Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Punctuated Equilibrium - evolution lies

brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 10:35:02 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Punctuated Equilibrium

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that once species appear in the fossil record they will become stable, showing little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history. This state is called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another. Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against phyletic gradualism, the belief that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous.

In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria. Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's model of geographic speciation, I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis, as well as their own empirical research.Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 11:18:56 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 10:35:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Punctuated Equilibrium

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that once species appear in the fossil record they will become stable, showing little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history. This state is called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another. Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against phyletic gradualism, the belief that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous.

In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria. Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's model of geographic speciation, I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis, as well as their own empirical research.Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

Evolution is gradualism and punctuated equilibrium.

http://www.sersc.org...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 11:21:45 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 11:18:56 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/23/2016 10:35:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Punctuated Equilibrium

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that once species appear in the fossil record they will become stable, showing little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history. This state is called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another. Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against phyletic gradualism, the belief that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous.

In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria. Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's model of geographic speciation, I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis, as well as their own empirical research.Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

Evolution is gradualism and punctuated equilibrium.

http://www.sersc.org...

Interesting how it can defy its own qualities to fit ever changing models. Do you believe whales came from hyenas? Of course you do.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 11:49:40 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 10:35:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria.

Yes, as illustrated by (for example) the Founder Effect, in which a very small species population in a new environment may appear to mutate rapidly, before quickly reaching a new plateau of gradual development. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Such an effect has been observed in nature in (for example) the lizards introduced into Pod Mrcaru, an island off the coast of Croatia. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com...]

The Founder Effect arises not from a higher rate of mutation, but a loss of genetic variation among the founders, coupled with potentially high early rates of attrition. A deeper discussion on the Founder Effect can be found in this interview with its first proponent, Ernst Mayr, who proposed it in 1942. [http://www.genetics.org...]

The Founder Effect also refutes claims by Ignorant Design proponents that evolution produces no falsifiable predictions.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 1:17:16 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 11:21:45 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/23/2016 11:18:56 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/23/2016 10:35:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Punctuated Equilibrium

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that once species appear in the fossil record they will become stable, showing little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history. This state is called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another. Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against phyletic gradualism, the belief that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous.

In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria. Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's model of geographic speciation, I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis, as well as their own empirical research.Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

Evolution is gradualism and punctuated equilibrium.

http://www.sersc.org...

Interesting how it can defy its own qualities to fit ever changing models. Do you believe whales came from hyenas? Of course you do.

It may defy your poor understanding of it, but it doesn't contradict itself. Ruv gave you an explanation of how the two models can work together.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 1:26:25 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 11:49:40 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/23/2016 10:35:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria.

Yes, as illustrated by (for example) the Founder Effect, in which a very small species population in a new environment may appear to mutate rapidly, before quickly reaching a new plateau of gradual development. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Such an effect has been observed in nature in (for example) the lizards introduced into Pod Mrcaru, an island off the coast of Croatia. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com...]

The Founder Effect arises not from a higher rate of mutation, but a loss of genetic variation among the founders, coupled with potentially high early rates of attrition. A deeper discussion on the Founder Effect can be found in this interview with its first proponent, Ernst Mayr, who proposed it in 1942. [http://www.genetics.org...]

The Founder Effect also refutes claims by Ignorant Design proponents that evolution produces no falsifiable predictions.

My curiosity leads to ask this question. When Eldredge and Gould started formulating this theory, were they looking for an answer to this question or was some other form of research being conducted?

I ask because if science is looking for the answer to gaps in the fossil record and PE is the answer and the proof is gaps in the fossil record...it becomes a debate.
Thanx
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 2:21:12 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 1:26:25 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 5/23/2016 11:49:40 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/23/2016 10:35:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria.

Yes, as illustrated by (for example) the Founder Effect, in which a very small species population in a new environment may appear to mutate rapidly, before quickly reaching a new plateau of gradual development. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Such an effect has been observed in nature in (for example) the lizards introduced into Pod Mrcaru, an island off the coast of Croatia. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com...]

The Founder Effect arises not from a higher rate of mutation, but a loss of genetic variation among the founders, coupled with potentially high early rates of attrition. A deeper discussion on the Founder Effect can be found in this interview with its first proponent, Ernst Mayr, who proposed it in 1942. [http://www.genetics.org...]

The Founder Effect also refutes claims by Ignorant Design proponents that evolution produces no falsifiable predictions.

if science is looking for the answer to gaps in the fossil record and PE is the answer and the proof is gaps in the fossil record...it becomes a debate.

As I understand it, Dan, Punctuated Equilibrium is a conjecture not to explain 'gaps' so much as the pace of evolution. Gaps are already filled with transitional forms, one doesn't necessarily expect every new species to be recorded (and some changes to form or behaviour within a species may not be visible in fossil remains anyway.) Moreover, genetic correlation now also confirms common ancestry beyond all reasonable doubt [http://journals.plos.org...], so Punctuated Equilibrium isn't really solving any of those problems.

What it does address is the rate of change, which seems to vary over the life of the species. Many species seem to spend a long time (millions of years or more) with stable forms, which leaves only a short time for rapid changes between forms (some of which may be visible in the fossil record, some not.)

So what conjectures explain that stability, and what else would such a conjecture predict? This kind of questioning is precisely how science develops.

One such conjecture arises from the 1940s work of Ernst Mayr, relating to the Founder Effect I mentioned above. (Disclosure: I haven't yet been able to track down his seminal paper as a primary source, so I'm going from historical summaries, including Mayr's own recollections.)

Mayr noted that very small 'founder' populations had low genetic diversity, which may bias toward some traits otherwise more dilute in larger populations. So if a species' access to a new environment is brief enough to create a small 'founder population' and nothing else, this can result in an explosion of new variety, which can in turn lead to speciation. On the other hand, if the whole population gets continuous access to a new environment, then it may change only gradually, or not at all.

Punctuated Equilibrium drew on Mayr's work in geographic speciation, along with Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis to conjecture that most or all speciation occurred through such rare and brief events.

Subsequently, such events have actually been observed, and their effect on species morphology and behaviour noted. For example, the lizards in Pod Mrcaru I mentioned above had new behaviours, new head-shapes, new diets and even new organs in only a few decades -- which might otherwise take millions of years to see in a larger lizard population.

So it's not circular argument so far as I can see. More calibration and refinement within an existing frame.
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 4:14:33 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 2:21:12 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/24/2016 1:26:25 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 5/23/2016 11:49:40 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/23/2016 10:35:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria.

Yes, as illustrated by (for example) the Founder Effect, in which a very small species population in a new environment may appear to mutate rapidly, before quickly reaching a new plateau of gradual development. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Such an effect has been observed in nature in (for example) the lizards introduced into Pod Mrcaru, an island off the coast of Croatia. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com...]

The Founder Effect arises not from a higher rate of mutation, but a loss of genetic variation among the founders, coupled with potentially high early rates of attrition. A deeper discussion on the Founder Effect can be found in this interview with its first proponent, Ernst Mayr, who proposed it in 1942. [http://www.genetics.org...]

The Founder Effect also refutes claims by Ignorant Design proponents that evolution produces no falsifiable predictions.

if science is looking for the answer to gaps in the fossil record and PE is the answer and the proof is gaps in the fossil record...it becomes a debate.

As I understand it, Dan, Punctuated Equilibrium is a conjecture not to explain 'gaps' so much as the pace of evolution. Gaps are already filled with transitional forms, one doesn't necessarily expect every new species to be recorded (and some changes to form or behaviour within a species may not be visible in fossil remains anyway.) Moreover, genetic correlation now also confirms common ancestry beyond all reasonable doubt [http://journals.plos.org...], so Punctuated Equilibrium isn't really solving any of those problems.

What it does address is the rate of change, which seems to vary over the life of the species. Many species seem to spend a long time (millions of years or more) with stable forms, which leaves only a short time for rapid changes between forms (some of which may be visible in the fossil record, some not.)

So what conjectures explain that stability, and what else would such a conjecture predict? This kind of questioning is precisely how science develops.

