Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The_Gorgonzola · 03-08-2002, 08:42 AM

Hello people,

It’s me, Gorgo. I’m a loyal lurker that hardly ever posts, but the discussion with Randman about Punctuated Equilibrium got me to thinking. If I’m understanding correctly PE means that there will be relatively long times when a species remains relatively stable as to its morphology with little or no change to its structure, and after this time (whatever length it may be) rapid changes occur to said species resulting in new species. Is this correct?

If this is correct, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that there would be a correlation between the stability of the environment that the species lives in and the stability of its morphology? What I mean is this, say we have a temperate climate that changes into an arid climate and we have an animal that was adapted to the temperate climate. Shouldn’t we see the species that was adapted to the temperate climate become adapted to the arid climate (or die out altogether), relatively quickly? Am I making sense?

Okay, assuming that there is a basic grain of truth to what I just wrote, say this arid climate stays stable for a very long time (relative to the changing of the temperate to the arid climes). Shouldn’t we then see a long period of time of “stasis” (I don’t know if I am using this word correctly here) where there is little or no morphological change to the species, and shouldn’t this time of stasis roughly correlate to the time that the environmental conditions remained stable?

I guess what I am trying to say is that is there a correlation between the time a species morphology stays stable and the stability of the environment that the species occurs in?

Does this make any sense or am I crazy?

Gorgo

liquid · 03-08-2002, 09:23 AM

That's certainly not unreasonable as far as I am aware. But of course there are other factors, as always!

Valentine Pontifex · 03-08-2002, 04:20 PM

The_Gorgonzola,

A lot of what you say make sense though with a lot of caveats.

There are many things involved, of course.

1) If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Unless there is some strong selective pressure to change, in all probability there will be little or no change.

2) Very large and widespread populations are extremely hard to change. In small isolated populations are far more easy to change. A consistent selective force is more likely to occur in a population in small geographical area than a large one. For the large populations, a selective result in one area will get "diluted" from interbreading from areas that that selective pressure does not exist. Smaller population are far more likely to be subject to genetic drift, founder effects, and population bottlenecks. Chromosomal rearrangments are easier to fix in smaller populations.

What appears to be going on is that it not unusual for a small isolated population evolves into a new slightly different species. Most of the time when this happens, the parent species survives and the daughter species goes extinct. but occationally the daughter species becomes widespread (often at the expense -- but not always -- of the parent species).

What the fossil record shows for larger taxa that we have good fossil records for is that most species last with little change for a few million years. When a species disappears, it is often replaced by one or more very similiar species that last for a few million years. And so on. This pattern sure looks like evolution to me. :-)

The formation of a new species is not only often in a small isolated species, it is in geologic terms very rapid. This should not be that surprising. After all, studies studying changes in populations over time in the field (i.e. living organism not fossils) show changes thousands of times faster than the fastest changes usually observed in the fossil record. This might seem bizaire, but let think about it. Real populations are tracking changes that are often cyclicable. Think about how "Darwin's finches" changed due to a drought and then changed back after the drought. If the weather stays cyclic no overall change is likely to happen. Of course if some sustained climate changes happens, evolution can gain a "direction."

So if species usually develop over some thouands of years in a limited area, the odds of finding the fossils to document it is pretty much nil.

randman · 03-08-2002, 06:14 PM

I would add one tidbit, if I beleived in evolution. LV, you said:

"1) If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Unless there is some strong selective pressure to change, in all probability there will be little or no change"

The following point about small populations is theoritically reasonable, but note the lanquage expressed here. If it ain't broke down, don't fix it. That is similar to the way evolution is presented as if a need is presented first, and then a mutation that fills that need, but is it not possible that if there were mutations, that the mutation in itself could create the need.
Take this a little further, and I would think evolutionists would study instinct a little more to discover how animals know how to do certain things. For instance, how does a baby turtle know to head for the sea? Could it within his anatomy, there is a need that he can sense? Take our sense of thirst and hunger. The body, I think even the liver or something like this, gives our brains that sensation, and we want water. Now, who knows if it is instinctual, but the baby turtle's desire to head for the water does seem instinctual.
Perhaps, this is not the best thread to bring this up. Maybe another time, I will elaborate.
Maybe one way to explain a little of what I am talking about is supposse an animal developed by mutation much better night vision, and he thus hunted at night and became nocturnal. Is it really necessary for their to be a need first?

Note though that the fossil record does show species exhibit stasis, and yet how few people are aware of it.
Could this be because evolutionists avoid evidence that doesn't fit so well into the box they have created? If evolution was properly taught, wouldn't people be aware of the true facts of the fossil record?

The_Gorgonzola · 03-08-2002, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Note though that the fossil record does show species exhibit stasis, and yet how few people are aware of it.
Could this be because evolutionists avoid evidence that doesn't fit so well into the box they have created? If evolution was properly taught, wouldn't people be aware of the true facts of the fossil record?

I may be missing something, but doesn't PE address this "stasis"?

Gorgo

The_Gorgonzola · 03-08-2002, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LordValentine:
The_Gorgonzola,

A lot of what you say make sense though with a lot of caveats.

