Evolution vs.PE

Back in "if life is discovered... thread, shimbabwe stated: The implication is that 'Darwinism' and 'PE' are competing theories and so, one assumes, fundamentally different. Shimbabwe promised to explain this, but has yet to do so.Its all yours shim.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

It would be possible to so differentiate but we/one would have to be able to discrimimate the ANTI-Creationist flip in the FORM of the last question mark in the last paragraph of Gould's "big book" as he eventually sides with the CHAOS really no emmy for that of the literati but I doubt the TV script writers etc. But I think it is as bad to split biologists this way as it is to try to split IDists. just a thought to get us going as it was.

Thanks Brad.I was going to bump this. Now there is no need.I too could force a distinction between the two theories, but it would definitely be forced and I wouldn't be happy about it. I tend to think that PE was a big conceptual breakthrough, but not much of a revision of the ToE. In other words, the idea that evolution need not proceed with lockstep regularity really is to be derivable from the basic observations and premises of the theory.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Gould will eventually be found to "deny" this but I think YOu aRE correct. I have not tried to dig up all of Mayr's comments on it. Regardless you are more correct than the evo position if I was over the fall hump. Thanks back. My iteraction with the not post-structuralist Gould will always be to show thta while he argues for macro time I will show that we can not even get TIME of Dobshansky's "meso" evolution. But to self-put my self in Gould's league is really a dagerous thing to do until I am prepared to do more than refer to a map of NY. Thanks again.

Part of the issue has to do with the punctuation itself. Creationists latch onto the concept as meaning poof bang instantaneous creation of mulitple lineages as opposed to the actual slow process that is occurring at a faster rate when a new niche is opened or following mass extinctions. In a very good paper in the 90's PE was demonstrated in the lab with bacteria...however, since the origin of morphological change is genetic all change will ultimately be punctuated....that this is somehow in conflict with the ToE derives from yet another creationist fallacy.Here is the PE paper in bacteriaScience. 1996 Jun 21;272(5269):1802-4. Related Articles, LinksComment in:
Science. 1996 Dec 6;274(5293):1748-50.
Science. 1996 Jun 21;272(5269):1741.Punctuated evolution caused by selection of rare beneficial mutations.Elena SF, Cooper VS, Lenski RE.Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 48824, USA. selena@ant.css.msu.eduFor more than two decades there has been intense debate over the hypothesis that most morphological evolution occurs during relatively brief episodes of rapid change that punctuate much longer periods of stasis. A clear and unambiguous case of punctuated evolution is presented for cell size in a population of Escherichia coli evolving for 3000 generations in a constant environment. The punctuation is caused by natural selection as rare, beneficial mutations sweep successively through the population. This experiment shows that the most elementary processes in population genetics can give rise to punctuated evolution dynamics.

Anyone who has read Eldredge and Gould's original paper on PE will know that it was based on applying mainstream evolutionary theory (Mayr's allopatric speciation) to paleontology.It is also clear that the view they are attacking was one held within paleontology. From further reading it seems that this view was wrongly attributed to Darwin, and that punctuated equilibria - as put forward in the original paper at least - is best viewed as an extension of ideas already present in Darwin's work.

quote:

---

punctuated equilibria - as put forward in the original paper at least - is best viewed as an extension of ideas already present in Darwin's work.

---

I absolutely agree. I haven't read G&E's original paper, but any formulation of the PE concept has always seemed thoroughly Darwinian to me. Gould spent a lot of time trying to inflate the size of the 'gradualist' contingent in biology, but I've never heard anyone debate against PE on the grounds that the rate of evolution is constant. I give Gould & Eldredge credit for finally fitting the notoriously jagged puzzle piece of paleontology into the evolution picture. That said, I couldn't help but enjoy the way they got their asses handed to them by Dawkins in the "Puncturing Punctuationism" essay in Blind Watchmaker.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