One such conjecture arises from the 1940s work of Ernst Mayr, relating to the Founder Effect I mentioned above. (Disclosure: I haven't yet been able to track down his seminal paper as a primary source, so I'm going from historical summaries, including Mayr's own recollections.)

Mayr noted that very small 'founder' populations had low genetic diversity, which may bias toward some traits otherwise more dilute in larger populations. So if a species' access to a new environment is brief enough to create a small 'founder population' and nothing else, this can result in an explosion of new variety, which can in turn lead to speciation. On the other hand, if the whole population gets continuous access to a new environment, then it may change only gradually, or not at all.

Punctuated Equilibrium drew on Mayr's work in geographic speciation, along with Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis to conjecture that most or all speciation occurred through such rare and brief events.

Subsequently, such events have actually been observed, and their effect on species morphology and behaviour noted. For example, the lizards in Pod Mrcaru I mentioned above had new behaviours, new head-shapes, new diets and even new organs in only a few decades -- which might otherwise take millions of years to see in a larger lizard population.

So it's not circular argument so far as I can see. More calibration and refinement within an existing frame.
Or it's an excuse, and a just-so story to explain away why there is no evidence of transitional forms or anything close to gradual evolution.

You people are desperate and will resort to anything to keep deluding yourselves.

Just like your silly explanations for convergence.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 5:32:50 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 4:14:33 AM, janesix wrote:
At 5/24/2016 2:21:12 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Punctuated Equilibrium drew on Mayr's work in geographic speciation, along with Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis to conjecture that most or all speciation occurred through such rare and brief events.
Subsequently, such events have actually been observed, and their effect on species morphology and behaviour noted. For example, the lizards in Pod Mrcaru I mentioned above had new behaviours, new head-shapes, new diets and even new organs in only a few decades -- which might otherwise take millions of years to see in a larger lizard population.
So it's not circular argument so far as I can see. More calibration and refinement within an existing frame.
Or it's an excuse, and a just-so story to explain away why there is no evidence of transitional forms or anything close to gradual evolution.
There are transitional forms for all manner of transitions [http://evolution.berkeley.edu...], not to mention extensive homologies between forms and genetics. [http://evolution.berkeley.edu...]. So common ancestry is not in any reasonable doubt. The interesting question is accounting for variations in rate of change. Such a mechanism has been predicted, has now been observed, and produces precisely the high rate of change expected.

You people are desperate and will resort to anything to keep deluding yourselves.
Jane, I'm quite comfortable with the idea of created species. That's not the reality we have, but it wouldn't worry me overmuch if it were.

However, I completely understand why you would be desperate to believe that a god was talking to you rather than accept the alternatives. I cannot in the least blame you for that.

Yet consider: you have no expertise in biology, geology, or paleontology while hundreds of thousands of the world's best minds working in this field for centuries, accountable to expertise of every faith from all over the earth, have produced these results.

Which shall I believe: that your desire for a god talking to you makes you wish too hard for a created earth, or that all that that expertise and rigor is wrong and hasn't detected it, while you with little scientific knowledge and no experience, have?
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 5:44:50 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 5:32:50 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/24/2016 4:14:33 AM, janesix wrote:
At 5/24/2016 2:21:12 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Punctuated Equilibrium drew on Mayr's work in geographic speciation, along with Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis to conjecture that most or all speciation occurred through such rare and brief events.
Subsequently, such events have actually been observed, and their effect on species morphology and behaviour noted. For example, the lizards in Pod Mrcaru I mentioned above had new behaviours, new head-shapes, new diets and even new organs in only a few decades -- which might otherwise take millions of years to see in a larger lizard population.
So it's not circular argument so far as I can see. More calibration and refinement within an existing frame.
Or it's an excuse, and a just-so story to explain away why there is no evidence of transitional forms or anything close to gradual evolution.
There are transitional forms for all manner of transitions [http://evolution.berkeley.edu...], not to mention extensive homologies between forms and genetics. [http://evolution.berkeley.edu...]. So common ancestry is not in any reasonable doubt. The interesting question is accounting for variations in rate of change. Such a mechanism has been predicted, has now been observed, and produces precisely the high rate of change expected.

You people are desperate and will resort to anything to keep deluding yourselves.
Jane, I'm quite comfortable with the idea of created species. That's not the reality we have, but it wouldn't worry me overmuch if it were.

However, I completely understand why you would be desperate to believe that a god was talking to you rather than accept the alternatives. I cannot in the least blame you for that.

Yet consider: you have no expertise in biology, geology, or paleontology while hundreds of thousands of the world's best minds working in this field for centuries, accountable to expertise of every faith from all over the earth, have produced these results.

Which shall I believe: that your desire for a god talking to you makes you wish too hard for a created earth, or that all that that expertise and rigor is wrong and hasn't detected it, while you with little scientific knowledge and no experience, have?

You will beleive what mainstream scientists tell you, because you lack a mind of your own.

I was perfectly content as an atheist for 37 years. You think i want people talking in my head?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 5:50:41 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 5:44:50 AM, janesix wrote:
At 5/24/2016 5:32:50 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/24/2016 4:14:33 AM, janesix wrote:
At 5/24/2016 2:21:12 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Punctuated Equilibrium drew on Mayr's work in geographic speciation, along with Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis to conjecture that most or all speciation occurred through such rare and brief events.
Subsequently, such events have actually been observed, and their effect on species morphology and behaviour noted. For example, the lizards in Pod Mrcaru I mentioned above had new behaviours, new head-shapes, new diets and even new organs in only a few decades -- which might otherwise take millions of years to see in a larger lizard population.
So it's not circular argument so far as I can see. More calibration and refinement within an existing frame.
Or it's an excuse, and a just-so story to explain away why there is no evidence of transitional forms or anything close to gradual evolution.
There are transitional forms for all manner of transitions [http://evolution.berkeley.edu...], not to mention extensive homologies between forms and genetics. [http://evolution.berkeley.edu...]. So common ancestry is not in any reasonable doubt. The interesting question is accounting for variations in rate of change. Such a mechanism has been predicted, has now been observed, and produces precisely the high rate of change expected.
You people are desperate and will resort to anything to keep deluding yourselves.
Jane, I'm quite comfortable with the idea of created species. That's not the reality we have, but it wouldn't worry me overmuch if it were.
However, I completely understand why you would be desperate to believe that a god was talking to you rather than accept the alternatives. I cannot in the least blame you for that.
Yet consider: you have no expertise in biology, geology, or paleontology while hundreds of thousands of the world's best minds working in this field for centuries, accountable to expertise of every faith from all over the earth, have produced these results.
Which shall I believe: that your desire for a god talking to you makes you wish too hard for a created earth, or that all that that expertise and rigor is wrong and hasn't detected it, while you with little scientific knowledge and no experience, have?
I was perfectly content as an atheist for 37 years. You think i want people talking in my head?
No, Jane. Both my family and my in-laws have diagnoses of schizophrenia. I know how troubling, distracting and upsetting it is.

I know very well that you don't want it. I also understand why you would prefer to believe in the truth of your experiences than accept the miserable alternative.

As I said, I blame you for none of that.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 10:46:56 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 2:21:12 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/24/2016 1:26:25 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 5/23/2016 11:49:40 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/23/2016 10:35:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria.

Yes, as illustrated by (for example) the Founder Effect, in which a very small species population in a new environment may appear to mutate rapidly, before quickly reaching a new plateau of gradual development. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Such an effect has been observed in nature in (for example) the lizards introduced into Pod Mrcaru, an island off the coast of Croatia. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com...]

The Founder Effect arises not from a higher rate of mutation, but a loss of genetic variation among the founders, coupled with potentially high early rates of attrition. A deeper discussion on the Founder Effect can be found in this interview with its first proponent, Ernst Mayr, who proposed it in 1942. [http://www.genetics.org...]

The Founder Effect also refutes claims by Ignorant Design proponents that evolution produces no falsifiable predictions.

if science is looking for the answer to gaps in the fossil record and PE is the answer and the proof is gaps in the fossil record...it becomes a debate.

