Is the theory of punctuated equilibrium a gamechanger for evolutionary biology?

[exchemist]

Darwin published Origin in 1859 and Gould published 113 years later. So it makes little sense to pitch "Darwinism" against PE in this way. (I am not saying you are doing this)

For instance, Darwin WAS wrong about how traits were passed on, he had an idea about it but it was wrong.
THEREFORE "Darwinism" is wrong??? Well yes, on that!

Also, note that Origin had more than one edition, just a wiki search will outline what he thought about "rates" and "stasis."

I am pretty certain we did not cover PE at all in A level biology, that was ten years after PE publication. Perhaps a little bit at Uni? It certainly was not portrayed as Darwin's extreme gradualism (which is not correct) verses PE or in a challenge to modern Theory as it was (1980s)
Dawkins gives a more measured and nuanced treatment in Watch Maker (1986)

I certainly agree that certain events can kick start evolution, my favourite Croatian Lizards is a good example. Would the wild type population have evolved the same way as their Island cousins? In decades?

There is no reason to think they should have, same diet same habitat so why would their skull and jaw change?

The kick start here geography and all that comes with it but all "Darwinian" process were also at work.

Environment, variation in species, Change in Environment, certain traits more suited than others to new environment (selected) those traits passed on as the parents carrying them have offspring, those traits become dominant.

OK that’s very much the conclusion I was coming to myself. So the basic principle, the principal* engine as it were, remains variation and natural selection. It’s just exactly how that brings about change that is more complex than Darwin’s original hypothesis.

I quite agree it doesn’t really much matter to science whether Darwin’s original ideas are still considered valid or not. My interest in bottoming this out is only because people with an anti-evolution or anti-science axe to grind often like to stick the label “Darwin”, or Darwinism” onto evolution for rhetorical purposes, in order to attack it or make out the theory is in some sort of crisis or other. So it’s handy to be able to set them straight about the degree to which his ideas survive in the modern theory.

* I say “principal” because I’m aware there are also processes such as genetic drift at work in parallel, which happen without selective pressure.

 

[Pinball1970]

OK that’s very much the conclusion I was coming to myself. So the basic principle, the principal* engine as it were, remains variation and natural selection. It’s just exactly how that brings about change that is more complex than Darwin’s original hypothesis.

I quite agree it doesn’t really much matter to science whether Darwin’s original ideas are still considered valid or not. My interest in bottoming this out is only because people with an anti-evolution or anti-science axe to grind often like to stick the label “Darwin”, or Darwinism” onto evolution for rhetorical purposes, in order to attack it or make out the theory is in some sort of crisis or other. So it’s handy to be able to set them straight about the degree to which his ideas survive in the modern theory.

* I say “principal” because I’m aware there are also processes such as genetic drift at work in parallel, which happen without selective pressure.

Yes they may as well say "Evolutionists."

Darwin's book which no one knows the title of, not even Dawkins (when asked on the spot) is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Straight away we can pick holes, "Races?" What's a race?

What was Darwin playing at? Does he not know anything? Well he was a Victorian for a start, He was not able to look back on his work through a 1970s lens let alone a 2024 lens.

Also "Species."

"a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens."

So a dog cannot mate with a wolf? A lion with a tiger? Do they look the same? Biology is messy and lines get blurred, that is why some of these more philosophical rather than technical discussions get pointless real quick.

 

[exchemist]

Yes they may as well say "Evolutionists."

Darwin's book which no one knows the title of, not even Dawkins (when asked on the spot) is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Straight away we can pick holes, "Races?" What's a race?

What was Darwin playing at? Does he not know anything? Well he was a Victorian for a start, He was not able to look back on his work through a 1970s lens let alone a 2024 lens.

Also "Species."

"a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens."

So a dog cannot mate with a wolf? A lion with a tiger? Do they look the same? Biology is messy and lines get blurred, that is why some of these more philosophical rather than technical discussions get pointless real quick.

The “struggle for life” is also a concept that would mean a lot more to a Victorian reader, given the rate of early death that prevailed. It was a non-trivial achievement to make it to the age of 20 in those days, and parenthood nearly always involved burying at least one of your kids. Hard to imagine the anguish of that today.

 

[C C]

OK, so natural selection can operate on populations as well as on individuals. Seems fair enough. But if that is all it is, I don't see what the brouhaha is about. None of this challenges Darwin's essential principle of variation followed by natural selection. So why would anyone claim Gould somehow throws Darwin's conception of evolution into disarray? Surely he's just building more on the foundations, isn't he?