I've snipped your very much appreciatied information, not that I am ignoring it (I'm not, its just that its alot for my puny understanding to absorb right now).

I guess, contrary to what Randmad keeps saying, what I was trying to get at, in my roundabout, confusing fashion, is that scienctists do address his "stasis" via PE. Not that I understand it too well mind you.

My example with regard to enviornmental factors was just my clumsy attempt at a possible mechanism behind this so called "stasis".

Again thank you LV for the more detailed reasoning.

Gorgo

randman · 03-08-2002, 07:23 PM

That's the thing. PE is an attempt to explain stasis and sudden appearence, but all too often, this is not acknowledged. Evolutionists tend to pretend the data in the fossil record when that same data is used by their critics.
It becomes lunacy after awhile to hear them holler that you are taking it out of context when you are actually restating the same data, but then drawing a different conclusion.
To me, it is laughable.
It's OK for Gould to acknowledge we don't actually see species evolving in the fossil record, but if a critic says it, then we are somehow lying, or whatever.
It really is absurd, and one reason I can't respect the evolutionist camp.

Valentine Pontifex · 03-08-2002, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:

Note though that the fossil record does show species exhibit stasis, and yet how few people are aware of it.

Gee, book after book, article after article, mentions it.

Randman, you been reading far too many lies from AiG and NOTHING by evolutionary scientists. No one who has any interest whatsoevery in evolution has any excuse for not knowing about especially since Gould is the most popular writer on evolutionary subjects there is.

The topic is discussed in textbooks meant introductory zoology courses as well.

Get it through your head, the concept of stasis is well known to everyone who is interested enough about evolution to actually read a few books on the subject -- PERIOD!

Yeah, ask a "man on the street" about "stasis" and he will probably not know what you are talking about. But then again only about one in ten members of the U.S. population can say what a "molecule" is.

Valentine Pontifex · 03-08-2002, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
I would add one tidbit, if I beleived in evolution. LV, you said:

"1) If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Unless there is some strong selective pressure to change, in all probability there will be little or no change"

The following point about small populations is theoritically reasonable, but note the lanquage expressed here. If it ain't broke down, don't fix it. That is similar to the way evolution is presented as if a need is presented first, and then a mutation that fills that need, but is it not possible that if there were mutations, that the mutation in itself could create the need.

This is absolutely false. Again your laziness in never bothering to learn anything about evolution is showing. Most species have a large pool of genetic variablity pre-existing. It is not necessary for the mutation to occure after the need arises.

Quote:

Take this a little further, and I would think evolutionists would study instinct a little more to discover how animals know how to do certain things. For instance, how does a baby turtle know to head for the sea? Could it within his anatomy, there is a need that he can sense? Take our sense of thirst and hunger. The body, I think even the liver or something like this, gives our brains that sensation, and we want water. Now, who knows if it is instinctual, but the baby turtle's desire to head for the water does seem instinctual.

There is an entire fields of biology that study such questions. These questions are NOT being ignored in the slightest. But then again, if you had bothered to learn about what you were criticizing before you criticized it, you would know that.

Quote:

Perhaps, this is not the best thread to bring this up. Maybe another time, I will elaborate.
Maybe one way to explain a little of what I am talking about is supposse an animal developed by mutation much better night vision, and he thus hunted at night and became nocturnal. Is it really necessary for their to be a need first?

I never said it is an absolute requirement that need must alway come first. I merely pointed out the if something is working, there no reason for natural selection to favor a change.

Your night vision example makes very little sense. A species that, by habbit, is active by day and not active by night is not going to become nocternal by a "mutation" that gives it night vision. A single mutation is unlikely to do this in any event. Also note that there are living by day versus living by night is not an either/or proposition.

The_Gorgonzola · 03-08-2002, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
That's the thing. PE is an attempt to explain stasis and sudden appearence, but all too often, this is not acknowledged. Evolutionists tend to pretend the data in the fossil record when that same data is used by their critics.

Hmm, isn't that how science works? Someone postulates a theory, others criticise it, point out its flaws, then the theory gets refined.

In other words, gradualism is proposed, someone (I don't know who) points out that the fossil record shows areas of little or no change for a given species, then the theory gets refined, hence PE.

Quote:

It becomes lunacy after awhile to hear them holler that you are taking it out of context when you are actually restating the same data, but then drawing a different conclusion.
To me, it is laughable.

Well, actually, what has been alleged of you was not taking the data our of context, but using others (I.E. Gould's) statments in such a manner as to obfuscate what he actually ment. Hence we have Gould doing what you call "damage control" when, it appears to me, that all he trying to do is set the record straight about his position.

Quote:

It's OK for Gould to acknowledge we don't actually see species evolving in the fossil record, but if a critic says it, then we are somehow lying, or whatever.

And here you do it again. From previous threads this as been addressed again and again. I think it is obvious as to who is being disingenuous.