As I understand it, Dan, Punctuated Equilibrium is a conjecture not to explain 'gaps' so much as the pace of evolution. Gaps are already filled with transitional forms, one doesn't necessarily expect every new species to be recorded (and some changes to form or behaviour within a species may not be visible in fossil remains anyway.) Moreover, genetic correlation now also confirms common ancestry beyond all reasonable doubt [http://journals.plos.org...], so Punctuated Equilibrium isn't really solving any of those problems.

Forgive my ignorance ruv, but all the papers and articles I have read on PE begin with the theory's explanation of the lack of evidence in the fossil record to show linear progression (gaps). It was my understanding that This theory was formulated to close those gaps specifically by showing the rapid pace in evolutionary development. When the theory of PE was developed the popular belief would have been of Darwinian gradualism, which of course is not supported by the fossil record.
Thanx for the link as well. I have not fully understood genetic correlation so again I may not be correct in saying, but this is a prediction. Perhaps a well thought out prediction but still a prediction.
I think my issue with PE is that the transitional that you accept ruv seem to be acceptable only due to PE.
What it does address is the rate of change, which seems to vary over the life of the species. Many species seem to spend a long time (millions of years or more) with stable forms, which leaves only a short time for rapid changes between forms (some of which may be visible in the fossil record, some not.)

So what conjectures explain that stability, and what else would such a conjecture predict? This kind of questioning is precisely how science develops.

One such conjecture arises from the 1940s work of Ernst Mayr, relating to the Founder Effect I mentioned above. (Disclosure: I haven't yet been able to track down his seminal paper as a primary source, so I'm going from historical summaries, including Mayr's own recollections.)

Mayr noted that very small 'founder' populations had low genetic diversity, which may bias toward some traits otherwise more dilute in larger populations. So if a species' access to a new environment is brief enough to create a small 'founder population' and nothing else, this can result in an explosion of new variety, which can in turn lead to speciation. On the other hand, if the whole population gets continuous access to a new environment, then it may change only gradually, or not at all.

Punctuated Equilibrium drew on Mayr's work in geographic speciation, along with Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis to conjecture that most or all speciation occurred through such rare and brief events.

Subsequently, such events have actually been observed, and their effect on species morphology and behaviour noted. For example, the lizards in Pod Mrcaru I mentioned above had new behaviours, new head-shapes, new diets and even new organs in only a few decades -- which might otherwise take millions of years to see in a larger lizard population.

So it's not circular argument so far as I can see. More calibration and refinement within an existing frame.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 11:56:57 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 10:46:56 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 5/24/2016 2:21:12 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/24/2016 1:26:25 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
if science is looking for the answer to gaps in the fossil record and PE is the answer and the proof is gaps in the fossil record...it becomes a debate.
As I understand it, Dan, Punctuated Equilibrium is a conjecture not to explain 'gaps' so much as the pace of evolution. Gaps are already filled with transitional forms, one doesn't necessarily expect every new species to be recorded (and some changes to form or behaviour within a species may not be visible in fossil remains anyway.) Moreover, genetic correlation now also confirms common ancestry beyond all reasonable doubt [http://journals.plos.org...], so Punctuated Equilibrium isn't really solving any of those problems.

Forgive my ignorance ruv, but all the papers and articles I have read on PE begin with the theory's explanation of the lack of evidence in the fossil record to show linear progression (gaps). It was my understanding that This theory was formulated to close those gaps specifically by showing the rapid pace in evolutionary development. When the theory of PE was developed the popular belief would have been of Darwinian gradualism, which of course is not supported by the fossil record.

Well uniform gradualism is not supported by the fossil record, which is pretty much what I said earlier. But I don't think that's assumed by Darwin either, since he didn't know what the mutation mechanisms were, and already knew that survival rates from natural selection wouldn't be uniform: the finches new to an island would have a harder time surviving than their descendants would. So he had no reason to conceive of uniform rates of change, and I haven't ever seen a place where he's asserted that. (Please quote it if you know of one.)

In further evidence, I mentioned that Gould's work is based in part on Mayr's work on geographic speciation (also known as allopathic speciation.) But that work dates from 1942, thirty years before Gould's, and paleontology is centuries old, so I don't believe the issues of rate of change is new in principle. What the 20th century gives us which earlier eras didn't have, is radiometric dating -- which gives us a measure of the absolute durations over which species didn't change much. And those are huge. So the issue might've been around in principle, but the magnitude of effects might be relatively new.

It sounds like we need to hit some primary sources though, Dan, and exchange links. I'm aware from my own reading that Punctuated Equilibrium caused a flap for some time, and in principle I can understand why, though it doesn't concern me at all now.

But Mayr for example, has commented that people misunderstood Gould's work, and his own at the time. For example, he has articulated three versions of gradualism, and said they were being conflated. At one point some commentators considered PE to be a refutation of gradualism, though now it's commonly seen as a mechanism for achieving it. So we probably need to unpick that, beginning with the papers themselves.

While I don't believe the mechanism of PE is problematic at this point, it's also not unknown for scientists to revise their intentions in hindsight to seem wiser than they actually were, so it's possible that Gould or Mayr's justifications have changed -- or that science historians have altered it (perhaps unintentionally) So yours is a legitimate concern regarding the history, whether or not it impacts the science. But regardless, the abstracts and introductions to early papers should help clear it up, since they typically contextualise the research with a rationale.

I'll try and dig up some of Gould et al's early papers, so we can see how the thinking actually developed. I'll try and source Mayr's seminal paper too. If you'd be so kind to provide me your current reading list, we can use that for comparison.

Thanx for the link as well. I have not fully understood genetic correlation so again I may not be correct in saying, but this is a prediction. Perhaps a well thought out prediction but still a prediction.
Homological correlation (i.e. relating ancestrally-shared form to similar gene sequences) is a necessary prediction of common ancestry (i.e. if it failed, science should be considering disparate ancestry as an alternative hypothesis.) But it's also now a verified set of tests based on gene sequencing, such that the odds of producing the degree of correlation we actually have from genetically unrelated species by chance alone is something worse than the chance of picking the same proton out of all the protons in the universe twice in a row.

What I think this means is that even if Darwin's mechanisms for speciation were totally wrong and there were other mechanisms instead, the model of cladistic branching from common ancestry now wouldn't be hurt by that.

So, to pick a frivolous example, if we came to suspect that purple aliens from the planet Koozbane had been manipulating Earth's gene-stock over millions of years, they'd still have to have been doing it using only Earth's gene-stock, modifying it slowly and incrementally, and without the cut-and-paste hybridisation that genetic engineering can do today between unrelated species -- because that's what I think homological correlation is telling us. :)

I think my issue with PE is that the transitional that you accept ruv seem to be acceptable only due to PE.
As I mentioned, this isn't my field, Dan, but I don't feel that way about transitional forms at all. The cladistic tree seems very well mapped, and nowadays ancestral divergence can be cross-validated genetically too. I'm not saying that there aren't any surprises to be found. I just don't see reason from the literature to conceive that life on Earth had (say) two unrelated ancestors rather than one common ancestor, and there now seems very strong reason to think it doesn't.

So with seminal papers still unread, my thought is if there were a serious methodological problem with 45 year old biology, It seems really unlikely to me that we'll find it today, while almost a half-century of actively-researching biologists critiquing each other viciously for generations haven't. I think more likely, we'll learn some interesting and useful things about science history and methods.

Let's read some papers though, and see. :) I'll post links as I find them, and once we have a set, we can take a read and have a look. :) But please let me know your sources first, so I can better understand what you're reading, when it was written and who wrote it.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 12:29:24 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 11:56:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/24/2016 10:46:56 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 5/24/2016 2:21:12 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/24/2016 1:26:25 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
if science is looking for the answer to gaps in the fossil record and PE is the answer and the proof is gaps in the fossil record...it becomes a debate.
As I understand it, Dan, Punctuated Equilibrium is a conjecture not to explain 'gaps' so much as the pace of evolution. Gaps are already filled with transitional forms, one doesn't necessarily expect every new species to be recorded (and some changes to form or behaviour within a species may not be visible in fossil remains anyway.) Moreover, genetic correlation now also confirms common ancestry beyond all reasonable doubt [http://journals.plos.org...], so Punctuated Equilibrium isn't really solving any of those problems.

