Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Advocatus Diaboli · 09-29-2002, 08:39 AM

How can I explain to a Finnish closet-creationist (Jehovas Witness) that Punctual equil. and gradualism are _not_ opposing theories? Nothing seems to work. He's actually claiming that they can't be true since they are opposing theories.
The problem seems to be that he thinks fast and slow to be the opposite of each other.
Surprisingly, he refuses to explain how PE and GRAD are opposing theories. He just claims that they are.
Maybe I should just ignore him?

ps418 · 09-29-2002, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Advocatus Diaboli:
How can I explain to a Finnish closet-creationist (Jehovas Witness) that Punctual equil. and gradualism are _not_ opposing theories? Nothing seems to work. He's actually claiming that they can't be true since they are opposing theories.
The problem seems to be that he thinks fast and slow to be the opposite of each other.
Surprisingly, he refuses to explain how PE and GRAD are opposing theories. He just claims that they are.
Maybe I should just ignore him?

Morphological change happens gradually in some lineages at some times and in a punctuated manner in at some times in some lineages. For instance, in microfossil lineages that are very well documented by fossil evidence, there are examples of both punctuated and gradual morphological transitions. The only way they contradict each other is if you're talking about the same continuum of change in the same lineage.

Wei and Kennett (1988) give an example of how both tempos can coexist just fine.

Wei, K-Y., and Kennett, J.P., 1988. Phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium in the late Neogene planktonic foraminiferal clade Globoconella. Paleobiology 14, pp. 345-363.

Quote:

"Substantial geographic coverage in paleontological study is essential in testing evolutionary models of phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. We present a multivariate morphometric study of the late Neogene planktonic foraminiferal clade Globoconella using specimens from four Deep Sea Drilling Project sites (DSDP 284, 207A, 208, and 588) along a latitudinal traverse in the southwest Pacific" (p. 345).

"The gradual transformation of G. (G.) conomiozea terminalis (a form retaining a keel) into G. (G.) sphericomiozea (a form lacking a keel) occurred during an interval of about 0.2m.y., with all measured morphological variables showing continuous and steady changes. The evolution of the central populations follows the model of phyletic gradualism. In peripheral populations, the origin of the descendent species G. (G.) pliozea from the ancestor G. (G.) conomiozea terminalis occurred very rapidly within an interval of less than 0.01m.y. . . The evolution os the Globoconella clade shows both phyletic gradualism and puncuated equilibrium. These two 'alternative' evolutionary models complement each other rather than being mutually exclusive. Both models are indespensible towards providing a complete picture of the evolution of Globoconella" (p. 345).

"During the interval of geographic isolation, central populations gradually evolved into a new chronospecies, G. sphericomiozea. It took about 0.17m.y. (from 5.14 to 4.97Ma) to transform the whole ancestral population of the highly conical, keeled morphocline (G. conomiozea terminalis) into the descendent subglobular, non-keeled species, G. sphericomiozea. The evolution in the central populations follows the model of phyletic gradualism. In contrast, the peripheral populations rapidly gave rise to a new species, G. pliozea, a form resembling flattened members of the ancestral populations. The origination of G. pliozea is inferred to be an allopatric speciation occurring within an interval of less than 0.01m.y. Following speciation, the new species remained in morphological stasis for about 0.6m.y. . . The evolution of G.pliozea follows the model of punctuated equilibrium" (p. 361).

tgamble · 09-29-2002, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Advocatus Diaboli:
How can I explain to a Finnish closet-creationist (Jehovas Witness) that Punctual equil. and gradualism are _not_ opposing theories? Nothing seems to work. He's actually claiming that they can't be true since they are opposing theories.
The problem seems to be that he thinks fast and slow to be the opposite of each other.
Surprisingly, he refuses to explain how PE and GRAD are opposing theories. He just claims that they are.
Maybe I should just ignore him?

Ask him how they can't occur at the same time in different populations. A car can't drive fast and slow at the same time (unless you're talking relative speeds) but if you have two cars, one can drive fast, the other slow.

Maybe that'll be simple enough.

bluefugue · 09-29-2002, 09:07 AM

I though Dawkins did a pretty good job of reconciling Gradualism and Punk Eek in his chapter of "The Blind Watchmaker" entitled "Puncturing Punctuationism." Basically he says punk eek is only incompatible with a caricature of gradualism that no one really believes anyway. Of course, Gould probably hated that chapter...

Advocatus Diaboli · 09-29-2002, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:


Ask him how they can't occur at the same time in different populations. A car can't drive fast and slow at the same time (unless you're talking relative speeds) but if you have two cars, one can drive fast, the other slow.

