Rapid evolution or epigenetics? (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, March 24, 2011, 12:58 (4972 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: There is a marvelous old video starring Eldridge and Gould on punctuated equilibrium with an explanation of their version of the theory: stasis and then a burst of new branching, bush style over 50-100 thousand years, on blog Sandwalk, today.-http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/-I find the argument for punctuated equilibrium very convincing, but in the context of innovations and the development of new species, evolutionists always talk of thousands of years as being a short period. Of course it is, by comparison with 2 billion years or 3.7 billion years of life (whichever is correct), but thousands of years cover hundreds of generations, and I find something odd about this. Perhaps you or someone else can clarify the thinking for me by commenting on what follows:-Epigenetics explains adaptation, and you gave us an example not long ago of a fish which over a period of just a few years adapted to a dramatic environmental change. That makes perfect sense to me. Without swift adaptation, the species would have died out. But the species remained the same. And so my first question is whether there is any evidence that adaptation can lead to NEW species as opposed to variations on existing species. In this context, it's also worth noting that "bursts of new branching" are often associated with catastrophes like volcanic eruptions and meteorite collisions, but these are also dramatically sudden, and again survival would depend on swift adaptation. -Secondly, Darwinism presumes that innovations are caused by random mutations. A mutation has to take place within an existing creature, and although it may be passed on to subsequent generations, it will not survive unless it conveys some kind of advantage (= natural selection). Why, then, would it take thousands of years (hundreds of generations) for new species to develop? Darwin's explanation of the absence of "intermediate links" was the imperfection of the geological record. Although it's claimed that links have been found (e.g. the horse, archaeopteryx), they are few and far between and open to different interpretations. Besides, who knows which of today's facts may turn into tomorrow's fictions? Is it not possible that the still "imperfect" geological record might indicate that there are no "intermediate links", and that new species can form over a much shorter period ... perhaps, like the adapting fish, just a few generations, as innovations "bed in"? Is there evidence to disprove such a theory? In other words, I'm looking for a parallel between swift adaptation and swift innovation, on the grounds that in both cases the changes must begin with one generation and must function straight away in order to survive.