Forgive my ignorance ruv, but all the papers and articles I have read on PE begin with the theory's explanation of the lack of evidence in the fossil record to show linear progression (gaps). It was my understanding that This theory was formulated to close those gaps specifically by showing the rapid pace in evolutionary development. When the theory of PE was developed the popular belief would have been of Darwinian gradualism, which of course is not supported by the fossil record.

Well uniform gradualism is not supported by the fossil record, which is pretty much what I said earlier. But I don't think that's assumed by Darwin either, since he didn't know what the mutation mechanisms were, and already knew that survival rates from natural selection wouldn't be uniform: the finches new to an island would have a harder time surviving than their descendants would. So he had no reason to conceive of uniform rates of change, and I haven't ever seen a place where he's asserted that. (Please quote it if you know of one.)

I remember reading somewhere that due to lyells influence on Darwin, that Darwin called evolution biological uniformitarianism. Darwin also had concerns with the fossil record proving his theory I thought. Perhaps its just my assumption that Darwin would have believed in uniform gradualism.

In further evidence, I mentioned that Gould's work is based in part on Mayr's work on geographic speciation (also known as allopathic speciation.) But that work dates from 1942, thirty years before Gould's, and paleontology is centuries old, so I don't believe the issues of rate of change is new in principle. What the 20th century gives us which earlier eras didn't have, is radiometric dating -- which gives us a measure of the absolute durations over which species didn't change much. And those are huge. So the issue might've been around in principle, but the magnitude of effects might be relatively new.
So what was the popular believe on the fossil record in the 40s and 50s? or in the 70s right before this work (PE) came out?
It sounds like we need to hit some primary sources though, Dan, and exchange links. I'm aware from my own reading that Punctuated Equilibrium caused a flap for some time, and in principle I can understand why, though it doesn't concern me at all now.
I would be very interested in any links you would provide. For me I have not sat down and did a study on PE but have of course come across it in studying evolution. When I say that I have read papers and articles these would be from google searches on the subject. Also I try to look at both sides of the debate when doing google searches so Im sure I come across stuff that is written by non science as well as science. Here are a few links I know I have used. There are more but unfortunately when I look something up I don't always remember where I found it.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.pbs.org...
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com...
https://books.google.com...
http://www.evolutionnews.org...

But Mayr for example, has commented that people misunderstood Gould's work, and his own at the time. For example, he has articulated three versions of gradualism, and said they were being conflated. At one point some commentators considered PE to be a refutation of gradualism, though now it's commonly seen as a mechanism for achieving it. So we probably need to unpick that, beginning with the papers themselves.

While I don't believe the mechanism of PE is problematic at this point, it's also not unknown for scientists to revise their intentions in hindsight to seem wiser than they actually were, so it's possible that Gould or Mayr's justifications have changed -- or that science historians have altered it (perhaps unintentionally) So yours is a legitimate concern regarding the history, whether or not it impacts the science. But regardless, the abstracts and introductions to early papers should help clear it up, since they typically contextualise the research with a rationale.

I'll try and dig up some of Gould et al's early papers, so we can see how the thinking actually developed. I'll try and source Mayr's seminal paper too. If you'd be so kind to provide me your current reading list, we can use that for comparison.

Thanx for the link as well. I have not fully understood genetic correlation so again I may not be correct in saying, but this is a prediction. Perhaps a well thought out prediction but still a prediction.
Homological correlation (i.e. relating ancestrally-shared form to similar gene sequences) is a necessary prediction of common ancestry (i.e. if it failed, science should be considering disparate ancestry as an alternative hypothesis.) But it's also now a verified set of tests based on gene sequencing, such that the odds of producing the degree of correlation we actually have from genetically unrelated species by chance alone is something worse than the chance of picking the same proton out of all the protons in the universe twice in a row.

What I think this means is that even if Darwin's mechanisms for speciation were totally wrong and there were other mechanisms instead, the model of cladistic branching from common ancestry now wouldn't be hurt by that.

So, to pick a frivolous example, if we came to suspect that purple aliens from the planet Koozbane had been manipulating Earth's gene-stock over millions of years, they'd still have to have been doing it using only Earth's gene-stock, modifying it slowly and incrementally, and without the cut-and-paste hybridisation that genetic engineering can do today between unrelated species -- because that's what I think homological correlation is telling us. :)

I think my issue with PE is that the transitional that you accept ruv seem to be acceptable only due to PE.
As I mentioned, this isn't my field, Dan, but I don't feel that way about transitional forms at all. The cladistic tree seems very well mapped, and nowadays ancestral divergence can be cross-validated genetically too. I'm not saying that there aren't any surprises to be found. I just don't see reason from the literature to conceive that life on Earth had (say) two unrelated ancestors rather than one common ancestor, and there now seems very strong reason to think it doesn't.

So with seminal papers still unread, my thought is if there were a serious methodological problem with 45 year old biology, It seems really unlikely to me that we'll find it today, while almost a half-century of actively-researching biologists critiquing each other viciously for generations haven't. I think more likely, we'll learn some interesting and useful things about science history and methods.

Let's read some papers though, and see. :) I'll post links as I
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 5:25:10 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 12:29:24 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 5/24/2016 11:56:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Uniform gradualism is not supported by the fossil record, which is pretty much what I said earlier. But I don't think that's assumed by Darwin either, since he didn't know what the mutation mechanisms were, and already knew that survival rates from natural selection wouldn't be uniform: the finches new to an island would have a harder time surviving than their descendants would. So he had no reason to conceive of uniform rates of change, and I haven't ever seen a place where he's asserted that. (Please quote it if you know of one.)
I remember reading somewhere that due to lyells influence on Darwin, that Darwin called evolution biological uniformitarianism.
I assume you mean geologist Charles Lyell, who popularised James Hutton's notions of geological uniformitarianism -- the idea that the Earth's geology was being shaped by ongoing processes -- that it wasn't static, but still in flux.

We need to be careful about language here, Dan, because 18th-19th century natural science was riddled with false dichotomies -- perhaps the biggest being the uniformitarianism/gradualism vs catastrophism stoush that ran across both geology and biology for around a century. Nowadays, modern science has deconflicted these views through better data, and has adopted better language, but when Darwin commenced his research, the principle of 'uniformitarianism' was only a half-century old, was still developing, still contentious, and had broad philosophical implications.

Today we take for granted the idea that the same natural laws have held in perpetuity and shape our world, but from the 17th to 19th centuries they were actively discovering that there were natural laws, and still convincing themselves that they both held consistently, and were sufficient to explain what they actually saw. Uniformitarianism was the philosophical idea that these laws had held in perpetuity, and gradualism was the related implication that these laws were producing not just a static outcomes, but also change.

Opposing this in a dichotomy that we now see as false, was the idea of catastrophism -- that the order of the world was being repeatedly rewritten, with the biological implication that species were being repeatedly recreated. Again, modern life-science doesn't find these ideas in conflict: continuing geoclimatic change can indeed wipe out species in catastrophes, but continuing biological change can also create new species.

Darwin was a gradualist in that sense, but there was no perfectly right side in this, Dan, and no side was entirely wrong. The contest of ideas from both sides produced methods and ideas now central to science. Catastrophist Georges Cuvier, for example, is considered the father of paleontology, while gradualist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck has been the butt of jokes for two and a half centuries because he got the principle right, but the mechanisms wrong.

Anyway, 'uniformitarianism' meant uniform laws rather than a uniform rate of change. Darwin's idea of natural selection is 'gradualist' and 'uniformitarianist' (I hope to never have to write that word again in my life!) in the philosophical sense, but by its very nature, natural selection cannot always be at a uniform survival rate, since it predicts species getting better at survival as they evolve. If Darwin's work were ever called 'biological uniformitarianism', I believe that would have been a philosophical category, more than an assertion of uniform rates of change.