Snuffulufagus,
If I really concentrate on your posts is your response going to be more than a small beer malleted resecently near you? I know you have diverse interests and I would be willing to get into this eVpe thing with you but I need to know if educate myself thru your resources as per the above will this puzzle of c/e be more or less than Gould's p750 "But this puzzlement did sometimes break through to overt statement. For example, in 1903, H.F. Cleland, a palenotlogists's paleontologist - that is, a respected expert on local minutiae, but not a general theorist - wrote of the famous Devonian Hamilton section in New York State (which has since become the "type" for an important potential extension of punctuated equilibrium to the integrated behavior of entrie faunas, the hypothesis of "coordinated stasis" - see pp. 916-922): "In a section such as that of the Hamilton formation at Cayuga Lake...if the statement natura non facit saltum is granted, one should, with some confidence, expect to find - at least some - evidences of evolution."There are many questions in Gould's work and to write on and answer them all evidentiarily will take some time. You made a statement. Can you tell the net how to get there from here? MHambre may be have been correct about what I did not say. What do you say M? I'm willing to quote Gould on bacteria and go to the racquetball wall at least. In this quote I would have used Matchette's "In the greatest apparent stillness and quietude: "what wars of atoms...what ruins, fiery and disastrous...", activity| IS existence - QUID NON AGIT NON EXISTIT."(OUTLINE OF METAPHYSICS)|||||but who IS connecting the dots for the big babys in academic chairs anyway? We all know it is not balck and white. Evidence for Matchette's use of the word "evolution" is far from finding punc eq a simple cousin of pop gen but conversely the location of non-anagenic change MUST embattle the soup that Croizat was willing to stew for Gould and yet I FOUND THE STEPHEN OF ALL OXS USING CROIZATIAN RETORIC TO KEEP CREATIONISM AND NOT CROIZATIANISM (such as the closer relation of life and earth that no core extension of darwinism to goulds liking can ever give (ok that's opinion but I am tired of waiting for any answer from everyone...)a t the hortizian local mobile zone. How do I know that Gould did not have *this* in mind for THIS quote if I can read that Gould inverted HIMSELF in his last paragraph?????????????Oh, and for those readers/lurkers it IS someTIMES possible to confuse the "zone" with an "ocean"bird BUT NOT OTHERWISE ornithologically however ONCE read the second read DID NOT and I suspect never, does not ever produce this understanding that perhaps Mayr took offense from a place rates of change may be targeted NOT to winged insects which would ON MY reading still be further NORTH. But where is my friend who will read Croizat with me? Poeikilotherm saw what I was reading but seeing is obviously NOT believing in Gould's sense. Croizat knew this of Nelson and I would guess of Patterson as well but I have not checked in/out on that.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-22-2003]

quote:

---

Snuffulufagus,

---

schrafinator asked if any creationists could be intentionally funny and Brad steps up to the plate..good one
...my roomate in college was a fan of Kermit the frog and I noticed that Snuffelufagus had a friend (or a kid)..what was his name?

quote:

---

If I really concentrate on your posts is your response going to be more than a small beer malleted resecently near you?

---

No promises about the small beers Brad...it is Oktoberfest here in Munich you know

quote:

---

I know you have diverse interests and I would be willing to get into this eVpe thing with you but I need to know if educate myself thru your resources as per the above will this puzzle of c/e be more or less than Gould's p750 "But this puzzlement did sometimes break through to overt statement.

---

I think if you come at it from the angle of peleontology (since I am not sure how extensive your background in genetics is) the references I am citing would be fairly difficult to understand..However, there were some more generally accessible summaries written about Lenski's work, as it relates to PE, that I would be willing to hunt down for you if you are interested.

quote:

---

For example, in 1903, H.F. Cleland, a palenotlogists's paleontologist - that is, a respected expert on local minutiae, but not a general theorist - wrote of the famous Devonian Hamilton section in New York State (which has since become the "type" for an important potential extension of punctuated equilibrium to the integrated behavior of entrie faunas, the hypothesis of "coordinated stasis" - see pp. 916-922): "In a section such as that of the Hamilton formation at Cayuga Lake...if the statement natura non facit saltum is granted, one should, with some confidence, expect to find - at least some - evidences of evolution."