I'm left with the hoopla apparently revolving around Gould's ideas challenging phyletic gradualism. Dawkins contends that's a strawman that PE supporters are waving around -- maybe, maybe not.

And again, most of the criticism about selection taking place at additional levels supposedly stems from so-called "gene centrists" (Coyne provided an instance of that, which I assume he would also launch at "species selection" if it crossed his line of sight.[1])

I'm not even going to try to sort Max from Climax with respect to how ID culture is using or exploiting Gould -- I'll leave that to its representatives.

- - - footnote - - -

[1] Jerry Coyne: As I’ve written before, I have mixed thoughts about Gould: his contribution to the public understanding of evolution was an unalloyed good, while I found his scientific contributions mixed.

I suppose that, with the exception of his monographs on snails, I’ve read everything the man ever wrote: all of his books, his scientific papers, and even his last behemoth of a book, The Structure of Evolutionary Thought. (That I found interesting for two reasons: he admitted that there was no convincing evidence for one of his big ideas, species selection, and there was a fascinating discussion of Darwin’s “principle of divergence”—Darwin’s idea on how species arise—which Gould felt was one of Darwin’s most important contributions.)
_

 

[exchemist]

I'm left with the hoopla apparently revolving around Gould's ideas challenging phyletic gradualism. Dawkins contends that's a strawman that PE supporters are waving around -- maybe, maybe not.

And again, most of the criticism about selection taking place at additional levels supposedly stems from so-called "gene centrists" (Coyne provided an instance of that, which I assume he would also launch at "species selection" if it crossed his line of sight. )

I'm not even going to try to sort Max from Climax with respect to how ID culture is using or exploiting Gould -- I'll leave that to its representatives.
_

I clearly need to read a bit more about all this.

(By the way, and completely at a tangent, reading this latest post of yours, I was suddenly struck by the conviction that you must be a woman. I wonder what made me think that, out of the blue. Checking your profile, my intuition proves to be correct. How strange. )

 

[C C]

I clearly need to read a bit more about all this.

In an edit, I added a quote of Coyne's to the post in the footnote, where he did indirectly express his opinion about species selection.

(By the way, and completely at a tangent, reading this latest post of yours, I was suddenly struck by the conviction that you must be a woman. I wonder what made me think that, out of the blue. Checking your profile, my intuition proves to be correct. How strange. )

The power of initials. I sometimes put this in the signature box:

CL Moore ..... DC Fontana ..... CJ Cherryh ..... JD Robb ..... JK Rowling ..... AM Banard
And the strategy still works after all these years!
_

 

[axocanth]

I quite agree it doesn’t really much matter to science whether Darwin’s original ideas are still considered valid or not. My interest in bottoming this out is only because people with an anti-evolution or anti-science axe to grind often like to stick the label “Darwin”, or Darwinism” onto evolution for rhetorical purposes, in order to attack it or make out the theory is in some sort of crisis or other. So it’s handy to be able to set them straight about the degree to which his ideas survive in the modern theory.

Yes they may as well say "Evolutionists."

I wonder when, if ever, the hysterical Red Guards of scientism will stop constructing straw men and actually do some homework, which in this case involves nothing more than opening a book and opening your eyes.

Time and time again we are told respectable scientists never use a particular word X, it's something that uneducated lying Creationist hillbillies have simply made up, and only they use as a straw man to discredit good science, revealing their own abject ignorance in the process.


James R, for example, following countless others, does it here regarding the terms microevolution and macroevolution (see posts #1102 and 1165):

Intelligent design redux

I said you believe in the reasons you give. For example you probably believe you know there is no good evidence for God’s existence. That is your chosen ideology. It seems to me that either there is some good evidence for God's existence, or there isn't. This isn't an arbitrary ideological...

sciforums.com

Aron Ra, immediately after bemoaning his debater's appalling ignorance of proper terminology, assures his audience that no American scientist ever uses the word Darwinism. See here (post #425):

The "Stage Theory of Theories" - Cause for Concern?

Take dark matter as our example. Various positions one might adopt include the following: * Scientific Realism: I believe dark matter is real. I think there is sufficient warrant (i.e. enough evidence) for believing this. I could of course be wrong. * Constructive Empiricism (à la Bas van...

sciforums.com

Not to be outdone, Pinball now tells us that only illiterate Kentucky rednecks use the word evolutionist.

