|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Darwinists? and other names for "evos" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5862 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jeafl Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 725 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5862 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
It seems too much for posters to stay on topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5862 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
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: Moreover Gould himself stated:
quote:and quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 384 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4904 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
PaulK, Topic please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jeafl Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024