I would be very interested in any links you would provide. For me I have not sat down and did a study on PE
Me either, though I know Gould's work from his letters and essays, and understand PE in principle. Thank you also for the links, Dan. I'll do some digging and see what I can find.

I thought I'd dedicate this post to the sometimes bizarre language and ideas of 19th century science though, in the hope it'd clear up a few contextual speed-bumps and potholes as we dig into the history. :)

I hope this may be useful.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 6:30:04 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 12:29:24 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
I would be very interested in any links you would provide.
Okay, the material is dense, so I'll try and use fewer links rather than more. I think in this case though, one is sufficient.

Here's the abstract of a 1977 paper I found in the journal Paleobiology . It's a seminal paper on punctuated equilibria, and the kind of paper often used to kick off a scientific discussion when a scientist thinks the modelling might be wrong.

I'll reproduce the abstract in full, and then explain what I understand the authors to be saying. [http://www.es.ucsc.edu...] While I am a scientist, I'm not a biologist or paleontologist, so the usual caveats apply.

Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge

Abstract.-We believe that punctuational change dominates the history of life: evolution is concentrated in very rapid events of speciation (geologically instantaneous, even if tolerably continuous in ecological time). Most species, during their geological history, either do not change in any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology, with no apparent direction. Phyletic gradualism is very rare and too slow, in any case, to produce the major events of evolution. Evolutionary trends are not the product of slow, directional transformation within lineages; they represent the differential success of certain species within a clade -- speciation may be random with respect to the direction of a trend (Wright's rule).

As an a priori bias, phyletic gradualism has precluded any fair assessment of evolutionary tempos and modes. It could not be refuted by empirical catalogues constructed in its light because it excluded contrary information as the artificial result of an imperfect fossil record. With the model of punctuated equilibria, an unbiased distribution of evolutionary tempos can be established by treating stasis as data and by recording the pattern of change for all species in an assemblage. This distribution of tempos can lead to strong inferences about modes. If, as we predict, the punctuational tempo is prevalent, then speciation-not phyletic evolution-must be the dominant mode of evolution.

We argue that virtually none of the examples brought forward to refute our model can stand as support for phyletic gradualism; many are so weak and ambiguous that they only reflect the persistent bias" for gradualism still deeply embedded in paleontological thought. Of the few stronger cases, we concentrate on Gingerich's data for Hyopsodus and argue that it provides an excellent example of species selection under our model. We then review the data of several studies that" have supported our model since we published it five years ago. The record of human evolution seems to provide a particularly good example: no gradualism has been detected within any hominid taxon, and many are long-ranging: the trend to larger brains arises from differential success of essentially static taxa. The data of molecular genetics support our assumption that large genetic changes often accompany the process of speciation.

Phyletic gradualism was an a priori assertion from the start-it was never "seen" in the rocks; it expressed the cultural and political biases of 19th century liberalism. Huxley advised Darwin to eschew it as an "unnecessary difficulty." We think that it has now become an empirical fallacy. A punctuational view of change may have wide validity at all levels of evolutionary processes. At the very least, it deserves consideration as an alternate way of interpreting the history of life.


So this paper is conjectural -- they're not publishing a new experimental result so much as triggering a conversation to reconsider. As with all good scientific conjectures, this paper:
1) seeks to improve the scope and accuracy of scientific prediction;
2) focuses on mechanisms and evidence; and
3) offers a clue as to how the authors' ideas would be refuted if they were wrong.

Let me now try to substantiate this.

As I understand it, the authors are taking issue with an idea they called 'phyletic gradualism' [https://en.wikipedia.org...] -- the assumption that slow, uniform, gradual change within a species across the life of a species eventually leads to some new species. They're saying that assuming this has been a blind spot in biology leading to poor predictions, and that it arose from 'liberal biases' of the day (which I assume means that some biologists wanted to model a kind, progressive nature, rather than a cruel one.) They're saying that the static nature of fossils longitudinally should itself be treated as data, and if you do that, then the data refute gradual changes to species, but support rapid bursts of change -- punctuated equilibrium, if you will. They also point out that because of the relative pace of geology and biology, change which is 'fast' geologically can still feel 'slow' to the species -- it's not so rapid that the species would die of shock, but still a major acceleration from the usual pace of species change.

They're saying that this means the dominant mode of evolution then isn't gradual, progressive improvement to existing species, but speciation itself -- the geologically rapid inception of new species that out-perform the old ones. (They don't say so explicitly, but they're implying here that the extinction of successful species in favour of even more successful species is a necessary and inevitable by-product of evolution, and you can see why this clashes with Herbert Spencer's liberal 'Survival of the Fittest' idea that I mentioned in a previous post.)

To a biologist or paleontologist reading this paper, I think the implications should be clear: the conjecture could be falsified (or at least damaged) in several ways:
1) Any detailed fossil record showing the gradual transformation of one species to another over time;
2) Any fossil record showing the 'parent' and 'daughter' species co-existing for long periods of time; or
2) Any genetic or other mechanism showing a way in which species could become a new species through continuous improvement without first passing through a maladaptive stage (cf. Wright's Rule, also mentioned by the paper [https://en.wikipedia.org...])

To scientists the pragmatic and ethical obligations of this paper are also clear: if this interpretation offers more precise, accurate prediction, then they have to use it. In particular, if this model is accurate, then any story of speciation has to start looking for evidence of circumstances that cause equilibrium to be punctuated (e.g. 'founding' colonies of a parent species some new place; or population bottlenecks leaving successful species with much less genetic diversity.) Importantly, they must also confirm that the mechanisms of rapid change can occur and produce new species, which makes their job harder, rather than easier.

But Dan, we can also note what this paper is not saying. It's not saying 'there are missing links, we need to fill the gaps in with a story'. It's saying: we may not be using all the data we have as well as we can. It could be making us inaccurate, and is potentially making us lazy. We need to revisit how we're using the data, look for more information to explain what triggers the formation of new species, and revise our research into speciation mechanisms to suit that tempo.

It's lifting the bar on the standard of evolutionary evidence, not lowering it, increasing transparency and accountability to all the data. That's exactly what science should do.

My conclusion: this is business-as-usual science, not evolutionary apologetics.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 7:31:18 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Also, for completeness, a link to the 1972 essay of Eldridge and Gould, mentioned in the Original Post: [http://www.blackwellpublishing.com...]

It's a rambly, philosophical essay whose key ideas I think are better captured by the 1977 paper whose Abstract I reproduced above. So I've only skimmed it to assure myself that it's not making any more arguments than were made in the 1977 paper, and that the underlying rationale hadn't changed across the five year period.

As far as I can tell it's not. It's doing precisely as the 1977 paper did: pointing out a cognitive bias in paleontology that needed challenging, pointing out that allopathic speciation offers an alternative view, and setting out a case to clear up the discrepancies.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 7:46:03 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Okay, the material is dense, so I'll try and use fewer links rather than more. I think in this case though, one is sufficient.

Here's the abstract of a 1977 paper I found in the journal Paleobiology . It's a seminal paper on punctuated equilibria, and the kind of paper often used to kick off a scientific discussion when a scientist thinks the modelling might be wrong.

I'll reproduce the abstract in full, and then explain what I understand the authors to be saying. [http://www.es.ucsc.edu...] While I am a scientist, I'm not a biologist or paleontologist, so the usual caveats apply.

Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge

Abstract.-We believe that punctuational change dominates the history of life: evolution is concentrated in very rapid events of speciation (geologically instantaneous, even if tolerably continuous in ecological time). Most species, during their geological history, either do not change in any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology, with no apparent direction. Phyletic gradualism is very rare and too slow, in any case, to produce the major events of evolution. Evolutionary trends are not the product of slow, directional transformation within lineages; they represent the differential success of certain species within a clade -- speciation may be random with respect to the direction of a trend (Wright's rule).