"Well (laughs), you're asking me what the right way to do it is. I think the right way is to start with the sentence: “We do not have any hard evidence of the forces leading to the following evolutionary change.” There has to be a prelude to the discussion of evolutionary change to make it clear that although the theory of natural selection is very important and happens lots, there are other forces, or other mechanisms, that lead to change and we are not obliged by being Darwinians and being evolutionists to invent adaptive explanations for all changes. I think that's where you have to start. Then, as either a philosopher or biologist, ask in a particular case what is the direct evidence, besides the desire that we want to find something, that a particular story is true or not true. Most of the time we're going to have to say that this happened in the Eocene or the Paleocene and we haven't the foggiest notion of why it happened. I think the admission of necessary ignorance of historically remote things is the first rule of intellectual honesty in evolution."

- Richard Lewontin (online interview)

"Some evolutionists, myself among them, see it as useful to make a distinction between microevolution (small-scale, generation-by-generation change in gene frequencies within populations) and macroevolution, or the origin and diversification of of groups classified higher than species in the Linnaean hierarchy"

- Niles Eldredge, "The Monkey Business", p119




When will they ever learn? Subboor Ahmad -- the "bad guy" -- responds to Aron Ra's claim that American scientists don't use the word Darwinism at all (see post #13, this thread):

"Sorry, I'm just not going to accept that. That's just the silliest thing I've heard in the last ten minutes. It's a duty upon you to do your research properly."

Quite!

 

[axocanth]

I'm left with the hoopla apparently revolving around Gould's ideas challenging phyletic gradualism. Dawkins contends that's a strawman that PE supporters are waving around -- maybe, maybe not.

Dawkins would say that -- "These PE folks are saying nothing new, it's all perfectly consistent with The Theory, and be sure to buy my latest book."

As I noted earlier, Gould goes to quite some length (see his "Punctuated Equilibrium") to gather quotes from leading proponents of the The Theory, trying as best he can to reconstruct what The Theory even is (not easy!), and makes it quite clear that PE views are not consistent with The Theory.

 

[axocanth]

The power of initials. I sometimes put this in the signature box:

CL Moore ..... DC Fontana ..... CJ Cherryh ..... JD Robb ..... JK Rowling ..... AM Banard
And the strategy still works after all these years!

Don't forget GG Simpson. But at least he had an excuse. Trivia time again, folks:

"What does the second G in GG Simpson stand for?"

* snicker *

 

[Pinball1970]

I'm left with the hoopla apparently revolving around Gould's ideas challenging phyletic gradualism. Dawkins contends that's a strawman that PE supporters are waving around -- maybe, maybe not.

And again, most of the criticism about selection taking place at additional levels supposedly stems from so-called "gene centrists" (Coyne provided an instance of that, which I assume he would also launch at "species selection" if it crossed his line of sight.[1])

I'm not even going to try to sort Max from Climax with respect to how ID culture is using or exploiting Gould -- I'll leave that to its representatives.

Gould hated the fact creationists pounced on PE to try and discredit the Theory of Evolution. He died before the Dover trial (I'll check!) but he would have witnessed the other attempts of creationists to shoehorn their unscientific garbage into school.

This quote from him in 1981 w.r.t. the fossil record which him and Dawkins disagreed on.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

 

[exchemist]

In an edit, I added a quote of Coyne's to the post in the footnote, where he did indirectly express his opinion about species selection.



The power of initials. I sometimes put this in the signature box:

CL Moore ..... DC Fontana ..... CJ Cherryh ..... JD Robb ..... JK Rowling ..... AM Banard
And the strategy still works after all these years!
_

Actually it wasn't that, it was something about your turn of phrase in the post in question. I just suddenly l thought, "This is a woman writing." Anyway, just a curiosity. People reveal their sex to varying degrees when they write. Wegs is very obviously a woman. I think Beer w Straw probably is, too, though I gather at least one regular poster here is convinced he or she is a 15 stone male truck driver, complete with tattoos. Most of the rest of us are men, as you can tell by all the aggro. But enough, I'm totally off-topic.......

 

[Pinball1970]

Actually it wasn't that, it was something about your turn of phrase in the post in question. I just suddenly l thought, "This is a woman writing." Anyway, just a curiosity. People reveal their sex to varying degrees when they write. Wegs is very obviously a woman. I think Beer w Straw probably is, too, though I gather at least one regular poster here is convinced he or she is a 15 stone male truck driver, complete with tattoos. Most of the rest of us are men, as you can tell by all the aggro. But enough, I'm totally off-topic.......

You made the connection! I just thought CC was uncharacteristically accomodating, gentle and posted intelligently.

Strange behaviour on a science platform I thought, not if you're a gal though!

 

[TheVat]

quote from him in 1981 w.r.t. the fossil record which him and Dawkins disagreed on.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

Transitional forms are found in clades, which is somehow beyond the grasp of creationists? So Gould would be referencing such, and it's hard to see how anyone misunderstood him unless it is deliberate. Like the classic transitional, Archaeopteryx. Which would stand both inside and outside the newly branched clade of avians.

BTW, been wondering what an axocanth is. I find coelacanths and axolotls out there, but no hybrid. (smile emoji placed here keeps disappearing--?)

 

[TheVat]

Huh. I found it odd anyone thought CC was not a woman. Avatar GIFs seemed like a clue, to both gender and a literary bent*. Admittedly I can he misled by such things, and bright people often have some gender fluidity. Less time devoted to traditional gender signalling leaves more brain space for other pursuits?

AFN, have to go check on a pie in the oven.

* Quite a poem, btw. I hope the author is not about to be "ferried across the briny flow." Or can find "an outlaw cure."

 

[exchemist]

Huh. I found it odd anyone thought CC was not a woman. Avatar GIFs seemed like a clue, to both gender and a literary bent*. Admittedly I can he misled by such things, and bright people often have some gender fluidity. Less time devoted to traditional gender signalling leaves more brain space for other pursuits?

AFN, have to go check on a pie in the oven.

* Quite a poem, btw. I hope the author is not about to be "ferried across the briny flow." Or can find "an outlaw cure."

Quite right, I just tend to ignore avatars.

And I have to go and check on a piece of pork loin I'm roasting. Getting the cracking right is always a bit of a challenge.

Bon appétit.

 

[axocanth]

Transitional forms are found in clades, which is somehow beyond the grasp of creationists? So Gould would be referencing such, and it's hard to see how anyone misunderstood him unless it is deliberate. Like the classic transitional, Archaeopteryx. Which would stand both inside and outside the newly branched clade of avians.

BTW, been wondering what an axocanth is. I find coelacanths and axolotls out there, but no hybrid. (smile emoji placed here keeps disappearing--?)

Well, maybe it is deliberate, at least in some cases. I don't doubt it. Gould does indeed complain about (some) Creationists blatantly distorting his views. Mind you, he also complains about (some) scientists blatantly distorting his views. And which of these distortions do you think can be imputed more plausibly to innocent failure to understand: toothless, moonshine-guzzling, banjo-plucking Kentucky hillbillies or professional trained scientists?

This is what bugs me about these exchanges: the lack of impartiality and objectivity. Now, since this is supposedly a scientific site, with a premium placed on evidence above all else, if any member has evidence suggesting that the species homo hillbillus is more susceptible to dishonesty than homo scientus I'd like to see it.

Trying to keep everyone impartial and objective tends not to win one many friends.

Oh, and well spotted, sir. Yes, axocanth is a portmanteau of axolotl and coelacanth; a neotonic living fossil, if you will.

 

[axocanth]

Transitional forms are found in clades, which is somehow beyond the grasp of creationists? So Gould would be referencing such, and it's hard to see how anyone misunderstood him unless it is deliberate. Like the classic transitional, Archaeopteryx. Which would stand both inside and outside the newly branched clade of avians.

Let me pose the following to you, Mr Vat, since the issue of intellectual integrity was raised.

There are without a doubt, in my mind at least, cases where Creationists deliberately distort the statements of people such as S. J. Gould. It's dishonest and it ought to be condemned -- by those both within and without the movement -- every time it happens. See you at the protest march!

That said, it has been known for sixty years or more now that (typical) scientific theories cannot be falsified, at least in any sense that distinguishes science from non-science as originally envisaged by Karl Popper. Scientists may -- individually or even collectively (eventually!) -- come to believe that a theory is false. That is of course an entirely different matter from a theory having been definitively shown to be false. Not too many people nowadays believe in Aphrodite either!

Scientists meanwhile continue, as a matter of course, to spread the untruth -- whether known to them or not -- that scientific theories can be falsified, indeed, they continue, this is precisely what distinguishes science from pseudoscience, metaphysics, "woo" stuff, religion, or whatever.

(Readers unaware of all this might ask themselves where dark matter came from, for example. Is it because the predictions of certain theories (e.g. general relativity) are massively at variance with what is actually observed? Is it, or is it not, the case that when observation is apparently at odds with a cherished theory, the theory can always be defended by sprinkling liberal doses of dark matter, or its equivalent, around?)



Now don't get me wrong. Perhaps there is some way to distinguish that other stuff from bona fide science (whatever that is), but appeal to falsifiability just will not do!

Obviously, appeal to falsifiability or unfalsifiability is almost irresistible in its seductiveness, allowing scientists to dismiss out of hand anything they don't like. -- "It's unfalsifiable, therefore it's not science, therefore it's crap."