Gorgo

Edited for format.
Edited for spelling.
[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: The_Gorgonzola ]

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: The_Gorgonzola ]

03-08-2002, 08:42 AM	#1
The_Gorgonzola Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: California Posts: 37	Punctuated Equilibrium and the environment Hello people, It’s me, Gorgo. I’m a loyal lurker that hardly ever posts, but the discussion with Randman about Punctuated Equilibrium got me to thinking. If I’m understanding correctly PE means that there will be relatively long times when a species remains relatively stable as to its morphology with little or no change to its structure, and after this time (whatever length it may be) rapid changes occur to said species resulting in new species. Is this correct? If this is correct, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that there would be a correlation between the stability of the environment that the species lives in and the stability of its morphology? What I mean is this, say we have a temperate climate that changes into an arid climate and we have an animal that was adapted to the temperate climate. Shouldn’t we see the species that was adapted to the temperate climate become adapted to the arid climate (or die out altogether), relatively quickly? Am I making sense? Okay, assuming that there is a basic grain of truth to what I just wrote, say this arid climate stays stable for a very long time (relative to the changing of the temperate to the arid climes). Shouldn’t we then see a long period of time of “stasis” (I don’t know if I am using this word correctly here) where there is little or no morphological change to the species, and shouldn’t this time of stasis roughly correlate to the time that the environmental conditions remained stable? I guess what I am trying to say is that is there a correlation between the time a species morphology stays stable and the stability of the environment that the species occurs in? Does this make any sense or am I crazy? Gorgo

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

03-08-2002, 09:23 AM	#2
liquid Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: UK Posts: 1,440	That's certainly not unreasonable as far as I am aware. But of course there are other factors, as always!

03-08-2002, 04:20 PM	#3
Valentine Pontifex Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 3,092	The_Gorgonzola, A lot of what you say make sense though with a lot of caveats. There are many things involved, of course. 1) If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Unless there is some strong selective pressure to change, in all probability there will be little or no change. 2) Very large and widespread populations are extremely hard to change. In small isolated populations are far more easy to change. A consistent selective force is more likely to occur in a population in small geographical area than a large one. For the large populations, a selective result in one area will get "diluted" from interbreading from areas that that selective pressure does not exist. Smaller population are far more likely to be subject to genetic drift, founder effects, and population bottlenecks. Chromosomal rearrangments are easier to fix in smaller populations. What appears to be going on is that it not unusual for a small isolated population evolves into a new slightly different species. Most of the time when this happens, the parent species survives and the daughter species goes extinct. but occationally the daughter species becomes widespread (often at the expense -- but not always -- of the parent species). What the fossil record shows for larger taxa that we have good fossil records for is that most species last with little change for a few million years. When a species disappears, it is often replaced by one or more very similiar species that last for a few million years. And so on. This pattern sure looks like evolution to me. :-) The formation of a new species is not only often in a small isolated species, it is in geologic terms very rapid. This should not be that surprising. After all, studies studying changes in populations over time in the field (i.e. living organism not fossils) show changes thousands of times faster than the fastest changes usually observed in the fossil record. This might seem bizaire, but let think about it. Real populations are tracking changes that are often cyclicable. Think about how "Darwin's finches" changed due to a drought and then changed back after the drought. If the weather stays cyclic no overall change is likely to happen. Of course if some sustained climate changes happens, evolution can gain a "direction." So if species usually develop over some thouands of years in a limited area, the odds of finding the fossils to document it is pretty much nil.

03-08-2002, 06:14 PM	#4
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	I would add one tidbit, if I beleived in evolution. LV, you said: "1) If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Unless there is some strong selective pressure to change, in all probability there will be little or no change" The following point about small populations is theoritically reasonable, but note the lanquage expressed here. If it ain't broke down, don't fix it. That is similar to the way evolution is presented as if a need is presented first, and then a mutation that fills that need, but is it not possible that if there were mutations, that the mutation in itself could create the need. Take this a little further, and I would think evolutionists would study instinct a little more to discover how animals know how to do certain things. For instance, how does a baby turtle know to head for the sea? Could it within his anatomy, there is a need that he can sense? Take our sense of thirst and hunger. The body, I think even the liver or something like this, gives our brains that sensation, and we want water. Now, who knows if it is instinctual, but the baby turtle's desire to head for the water does seem instinctual. Perhaps, this is not the best thread to bring this up. Maybe another time, I will elaborate. Maybe one way to explain a little of what I am talking about is supposse an animal developed by mutation much better night vision, and he thus hunted at night and became nocturnal. Is it really necessary for their to be a need first? Note though that the fossil record does show species exhibit stasis, and yet how few people are aware of it. Could this be because evolutionists avoid evidence that doesn't fit so well into the box they have created? If evolution was properly taught, wouldn't people be aware of the true facts of the fossil record?

03-08-2002, 07:23 PM	#7
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	That's the thing. PE is an attempt to explain stasis and sudden appearence, but all too often, this is not acknowledged. Evolutionists tend to pretend the data in the fossil record when that same data is used by their critics. It becomes lunacy after awhile to hear them holler that you are taking it out of context when you are actually restating the same data, but then drawing a different conclusion. To me, it is laughable. It's OK for Gould to acknowledge we don't actually see species evolving in the fossil record, but if a critic says it, then we are somehow lying, or whatever. It really is absurd, and one reason I can't respect the evolutionist camp.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.