Back to David's theory of evolution: stasis,Darwin's problem (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 20, 2020, 14:07 (344 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Punctuated equilibrium was a theoretical answer that doesn't work:

QUOTE: After Chixculub:
"When things did settle back down, the pace of evolution would return to a virtual standstill. That’s the pattern we observe in the fossil record: disruption, change and then long periods of stasis

QUOTE: "Evolutionary biologists have documented countless examples of rapid evolutionary change in the past few decades. Most of these are in species that are experiencing some sort of extreme environmental disturbance, such as invaders that have been released into a novel habitat or plants that rapidly adapt to the toxic soil of mine tailings. All of these examples show us that substantial evolutionary change can happen rapidly. bbbThey suggest that natural selection, rather than being a slow and gradual shaper of species, is most evident in brief bursts of change following major disruption. (David’s bold)

QUOTE:"...viewing evolution through a systems lens fundamentally changes how we view the story of life on Earth. It’s not a story of the constant struggle for existence. Rather, it’s a story that resides in the pauses – the uneventful interludes, where components of the systems maintain the status quo, and change necessarily comes with painful and extreme

dhw: All of this, including your bold, is a description of punctuated equilibrium. It DOES work! It's Darwin's gradualism that doesn't work.

The term is descriptive, not a working mechanism.

dhw: The rest of this article simply repeats what we have been saying for years: natural selection doesn’t create anything, random mutations don’t explain major novelties etc. The article does not offer any explanation for HOW novelties arise – it only points to dramatic changes in the environment as the factor that drives the changes. The author doesn’t mention your God’s preprogramming or dabbling, and she doesn’t mention Shapiro’s theory of natural genetic engineering (i.e. through the intelligent cell). All she really has to offer is confirmation of Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium, though she doesn’t mention him either - unless you've edited him out.

She mentioned Eldridge.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum