Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Magical Sky Man · 10-01-2002, 12:56 PM

Hello all.

I was reading Gould's "The Structure of The Evolutionary Theory" earlier today, trying to gather how he defined "gradualism" (all three meanings of it), and I noticed him making the claim about Darwin promoting Phyletic Gradualism. I didn't have the time to read it too carefully though, but I think that was what he was saying. It seemed a little odd to me, since I'm familiar with Douglas Theobald's <a href="http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/PE.html" target="_blank">essay</a> where Theo states that Darwin was not a "phyletic gradualist", contrary to the claims of Eldredge and Gould. Anyway, since Gould's book is pretty new (2001?), I was wondering if everybody just forgot to tell Gould about him misrepresenting Darwin during the last 30 years? Or does he just disagree, knowing about the criticism?

Also, when people usually compare "gradualism" to PE, or talk about the two models not being mutually exclusive, they do mean PG, right? (3rd meaning of gradualism, using Gould's definitions in the book). So what's the deal with Gould talking about "PE refuting PG" (or something like that on page 152)? Does he really mean that, or is he just overexpressing his point about PE relating to specifically that type of gradualism, and that type only?

Oh, Advocatus Diaboli, I don't think your opponent *really* disagrees with your point about PE & GRAD not being mutually exclusive. He probably just has problems admitting being wrong, since he very likely has already realized being a total idiot on such a simple matter.

Advocatus Diaboli · 10-02-2002, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Doe:
<strong>Oh, Advocatus Diaboli, I don't think your opponent *really* disagrees with your point about PE & GRAD not being mutually exclusive. He probably just has problems admitting being wrong, since he very likely has already realized being a total idiot on such a simple matter.

</strong>

Hmmm. Have I seen you before somewhere?

Valentine Pontifex · 10-02-2002, 01:43 AM

Re: gradualism vs. Punk Eke.

Punctuated equilibria, as it is normally understood, is a gradualistic theory unless one defines "gradual" as meaning always occuring at the same rate -- a definition more appropriate for certain versions of the word "uniformitarian."

Now what punctuated equilibria is the opposite is phyletic gradualism, a concept that is explained in most better explanations of what punctuated equilibria is.

Douglas Theobald's <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/" target="_blank">29+ Evidences for Macroevolution</a> has a relevant passage in its intro:

Quote:

..."Gradualness" has little to do with the rate or tempo of evolution; it is a mode of change that is dependent on population phenomena. Gradualness concerns genetically probable organismic changes between two consecutive generations, i.e. those changes that are within the range of normal variation observed within modern populations. Morphological change may appear fast geologically speaking, yet still be gradual (Darwin 1872, pp. 312-317; Dawkins 1996, p.241; Mayr 1991, pp. 42-47; Rhodes 1983). Note that though "gradualness" is not formally a mechanism of evolutionary change, it does indeed significantly constrain possible macroevolutionary events, and likewise the requirement of gradualness necessarily restricts the possible mechanisms of common descent and adaptation (which are not explicitly considered here).

RufusAtticus · 10-02-2002, 06:40 AM

I think the confusion is that when Gould and other palenotologists use "gradualism" they mean "gradual species change reflected the fossil record."

When biologists use "gradualism" they mean "gradual biological change."

Obviously Gould has refuted paleontological gradualism as a major observation. However he used biological gradualism to do so.

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

10-01-2002, 12:56 PM	#11
Magical Sky Man New Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 3	Hello all. I was reading Gould's "The Structure of The Evolutionary Theory" earlier today, trying to gather how he defined "gradualism" (all three meanings of it), and I noticed him making the claim about Darwin promoting Phyletic Gradualism. I didn't have the time to read it too carefully though, but I think that was what he was saying. It seemed a little odd to me, since I'm familiar with Douglas Theobald's <a href="http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/PE.html" target="_blank">essay</a> where Theo states that Darwin was not a "phyletic gradualist", contrary to the claims of Eldredge and Gould. Anyway, since Gould's book is pretty new (2001?), I was wondering if everybody just forgot to tell Gould about him misrepresenting Darwin during the last 30 years? Or does he just disagree, knowing about the criticism? Also, when people usually compare "gradualism" to PE, or talk about the two models not being mutually exclusive, they do mean PG, right? (3rd meaning of gradualism, using Gould's definitions in the book). So what's the deal with Gould talking about "PE refuting PG" (or something like that on page 152)? Does he really mean that, or is he just overexpressing his point about PE relating to specifically that type of gradualism, and that type only? Oh, Advocatus Diaboli, I don't think your opponent really disagrees with your point about PE & GRAD not being mutually exclusive. He probably just has problems admitting being wrong, since he very likely has already realized being a total idiot on such a simple matter.

10-02-2002, 06:40 AM	#14
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	I think the confusion is that when Gould and other palenotologists use "gradualism" they mean "gradual species change reflected the fossil record." When biologists use "gradualism" they mean "gradual biological change." Obviously Gould has refuted paleontological gradualism as a major observation. However he used biological gradualism to do so.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.