---

Good old Cayuga lake...I used to fish and swim there all the time as a kid...until the eel infestation basically killed off the fish and the lake atrophied to the point you could walk across the algae from one side to the other.Back to PE, stasis in the fossil record is not the same as no change. The often used argument that "living fossils" are an example of evolution not working or stopping is just plain false. Modern coelocanths are represented by mulitple species with their own alleles and allele frequencies that would not have existed in the fossil forms regardless of relative morphological conservation. The genes that have a dramatic impact on morphology like Hox genes are few and small changes in expression can lead to dramatic rearrangement of body plan so PE is not in conflict with evolution but is perfectly aligned with it conceptually....and as was pointed out at the time with the Lenski paper by a critic..if mutation is the source of morphological variation than all change is ultimately punctuated which reduces it to a semantics game.

quote:

---

There are many questions in Gould's work and to write on and answer them all evidentiarily will take some time. You made a statement. Can you tell the net how to get there from here? MHambre may be have been correct about what I did not say. What do you say M?

---

Sure..I think? Or no..I mean yes
But rather than trying to tackle every question you have regarding Gould's work (especially in a single post) could you perhaps start with one point that you want to address and I and others will answer it and we can move on one by one? No offense but I rather not have a 50 page post that deals with 100 different topics.cheers,
M

Mammuthus writes:

quote:

---

my roomate in college was a fan of Kermit the frog and I noticed that Snuffelufagus had a friend (or a kid)..what was his name?

---

Mr. Snuffleupagus (note spelling) has a little sister, Alice.Mr. Snuffleupagus' first name is Aloysius.She's 2. He's 4.Big Bird seems to have aged since the beginning. He used to be 3 but now he's 6. Interestingly, his birthday is the same as my father's: March 20.Why do I know this? Because I learned a long time ago that Sesame Street is one of the best programs on television at any age. I swear it is written for at least three audiences: The children at whom it is directly aimed, the parents of those children who are supposed to be watching it with them, and the college students who know that there's nothing better on.While an undergrad, I was watching Sesame Street and saw Susan Sarandon doing a guest spot. She was with the Count...it seems their car had broken down a couple miles down the road and they were going up to this castle to see if there was a telephone that they could use.I half expected Richard O'Brien to be on the other side of the door.I consider myself lucky that I still watched Sesame Street and got to see the episodes first hand where they dealt with Mr. Hooper's death and the first time the adults got to see Mr. Snuffleupagus. Alas, I missed the one where the hurricane came and they dealt with the destruction of Big Bird's nest. Sesame Street has always had a wonderful attitude toward treating children honestly yet compassionately. One thing adults tend to do to children in times of crisis is say things like "It's all right" and ignore their very real fear. Gordon was saying that to Big Bird and BB cried out, "No! It's not all right!" Gordon stopped and actually acknowledged BB's pain and anguish. "You're right, Big Bird. It's not all right. But it will be again. You're safe and that's the most important thing. We can rebuild your nest and we will." I didn't get to see the episode first hand...I think it was part of a Nightline broadcast on the Children's Television Workshop and it followed a day in the life of the production of Sesame Street and how they dealt with issues. The hurricane episode was coming soon after an actual hurricane had hit the US (Andrew, if I recall correctly) and they wanted to deal with a real issue affecting many children.I have always been impressed with how the CTW and Sesame Street manages to do this. While I always had the utmost respect for Mr. Rogers, I connected more with Sesame Street's presentation.I'm as old as Sesame Street, so it also has a bit of a personal connection.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

Mr. Snuffleupagus (note spelling) has a little sister, Alice.

​

Mr. Snuffleupagus' first name is Aloysius.