Maybe that'll be simple enough.

This is what some of us (the Good Guys) have tried, but to no avail. He changes the subject, ignores it, or just states that PE and GRAD are opposing theories, again without any explanation. Maybe he can't realise that there is no magic barrien preventing both. Maybe he's too deep into his fantasies.
But I'll try your example, thank you.

[ September 29, 2002: Message edited by: Advocatus Diaboli ]

Bubba · 09-29-2002, 09:08 AM

Actually I don't see any contradiction between the two theories at all. For instance, as an electrician a building may give the appearance of very slow development as it is being built. But as critical stages are reached and passed sometimes the progress seems quite dramatic. But the dramatic progress is still the result of lots of other little steps that happen one small event at a time.

Nature works the same way. Many small changes lead up to the sudden appearance of larger ones.

Tgamble's anaogy is also good. Why would anyone think a random process lie evolution would ever have to work at a set pace???

The fact that it doesn't work at a set pace actually works in its (evolutions) favor because it again illustrates the randomness of the process.

Bubba

Bubba · 09-29-2002, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Advocatus Diaboli:


This is what some of us (the Good Guys) have tried, but to no avail. He chances the subject, ignores it, or just states that PE and GRAD are opposing theories, again without any explanation. Maybe he can't realise that there is no magic barrien preventing both. Maybe he's too deep into his fantasies.
But I'll try your example, thank you.

Keep trying and don't give up. If he has any mind at all rational thought may well eventually win a victory over blind superstition.

Bubba

Advocatus Diaboli · 09-29-2002, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ps418:
"The gradual transformation of G. (G.) conomiozea terminalis (a form retaining a keel) into G. (G.) sphericomiozea (a form lacking a keel) occurred during an interval of about 0.2m.y., with all measured morphological variables showing continuous and steady changes. The evolution of the central populations follows the model of phyletic gradualism. In peripheral populations, the origin of the descendent species G. (G.) pliozea from the ancestor G. (G.) conomiozea terminalis occurred very rapidly within an interval of less than 0.01m.y. . . The evolution os the Globoconella clade shows both phyletic gradualism and puncuated equilibrium. These two 'alternative' evolutionary models complement each other rather than being mutually exclusive. Both models are indespensible towards providing a complete picture of the evolution of Globoconella" (p. 345)

I'll try this too. Thank you.
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

RufusAtticus · 09-29-2002, 12:28 PM

Get a copy of Gould's latest book, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. His chapter on punk eq might give you some ideas.

Advocatus Diaboli · 09-29-2002, 10:53 PM

Well it looks like those new examples worked! He doesn't post anymore.

09-29-2002, 08:39 AM	#1
Advocatus Diaboli Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Finland Posts: 372	PE and GRAD are opposing theories? How can I explain to a Finnish closet-creationist (Jehovas Witness) that Punctual equil. and gradualism are _not_ opposing theories? Nothing seems to work. He's actually claiming that they can't be true since they are opposing theories. The problem seems to be that he thinks fast and slow to be the opposite of each other. Surprisingly, he refuses to explain how PE and GRAD are opposing theories. He just claims that they are. Maybe I should just ignore him?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-29-2002, 09:07 AM	#4
bluefugue Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,427	I though Dawkins did a pretty good job of reconciling Gradualism and Punk Eek in his chapter of "The Blind Watchmaker" entitled "Puncturing Punctuationism." Basically he says punk eek is only incompatible with a caricature of gradualism that no one really believes anyway. Of course, Gould probably hated that chapter...

09-29-2002, 09:08 AM	#6
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	Actually I don't see any contradiction between the two theories at all. For instance, as an electrician a building may give the appearance of very slow development as it is being built. But as critical stages are reached and passed sometimes the progress seems quite dramatic. But the dramatic progress is still the result of lots of other little steps that happen one small event at a time. Nature works the same way. Many small changes lead up to the sudden appearance of larger ones. Tgamble's anaogy is also good. Why would anyone think a random process lie evolution would ever have to work at a set pace??? The fact that it doesn't work at a set pace actually works in its (evolutions) favor because it again illustrates the randomness of the process. Bubba

09-29-2002, 12:28 PM	#9
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Get a copy of Gould's latest book, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. His chapter on punk eq might give you some ideas.

09-29-2002, 10:53 PM	#10
Advocatus Diaboli Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Finland Posts: 372	Well it looks like those new examples worked! He doesn't post anymore.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.