated to the first. As I mentioned, and PaulK pegged nicely, the epithet is a strawman, whatever "side" of the PE debate you come down on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 7:07 AM jeafl has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 23 of 72 (163667)
11-28-2004 11:05 AM


Closing soon
It seems too much for posters to stay on topic.

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5862 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 24 of 72 (163668)
11-28-2004 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Coragyps
11-28-2004 9:57 AM


Re: SofF
I dunno, C. I think evolutionist is almost acceptable, if you translate it as "advocate for evolution", rather than "dogmatic believer in evolution". Of course, the latter is how the creationists use it...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Coragyps, posted 11-28-2004 9:57 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 9:49 PM Quetzal has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 25 of 72 (163676)
11-28-2004 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jeafl
11-28-2004 7:07 AM


Transitionals Topic
The Definition and Description of a "Transitional"
This is the right thread to discuss transitionals. The literalists, with one exception, avoided it.
You might repost your list there too. It is flawed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 7:07 AM jeafl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 10:02 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 26 of 72 (163689)
11-28-2004 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jeafl
11-28-2004 7:07 AM


Punctuated Equilibria was proposed partly because the fossil record did not conform to the extreme gradualism proposed by paleontologists. However it was also proposed to apply current evolutionary theory to the fossil record. It was nothing surprising to scientists working outsied paleontology - see Richard Dawkins comments in The Blind Watchmaker for example.
quote:
The 'gaps', far from being annoying imperfections or awkward embarrassments, turn out to be what we should positively expect, if we take seriously our orthodox neo-Darwinian theory od speciation/
Moreover Gould himself stated:
quote:
We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil recordgeologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. It represents much less than 1 per cent of the average life-span for a fossil invertebrate speciesmore than ten million years.
and
quote:
Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money
Your ideas about punctuated equilibria are simply wrong - as could easily be discovered by reading the popular literature on the subject. And that is why you should not rely on creationist sources.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 7:07 AM jeafl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by AdminNosy, posted 11-28-2004 3:34 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 37 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 9:59 PM PaulK has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 27 of 72 (163692)
11-28-2004 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jeafl
11-28-2004 7:07 AM


To try to move back towards the subject.
I don't think that the term Darwinism or Darwinist is actually used except by the Creationist fringe groups. I imagine that it is less the term that ruffles folk's feathers than the source. When it is used by people like Morris and the ICR crowd it is hard to generate more feeling than simple derision. Many people using the term can easily mistake such derision for indignation or defensiveness, but really, it is only disdainful laughter.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 7:07 AM jeafl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by happy_atheist, posted 11-28-2004 2:42 PM jar has not replied
 Message 43 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 10:07 PM jar has replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4904 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 28 of 72 (163697)
11-28-2004 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by jar
11-28-2004 2:13 PM


Re: To try to move back towards the subject.
As far as i'm concerned there's never any intrinsic offense in a word, the only thing that matters is the context. As far as Darwinist and Evolutionist goes, they're generally meant to be insulting by implication. That is why they're often coupled with words like "dogma" and "religion", with reference to Darwin being the evolutionists god etc.
Remember that the term "big bang" was originally coined as an insulting caricature of the concept, but has since been accepted by most as the common name of the theory. I doubt that will happen with Darwinist or Evolutionist though, due to the connotations of -ist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 11-28-2004 2:13 PM jar has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 29 of 72 (163702)
11-28-2004 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by PaulK
11-28-2004 1:56 PM


T o p i c !
PaulK, Topic please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2004 1:56 PM PaulK has not replied

  
jeafl
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 72 (163745)
11-28-2004 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by nator
11-28-2004 9:19 AM


quote:
Punk Eek was proposed to explain the pace of evolution that was observed in the fossil record.
And the fossil record is mostly one of sudden appearance of complete organisms. If evolution is true, the fossil record should be full of transitional forms. But, for the most part these transitional forms are not found.
Furthermore, paleontologists have a bad habit of creating entire organisms out of the most fragmentary fossils- which more often than not can tell us nothing about the organism's behavior or physiology.
And Darwinists do not always agree about what the fossils they do have really mean. For example: Australopithecus is in the textbooks as human ancestors. But, Darwinists like Zuckerman do not believe Australopithecus is anything but an ape- it has not human characteristics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by nator, posted 11-28-2004 9:19 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-28-2004 9:43 PM jeafl has replied
 Message 64 by nator, posted 11-29-2004 7:20 AM jeafl has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024