As an a priori bias, phyletic gradualism has precluded any fair assessment of evolutionary tempos and modes. It could not be refuted by empirical catalogues constructed in its light because it excluded contrary information as the artificial result of an imperfect fossil record. With the model of punctuated equilibria, an unbiased distribution of evolutionary tempos can be established by treating stasis as data and by recording the pattern of change for all species in an assemblage. This distribution of tempos can lead to strong inferences about modes. If, as we predict, the punctuational tempo is prevalent, then speciation-not phyletic evolution-must be the dominant mode of evolution.

We argue that virtually none of the examples brought forward to refute our model can stand as support for phyletic gradualism; many are so weak and ambiguous that they only reflect the persistent bias" for gradualism still deeply embedded in paleontological thought. Of the few stronger cases, we concentrate on Gingerich's data for Hyopsodus and argue that it provides an excellent example of species selection under our model. We then review the data of several studies that" have supported our model since we published it five years ago. The record of human evolution seems to provide a particularly good example: no gradualism has been detected within any hominid taxon, and many are long-ranging: the trend to larger brains arises from differential success of essentially static taxa. The data of molecular genetics support our assumption that large genetic changes often accompany the process of speciation.

Phyletic gradualism was an a priori assertion from the start-it was never "seen" in the rocks; it expressed the cultural and political biases of 19th century liberalism. Huxley advised Darwin to eschew it as an "unnecessary difficulty." We think that it has now become an empirical fallacy. A punctuational view of change may have wide validity at all levels of evolutionary processes. At the very least, it deserves consideration as an alternate way of interpreting the history of life.


So this paper is conjectural -- they're not publishing a new experimental result so much as triggering a conversation to reconsider. As with all good scientific conjectures, this paper:
1) seeks to improve the scope and accuracy of scientific prediction;
2) focuses on mechanisms and evidence; and
3) offers a clue as to how the authors' ideas would be refuted if they were wrong.

Let me now try to substantiate this.

As I understand it, the authors are taking issue with an idea they called 'phyletic gradualism' [https://en.wikipedia.org...] -- the assumption that slow, uniform, gradual change within a species across the life of a species eventually leads to some new species. They're saying that assuming this has been a blind spot in biology leading to poor predictions, and that it arose from 'liberal biases' of the day (which I assume means that some biologists wanted to model a kind, progressive nature, rather than a cruel one.) They're saying that the static nature of fossils longitudinally should itself be treated as data, and if you do that, then the data refute gradual changes to species, but support rapid bursts of change -- punctuated equilibrium, if you will. They also point out that because of the relative pace of geology and biology, change which is 'fast' geologically can still feel 'slow' to the species -- it's not so rapid that the species would die of shock, but still a major acceleration from the usual pace of species change.

They're saying that this means the dominant mode of evolution then isn't gradual, progressive improvement to existing species, but speciation itself -- the geologically rapid inception of new species that out-perform the old ones. (They don't say so explicitly, but they're implying here that the extinction of successful species in favour of even more successful species is a necessary and inevitable by-product of evolution, and you can see why this clashes with Herbert Spencer's liberal 'Survival of the Fittest' idea that I mentioned in a previous post.)

To a biologist or paleontologist reading this paper, I think the implications should be clear: the conjecture could be falsified (or at least damaged) in several ways:
1) Any detailed fossil record showing the gradual transformation of one species to another over time;
2) Any fossil record showing the 'parent' and 'daughter' species co-existing for long periods of time; or
2) Any genetic or other mechanism showing a way in which species could become a new species through continuous improvement without first passing through a maladaptive stage (cf. Wright's Rule, also mentioned by the paper [https://en.wikipedia.org...])

To scientists the pragmatic and ethical obligations of this paper are also clear: if this interpretation offers more precise, accurate prediction, then they have to use it. In particular, if this model is accurate, then any story of speciation has to start looking for evidence of circumstances that cause equilibrium to be punctuated (e.g. 'founding' colonies of a parent species some new place; or population bottlenecks leaving successful species with much less genetic diversity.) Importantly, they must also confirm that the mechanisms of rapid change can occur and produce new species, which makes their job harder, rather than easier.

But Dan, we can also note what this paper is not saying. It's not saying 'there are missing links, we need to fill the gaps in with a story'. It's saying: we may not be using all the data we have as well as we can. It could be making us inaccurate, and is potentially making us lazy. We need to revisit how we're using the data, look for more information to explain what triggers the formation of new species, and revise our research into speciation mechanisms to suit that tempo.

It's lifting the bar on the standard of evolutionary evidence, not lowering it, increasing transparency and accountability to all the data. That's exactly what science should do.

My conclusion: this is business-as-
Great stuff, This really clarifies Goulds model and his reasoning. As always your insights are appreciated and h
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 7:50:27 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 7:31:18 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Also, for completeness, a link to the 1972 essay of Eldridge and Gould, mentioned in the Original Post: [http://www.blackwellpublishing.com...]

It's a rambly, philosophical essay whose key ideas I think are better captured by the 1977 paper whose Abstract I reproduced above. So I've only skimmed it to assure myself that it's not making any more arguments than were made in the 1977 paper, and that the underlying rationale hadn't changed across the five year period.

As far as I can tell it's not. It's doing precisely as the 1977 paper did: pointing out a cognitive bias in paleontology that needed challenging, pointing out that allopathic speciation offers an alternative view, and setting out a case to clear up the discrepancies.

Yes this is the link I have used previous. Im going to go over this one with the other you gave, thanx. I realize I need to first address what type of paper im reading to know the audience targeted. It will help in my interpretations.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 8:20:41 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 7:50:27 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 5/25/2016 7:31:18 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Also, for completeness, a link to the 1972 essay of Eldridge and Gould, mentioned in the Original Post: [http://www.blackwellpublishing.com...]

It's a rambly, philosophical essay whose key ideas I think are better captured by the 1977 paper whose Abstract I reproduced above. So I've only skimmed it to assure myself that it's not making any more arguments than were made in the 1977 paper, and that the underlying rationale hadn't changed across the five year period.

As far as I can tell it's not. It's doing precisely as the 1977 paper did: pointing out a cognitive bias in paleontology that needed challenging, pointing out that allopathic speciation offers an alternative view, and setting out a case to clear up the discrepancies.

Yes this is the link I have used previous.
Thank you. I hadn't gone through your links, since I knew I wanted to put down some primary sources first anyway. You're right to grab that as a primary. I think the 1977 paper is clearer and more focused though. I hope you find it useful.

I'm going to go over this one with the other you gave, thanx.
The chances are that you'll be reading it in more depth than I did then. If anything seems odd or curious, please poke me. If you do, I'll take a read too and see what I make of it.

I realize I need to first address what type of paper im reading to know the audience targeted. It will help in my interpretations.
Yes, oh yes, a thousand times yes! :D

Many of the problems laid at the door of science are actually attributable to popular science journalism. They're legitimate problems, but the wrong parties are being blamed for it.

If you've ever leafed through a medical journal in a doctor's surgery, you'll know how dry science can be, and you can see it in the abstract of the paper I linked above. Written by scientists for scientists it's full of jargon, typically understated in implications, and loaded with assumed knowledge including knowledge of the state of the field, the implications of evidence, the scientific method, and an understanding of how scientists turn ideas into accepted models and evaluate them.

When popular science journalists turn papers into news reports, they render that approach almost unrecognisable. Instead of being about methods and evidence, their stories become about people: great men transforming the world; ordinary people being able to do marvelous things one day soon. Full of triumphalism, with a stripped-down history that hides the welter of contention and confusion that normally occurs, popular science stories can give a strong impression of predestination and inevitable progress led by precognitive visionaries.