​

She's 2. He's 4.

---

Hi RrHain,
thanks for the spelling clarification and the names. When I first started working on mammoths a colleague of mine claimed it was because I wanted to bring the Snuffleupagus to life.There seems to be a trend in a lot of shows (The Simpson's comes to mind) where the age of the characters remain static though it is clear time has passed.

quote:

---

I have always been impressed with how the CTW and Sesame Street manages to do this. While I always had the utmost respect for Mr. Rogers, I connected more with Sesame Street's presentation.

​

I'm as old as Sesame Street, so it also has a bit of a personal connection.

---

I completely agree that Sesame Street is a great show. It has of course been translated and aired in German. It was also on tv in Spain when I was a kid....I vaguely remember an episode where Elton John sang the crocodile rock with a group of crocodiles...it escapes my memory if Kermit also participated. I watched Mr. Rogers as a kid but always hated Meow Meow.cheers,
M

Mammuthus writes:

quote:

---

I vaguely remember an episode where Elton John sang the crocodile rock with a group of crocodiles...it escapes my memory if Kermit also participated.

---

Are you sure that was Sesame Street and not The Muppet Show? I really liked The Muppet Show.

quote:

---

I watched Mr. Rogers as a kid but always hated Meow Meow.

---

You mean Henrietta Pussycat? Yeah, the only ones I liked in the Kingdom of Make Believe were Lady Elaine (she actually had a personality) and, interestingly, David Striped Tiger. I'm not sure why I liked Daniel. Maybe a desire to have a little sibling to be the big brother for like Daniel seemed to need.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

Are you sure that was Sesame Street and not The Muppet Show? I really liked The Muppet Show.

---

It could well be that I have confused Sesame Street with the Muppet Show the way a creationist confuses abiogenesis with evolution Maybe I should have exhaled instead of inhaling when I was working with those scrapie infected samples

quote:

---

You mean Henrietta Pussycat? Yeah, the only ones I liked in the Kingdom of Make Believe were Lady Elaine (she actually had a personality) and, interestingly, David Striped Tiger. I'm not sure why I liked Daniel. Maybe a desire to have a little sibling to be the big brother for like Daniel seemed to need.

---

What was the name of the king?Did you ever watch the Electric Company? I grew up in Ithaca, New York and the broadcasters always had Sesame Street followed by Electric Company.Actually another thing that occurs to me about Sesame Street is the cast was multicultural at a time when that was either taboo or very novel.

Mammuthus writes:

quote:

---

What was the name of the king?

---

King Friday XIII. His wife was Queen Sara Saturday and their son was Prince Tuesday.

quote:

---

Did you ever watch the Electric Company?

---

I absolutely loved The Electric Company. And now that I know who all of those people are, I'm amazed at how many famous people were involved. Rita Moreno, Morgan Freeman, Bill Cosby, Gene Wilder (the voice of Letterman), Joan Rivers (the announcer for Letterman), Irene Cara (from Fame and who sang "What a Feeling" from Flashdance...she was a member of the Short Circus), even Mel Brooks was involved.

quote:

---

Actually another thing that occurs to me about Sesame Street is the cast was multicultural at a time when that was either taboo or very novel.

---

Well, it was 1969, so the civil rights movement was in full swing, and it was set in New York City, so there really wasn't any reason not to show the diversity within the city. Since a big theme in Sesame Street is getting along with others, I'm sure they were very conscious of the racial and sexual makeup of the performers. Interestingly, though, it took them a long time before they finally developed a female muppet of any significance beyond Prairie Dawn.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

The implication is that 'Darwinism' and 'PE' are competing theories and so, one assumes, fundamentally different. Shimbabwe promised to explain this, but has yet to do so.

​

Its all yours shim.

---

Apparently you don't need my help on this one. This thread already has more interest than the original. I am currently working on another project. I will, hopefully, join the discussion in the not so distant future.