There are scientists who candidly admit what I've just said -- that Popperian falsifiability does not work -- and my respect for them grows instantly when they do so. Conversely, there are no doubt scientists who are simply unaware that theories are unfalsifiable, innocently spreading the untruth that they are. Their intellectual integrity is therefore not in question.

But it is not even remotely plausible that all scientists who continue to propagate the myth do so innocently. And the high profile giants (Dawkins, Krauss, deGrasse Tyson, etc.) all do it. It is just not possible, even if they happen to be ignorant of the philosophy of science themselves, that they have not been told.

It's things such as this that tend to vitiate my trust in the intellectual integrity of the contemporary scientific community. As far as I can tell, the scientific community until recent decades was a veritable paragon of intellectual honesty.

I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this. Isn't it time we stopped the propagation of mythology and condemn those who knowingly do so?

How about you, CC? Any thoughts?

 

[Pinball1970]

OK that’s very much the conclusion I was coming to myself. So the basic principle, the principal* engine as it were, remains variation and natural selection.

Shopping yesterday and whilst browsing through the physics and maths section in search of fields (I'll get back to you on that) I jumped over to the Biology section in search of Evolution. Disappointed, not only was Evolution completely absent there was no Biology section! Just "science."
Some GCSE books that's it.
I did notice the "shorts" series OUP. Evolution was in there, flicking through all the usual suspects, natural selection, traits, sex selection but nothing on PE.
I skipped to the index and looked for "Punctuated" and "Gould," nothing.
2017 I think was the year, the series reminded me of the study aids for "O" level but these looked more general reader.
The purpose? If a scientific writer wants to convey the Theory in simple terms to an interested lay person or teenager PE is low on the list.
I did the same exercise this morning, pulled out twenty books and see how PE is described if at all.
The Blind Watchmaker (which I cannot find, annoyingly) devotes a chapter.
"Why Evolution is true" does not mention it.
"The Theory of Evolution," J.M Smith does not mention.
"What Evolution is," E Mary mentioned but said "...not in conflict (with the Theory)
My actual best university level textbook simply, "Evolution" Mark Ridley I also (frustratingly) cannot find.

So first off did you spot the deliberate mistake?

Second, PE does not to be in conflict or a game changer.

If there is a book you think I should have or author I invite posters to ask me to look up a chapter or index.

Ps Waterstones Manchester, great little cafe on the top floor.

 

[exchemist]

Shopping yesterday and whilst browsing through the physics and maths section in search of fields (I'll get back to you on that) I jumped over to the Biology section in search of Evolution. Disappointed, not only was Evolution completely absent there was no Biology section! Just "science."
Some GCSE books that's it.
I did notice the "shorts" series OUP. Evolution was in there, flicking through all the usual suspects, natural selection, traits, sex selection but nothing on PE.
I skipped to the index and looked for "Punctuated" and "Gould," nothing.
2017 I think was the year, the series reminded me of the study aids for "O" level but these looked more general reader.
The purpose? If a scientific writer wants to convey the Theory in simple terms to an interested lay person or teenager PE is low on the list.
I did the same exercise this morning, pulled out twenty books and see how PE is described if at all.
The Blind Watchmaker (which I cannot find, annoyingly) devotes a chapter.
"Why Evolution is true" does not mention it.
"The Theory of Evolution," J.M Smith does not mention.
"What Evolution is," E Mary mentioned but said "...not in conflict (with the Theory)
My actual best university level textbook simply, "Evolution" Mark Ridley I also (frustratingly) cannot find.

So first off did you spot the deliberate mistake?

Second, PE does not to be in conflict or a game changer.

If there is a book you think I should have or author I invite posters to ask me to look up a chapter or index.

Ps Waterstones Manchester, great little cafe on the top floor.

Hmm, so the implication is it's quite an arcane issue, debated among experts but with little impact on the essentials of the theory. Much as I suspected.

 

[axocanth]

re recent posts

If I remember correctly, what originally brought us to where we are today -- besides delicious serendipity -- was the claim that macroevolution reduces to microevolution.

The PE crowd claims it does not. (The evo-devo people too), TheVat posted a link to another commentator who feels that cases of irreducible macroevolutionary process are rare but nonetheless real.

Perhaps the significance has not sunk in yet. If these guys are right then, rare or not, the reduction fails. It's the same effect that a measly single black swan has on the assertion "All swans are white" - i.e. catastrophic!

A similar thing happens in the philosophy of mind with attempts to reduce the mental to the physical. If something is left out (e.g. qualia) in this putative reduction, then the reduction fails, physicalism is wrong, and it's the end of the world.