But it's nothing like that. Real science is just smart but ignorant people taking a thoughtful but careful approach to trial and error, and being wrong repeatedly. :D It's detecting the wrong that teaches us, and it's really the diversity of approaches and careful rigour in exploring, reconciling and evaluating them that keep science progressing at all. No scientist is bothered if Darwin was wrong around the margins (he was, though his basic ideas were right) and I think most scientists are heartened to see that catastrophists like Cuvier can be partly right too -- since there but for fortune goes every scientist's career. :D

In my view, the paper by Gould and Eldridge points out nothing more than that paleontologists weren't being as smart as they ought to be, and that this was hurting biology. Their critique was vindicated pretty quickly, when biologists started seeing real-world examples of rapid speciation arising from the Founder Effect, and today, geneticists can also see evidence of multiple population bottlenecks in the genome. (From memory, I think the human genome shows traces of only one, while chimpanzees have two or more -- but these are now viewed as key to understanding the evolutionary history of a species.)

Anyway, I look forward to reading your thoughts, Dan. :D

(Also for info, I've linked a thread from Science to here, since members interested in Science won't necessarily read this forum. [http://www.debate.org...])
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 8:40:02 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 7:31:18 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
As far as I can tell it's not. It's doing precisely as the 1977 paper did: pointing out a cognitive bias in paleontology that needed challenging, pointing out that allopathic speciation offers an alternative view, and setting out a case to clear up the discrepancies.

That should have been allopatRic, of course. :D
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 9:17:13 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Reason would dictate that both long term gradual evolutionary changes occur, as well as the relatively sudden, dramatic changes. The reason being that the genetic mutations that create the changes will follow a Bell curve in terms of both degree of change they cause, and the frequency by which they occur. The less dramatic and and therefor gradual changes that find favor will be more commonplace. While the dramatic anomalies will be far more rare, yet (when beneficial) could "leap" a species forward in it's evolutionary trajectory, leaving no "links" from before to after to be found in the fossil record .
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 10:41:01 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 11:21:45 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/23/2016 11:18:56 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/23/2016 10:35:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Punctuated Equilibrium

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that once species appear in the fossil record they will become stable, showing little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history. This state is called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another. Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against phyletic gradualism, the belief that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous.

In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria. Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's model of geographic speciation, I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis, as well as their own empirical research.Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

Evolution is gradualism and punctuated equilibrium.

http://www.sersc.org...

Interesting how it can defy its own qualities to fit ever changing models. Do you believe whales came from hyenas? Of course you do.

Actually, the Cetacea clade (Which Whales, dolphins and porpoises are part of) and the Carnivora clade (Which Hyenas are part of) share a common ancestor. Whales didn't evolve from hyenas, the groups they are both in evolved from a common ancestor.

If you don't bother to check your facts, then that just reflects creationism.
Meh!
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 10:42:32 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 4:14:33 AM, janesix wrote:
At 5/24/2016 2:21:12 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/24/2016 1:26:25 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 5/23/2016 11:49:40 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/23/2016 10:35:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria.

Yes, as illustrated by (for example) the Founder Effect, in which a very small species population in a new environment may appear to mutate rapidly, before quickly reaching a new plateau of gradual development. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Such an effect has been observed in nature in (for example) the lizards introduced into Pod Mrcaru, an island off the coast of Croatia. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com...]

The Founder Effect arises not from a higher rate of mutation, but a loss of genetic variation among the founders, coupled with potentially high early rates of attrition. A deeper discussion on the Founder Effect can be found in this interview with its first proponent, Ernst Mayr, who proposed it in 1942. [http://www.genetics.org...]

The Founder Effect also refutes claims by Ignorant Design proponents that evolution produces no falsifiable predictions.

if science is looking for the answer to gaps in the fossil record and PE is the answer and the proof is gaps in the fossil record...it becomes a debate.

As I understand it, Dan, Punctuated Equilibrium is a conjecture not to explain 'gaps' so much as the pace of evolution. Gaps are already filled with transitional forms, one doesn't necessarily expect every new species to be recorded (and some changes to form or behaviour within a species may not be visible in fossil remains anyway.) Moreover, genetic correlation now also confirms common ancestry beyond all reasonable doubt [http://journals.plos.org...], so Punctuated Equilibrium isn't really solving any of those problems.

What it does address is the rate of change, which seems to vary over the life of the species. Many species seem to spend a long time (millions of years or more) with stable forms, which leaves only a short time for rapid changes between forms (some of which may be visible in the fossil record, some not.)

So what conjectures explain that stability, and what else would such a conjecture predict? This kind of questioning is precisely how science develops.

One such conjecture arises from the 1940s work of Ernst Mayr, relating to the Founder Effect I mentioned above. (Disclosure: I haven't yet been able to track down his seminal paper as a primary source, so I'm going from historical summaries, including Mayr's own recollections.)

Mayr noted that very small 'founder' populations had low genetic diversity, which may bias toward some traits otherwise more dilute in larger populations. So if a species' access to a new environment is brief enough to create a small 'founder population' and nothing else, this can result in an explosion of new variety, which can in turn lead to speciation. On the other hand, if the whole population gets continuous access to a new environment, then it may change only gradually, or not at all.

Punctuated Equilibrium drew on Mayr's work in geographic speciation, along with Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis to conjecture that most or all speciation occurred through such rare and brief events.

Subsequently, such events have actually been observed, and their effect on species morphology and behaviour noted. For example, the lizards in Pod Mrcaru I mentioned above had new behaviours, new head-shapes, new diets and even new organs in only a few decades -- which might otherwise take millions of years to see in a larger lizard population.

So it's not circular argument so far as I can see. More calibration and refinement within an existing frame.
Or it's an excuse, and a just-so story to explain away why there is no evidence of transitional forms or anything close to gradual evolution.

You people are desperate and will resort to anything to keep deluding yourselves.

Just like your silly explanations for convergence.

Want to explain to everyone how the universe is talking to you?
Meh!
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 11:05:13 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 10:42:32 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 5/24/2016 4:14:33 AM, janesix wrote:
At 5/24/2016 2:21:12 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/24/2016 1:26:25 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 5/23/2016 11:49:40 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/23/2016 10:35:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria.

Yes, as illustrated by (for example) the Founder Effect, in which a very small species population in a new environment may appear to mutate rapidly, before quickly reaching a new plateau of gradual development. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Such an effect has been observed in nature in (for example) the lizards introduced into Pod Mrcaru, an island off the coast of Croatia. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com...]

The Founder Effect arises not from a higher rate of mutation, but a loss of genetic variation among the founders, coupled with potentially high early rates of attrition. A deeper discussion on the Founder Effect can be found in this interview with its first proponent, Ernst Mayr, who proposed it in 1942. [http://www.genetics.org...]

The Founder Effect also refutes claims by Ignorant Design proponents that evolution produces no falsifiable predictions.

if science is looking for the answer to gaps in the fossil record and PE is the answer and the proof is gaps in the fossil record...it becomes a debate.

As I understand it, Dan, Punctuated Equilibrium is a conjecture not to explain 'gaps' so much as the pace of evolution. Gaps are already filled with transitional forms, one doesn't necessarily expect every new species to be recorded (and some changes to form or behaviour within a species may not be visible in fossil remains anyway.) Moreover, genetic correlation now also confirms common ancestry beyond all reasonable doubt [http://journals.plos.org...], so Punctuated Equilibrium isn't really solving any of those problems.

What it does address is the rate of change, which seems to vary over the life of the species. Many species seem to spend a long time (millions of years or more) with stable forms, which leaves only a short time for rapid changes between forms (some of which may be visible in the fossil record, some not.)

So what conjectures explain that stability, and what else would such a conjecture predict? This kind of questioning is precisely how science develops.

One such conjecture arises from the 1940s work of Ernst Mayr, relating to the Founder Effect I mentioned above. (Disclosure: I haven't yet been able to track down his seminal paper as a primary source, so I'm going from historical summaries, including Mayr's own recollections.)

Mayr noted that very small 'founder' populations had low genetic diversity, which may bias toward some traits otherwise more dilute in larger populations. So if a species' access to a new environment is brief enough to create a small 'founder population' and nothing else, this can result in an explosion of new variety, which can in turn lead to speciation. On the other hand, if the whole population gets continuous access to a new environment, then it may change only gradually, or not at all.

Punctuated Equilibrium drew on Mayr's work in geographic speciation, along with Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis to conjecture that most or all speciation occurred through such rare and brief events.

Subsequently, such events have actually been observed, and their effect on species morphology and behaviour noted. For example, the lizards in Pod Mrcaru I mentioned above had new behaviours, new head-shapes, new diets and even new organs in only a few decades -- which might otherwise take millions of years to see in a larger lizard population.

So it's not circular argument so far as I can see. More calibration and refinement within an existing frame.
Or it's an excuse, and a just-so story to explain away why there is no evidence of transitional forms or anything close to gradual evolution.

You people are desperate and will resort to anything to keep deluding yourselves.

Just like your silly explanations for convergence.

Want to explain to everyone how the universe is talking to you?

The universe is talking to everyone. Most people ignore it.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 11:44:06 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 10:41:01 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 5/23/2016 11:21:45 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Do you believe whales came from hyenas? Of course you do.

Whales didn't evolve from hyenas, the groups they are both in evolved from a common ancestor.

Yes, in fact it's now pretty well accepted that whales evolved from a kind of deer-like swamp-wading forager called Indohyus. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Perhaps Bronto misheard it as 'hyena', or perhaps he's a slavish devotee of Creation.com, which makes this very same claim [http://creation.com...] and without a single reference to the straw-man belief supposedly attributed to 'evolutionists'.

But Bronto has been told this before.

Repeatedly.

Sometimes he seems to 'forget things' from confusion, but a lot of the time I think it's just malignant obstinacy.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 11:58:48 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 11:05:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:42:32 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 5/24/2016 4:14:33 AM, janesix wrote:
At 5/24/2016 2:21:12 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/24/2016 1:26:25 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 5/23/2016 11:49:40 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/23/2016 10:35:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria.

Yes, as illustrated by (for example) the Founder Effect, in which a very small species population in a new environment may appear to mutate rapidly, before quickly reaching a new plateau of gradual development. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Such an effect has been observed in nature in (for example) the lizards introduced into Pod Mrcaru, an island off the coast of Croatia. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com...]

The Founder Effect arises not from a higher rate of mutation, but a loss of genetic variation among the founders, coupled with potentially high early rates of attrition. A deeper discussion on the Founder Effect can be found in this interview with its first proponent, Ernst Mayr, who proposed it in 1942. [http://www.genetics.org...]

The Founder Effect also refutes claims by Ignorant Design proponents that evolution produces no falsifiable predictions.

if science is looking for the answer to gaps in the fossil record and PE is the answer and the proof is gaps in the fossil record...it becomes a debate.

As I understand it, Dan, Punctuated Equilibrium is a conjecture not to explain 'gaps' so much as the pace of evolution. Gaps are already filled with transitional forms, one doesn't necessarily expect every new species to be recorded (and some changes to form or behaviour within a species may not be visible in fossil remains anyway.) Moreover, genetic correlation now also confirms common ancestry beyond all reasonable doubt [http://journals.plos.org...], so Punctuated Equilibrium isn't really solving any of those problems.

What it does address is the rate of change, which seems to vary over the life of the species. Many species seem to spend a long time (millions of years or more) with stable forms, which leaves only a short time for rapid changes between forms (some of which may be visible in the fossil record, some not.)

So what conjectures explain that stability, and what else would such a conjecture predict? This kind of questioning is precisely how science develops.

One such conjecture arises from the 1940s work of Ernst Mayr, relating to the Founder Effect I mentioned above. (Disclosure: I haven't yet been able to track down his seminal paper as a primary source, so I'm going from historical summaries, including Mayr's own recollections.)

Mayr noted that very small 'founder' populations had low genetic diversity, which may bias toward some traits otherwise more dilute in larger populations. So if a species' access to a new environment is brief enough to create a small 'founder population' and nothing else, this can result in an explosion of new variety, which can in turn lead to speciation. On the other hand, if the whole population gets continuous access to a new environment, then it may change only gradually, or not at all.

Punctuated Equilibrium drew on Mayr's work in geographic speciation, along with Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis to conjecture that most or all speciation occurred through such rare and brief events.

Subsequently, such events have actually been observed, and their effect on species morphology and behaviour noted. For example, the lizards in Pod Mrcaru I mentioned above had new behaviours, new head-shapes, new diets and even new organs in only a few decades -- which might otherwise take millions of years to see in a larger lizard population.

So it's not circular argument so far as I can see. More calibration and refinement within an existing frame.
Or it's an excuse, and a just-so story to explain away why there is no evidence of transitional forms or anything close to gradual evolution.

You people are desperate and will resort to anything to keep deluding yourselves.

Just like your silly explanations for convergence.

Want to explain to everyone how the universe is talking to you?

The universe is talking to everyone. Most people ignore it.

Or that's just crazy talk.
Meh!
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 12:23:04 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 11:58:48 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 5/25/2016 11:05:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:42:32 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 5/24/2016 4:14:33 AM, janesix wrote:
At 5/24/2016 2:21:12 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/24/2016 1:26:25 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 5/23/2016 11:49:40 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/23/2016 10:35:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria.

Yes, as illustrated by (for example) the Founder Effect, in which a very small species population in a new environment may appear to mutate rapidly, before quickly reaching a new plateau of gradual development. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Such an effect has been observed in nature in (for example) the lizards introduced into Pod Mrcaru, an island off the coast of Croatia. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com...]

The Founder Effect arises not from a higher rate of mutation, but a loss of genetic variation among the founders, coupled with potentially high early rates of attrition. A deeper discussion on the Founder Effect can be found in this interview with its first proponent, Ernst Mayr, who proposed it in 1942. [http://www.genetics.org...]

The Founder Effect also refutes claims by Ignorant Design proponents that evolution produces no falsifiable predictions.

if science is looking for the answer to gaps in the fossil record and PE is the answer and the proof is gaps in the fossil record...it becomes a debate.

As I understand it, Dan, Punctuated Equilibrium is a conjecture not to explain 'gaps' so much as the pace of evolution. Gaps are already filled with transitional forms, one doesn't necessarily expect every new species to be recorded (and some changes to form or behaviour within a species may not be visible in fossil remains anyway.) Moreover, genetic correlation now also confirms common ancestry beyond all reasonable doubt [http://journals.plos.org...], so Punctuated Equilibrium isn't really solving any of those problems.

What it does address is the rate of change, which seems to vary over the life of the species. Many species seem to spend a long time (millions of years or more) with stable forms, which leaves only a short time for rapid changes between forms (some of which may be visible in the fossil record, some not.)

So what conjectures explain that stability, and what else would such a conjecture predict? This kind of questioning is precisely how science develops.

One such conjecture arises from the 1940s work of Ernst Mayr, relating to the Founder Effect I mentioned above. (Disclosure: I haven't yet been able to track down his seminal paper as a primary source, so I'm going from historical summaries, including Mayr's own recollections.)

Mayr noted that very small 'founder' populations had low genetic diversity, which may bias toward some traits otherwise more dilute in larger populations. So if a species' access to a new environment is brief enough to create a small 'founder population' and nothing else, this can result in an explosion of new variety, which can in turn lead to speciation. On the other hand, if the whole population gets continuous access to a new environment, then it may change only gradually, or not at all.

Punctuated Equilibrium drew on Mayr's work in geographic speciation, along with Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis to conjecture that most or all speciation occurred through such rare and brief events.

Subsequently, such events have actually been observed, and their effect on species morphology and behaviour noted. For example, the lizards in Pod Mrcaru I mentioned above had new behaviours, new head-shapes, new diets and even new organs in only a few decades -- which might otherwise take millions of years to see in a larger lizard population.

So it's not circular argument so far as I can see. More calibration and refinement within an existing frame.
Or it's an excuse, and a just-so story to explain away why there is no evidence of transitional forms or anything close to gradual evolution.

You people are desperate and will resort to anything to keep deluding yourselves.

Just like your silly explanations for convergence.

Want to explain to everyone how the universe is talking to you?

The universe is talking to everyone. Most people ignore it.

Or that's just crazy talk.

I am happy that most people dont have to deal with this. But i keep talking about it because eventually someone will understand what im talking about.