Another transitional fossil found

Rufus,

mephibo's POINT was that Acanthostega's limbs were aquatic and not for walking on land. I'm not sure, but I think he was trying to say that Acanthostega shouldn't have had them, being an aquatic animal.

Originally posted by RufusAtticus


I said "equating" now "equaling." (And you think I have the comprehension problem.) You said that they are "basically same idea." Although you might not be saying that they are exactly the same, you are clearly equating the two. And that comparision is extremely wrong as Gould explains in his work.

Click to expand...

Webster

Main Entry: equate
Pronunciation: i-'kwAt, 'E-"
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): equat·ed; equat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin aequatus, past participle of aequare
Date: 15th century
transitive senses
1 a : to make equal : EQUALIZE b : to make such an allowance or correction in as will reduce to a common standard or obtain a correct result
2 : to treat, represent, or regard as equal, equivalent, or comparable <equates disagreement with disloyalty>
intransitive senses : to correspond as equal

Looks like I took the plain (and first) meaning of the word. Perhaps you should choose your words more carefully.

Looks like I took the plain (and first) meaning of the word. Perhaps you should choose your words more carefully.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps you should choose your interpretation more carefully.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
mephibo's POINT was that Acanthostega's limbs were aquatic and not for walking on land.

Click to expand...

Okay.

I'm not sure, but I think he was trying to say that Acanthostega shouldn't have had them, being an aquatic animal.

Click to expand...

I hope he can explain this contention in more detail.

Originally posted by npetreley
Looks like I took the plain (and first) meaning of the word. Perhaps you should choose your words more carefully.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should stop arguing semantics and tossing out personal attacks and actually admit that you were wrong to equate punctuated equilibrium with hopeful monster.

The hopeful monster suggests that there are sudden dramatic mutations that create a whole new type of creature. To exaggerate just so you get what I mean, a bird's egg hatches an elephant. While that's meant only as a humorous exaggeration, it's really about as stupid an idea as that. Yet at one time Stephen Jay Gould, whom many people here worship, thought it would eventually be proven correct.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that is probably a load of proverbial. Have you ever read Dawkins? He refutes Gould's arguments in much the same way you have done, but goes on to show that the evolution of species need not have been so sudden and extreme to still be a perfectly plausible model.

Punk eek is "pucutated equilibrium," which is really just a more palatable version of the hopeful monster. It's basically the same idea, only toned down and restated so that it won't sound as outrageous. It simply says that there are periods of equilibrium where evolution doesn't really do much. Then suddenly, for some reason nobody really knows, many mutations occur that causes evolution to speed up really fast for a while and produce dramatically new and improved creatures. Then it settles down again.

Click to expand...

Ever heard of "selection pressure?"
If there are no large selection pressures acting on a population, there is a low rate of change. But if there is suddenly a large selection pressure acting on that population (eg CO2 levels rising) then there will be a very large rate of change.
There will not be a change in the number of mutations per generation, but there will be a change in the number of those mutations that are incorporated into the species as a whole.
Ta,
HtH

Originally posted by npetreley


Webster

Main Entry: equate
Pronunciation: i-'kwAt, 'E-"
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): equat·ed; equat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin aequatus, past participle of aequare
Date: 15th century
transitive senses
1 a : to make equal : EQUALIZE b : to make such an allowance or correction in as will reduce to a common standard or obtain a correct result
2 : to treat, represent, or regard as equal, equivalent, or comparable <equates disagreement with disloyalty>
intransitive senses : to correspond as equal

Looks like I took the plain (and first) meaning of the word. Perhaps you should choose your words more carefully.

Click to expand...

Reminds me of a certain ex-President who tried to debate what the meaning of "is" is...

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

Perhaps you should stop arguing semantics and tossing out personal attacks and actually admit that you were wrong to equate punctuated equilibrium with hopeful monster.

Click to expand...

I said "equating" now (sic) "equaling."

Click to expand...

WHO was arguing semantics? You were, and you got caught with your semantic pants down, so now you want ME to admit I was wrong about something I didn't say? Keep dreaming, pal.

You were, and you got caught with your semantic pants down, so now you want ME to admit I was wrong about something I didn't say? Keep dreaming, pal.

Click to expand...

Wait.. you didn't say this:

Punk eek is "pucutated equilibrium," which is really just a more palatable version of the hopeful monster. It's basically the same idea, only toned down and restated so that it won't sound as outrageous. It simply says that there are periods of equilibrium where evolution doesn't really do much. Then suddenly, for some reason nobody really knows, many mutations occur that causes evolution to speed up really fast for a while and produce dramatically new and improved creatures. Then it settles down again.

Click to expand...

??? I could have sworn I heard you say that.

Originally posted by HtH

Ever heard of "selection pressure?"
If there are no large selection pressures acting on a population, there is a low rate of change. But if there is suddenly a large selection pressure acting on that population (eg CO2 levels rising) then there will be a very large rate of change.
There will not be a change in the number of mutations per generation, but there will be a change in the number of those mutations that are incorporated into the species as a whole.
Ta,
HtH

Click to expand...

I understand the concept, but I find it interesting that you state it in such definite terms, as if you know this is how things worked. The only reason Punk Eek exists is because people like Gould couldn't come up with another way to explain the fossil record. The problem with Punk Eek and every other theory incorporating eovlution is that there's no actual evidence that selection pressure can result in bacteria-to-kangaroo evolution AT ALL, regardless of whether you prefer to see evolution as a continuous gradual process (which is how it was first defined) or a series of spurts due to increased selection pressure.

ANYONE can explain the fossil record by making up stories. The scientific challenge is to test and prove that story, which is something nobody has even come close to doing.

So until someone can do that -- prove that bacteria-to-kangaroo evolution occurred -- then all Punk Eek amounts to is the 33 rpm record of gradualism warped and played at 45 rpm instead of warped and played at 78 (hopeful monster). Both of them were attempts to compensate for the fact that the song of evolution sounds so bad when you play it at 33 (gradualism). What they don't realize is that the reason it sounds bad is because it's a swan song.

Originally posted by npetreley
WHO was arguing semantics?

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing semantics, just helping out your reading comprehension by pointing out that my comments do not claim that you are saying they are 100% identical.

You were, and you got caught with your semantic pants down, so now you want ME to admit I was wrong about something I didn't say? Keep dreaming, pal.

Click to expand...

How have I been caught with my pants down? You still haven't explained how you aren't erroneously equating the two, when you say that punctuated equilibrium is “basically the same idea” as hopeful monster. You’ve only shown that you aren’t claiming that they are exactly the same. But neither had I accused you of doing that in the first place, nor does my criticism depend on it.

If you think you can obscure your errors by deflecting attention away from your actual statement, keep dreaming, pal.

Originally posted by npetreley
I understand the concept, but I find it interesting that you state it in such definite terms, as if you know this is how things worked.

Click to expand...

This from a computer programmer who claims that he definitely knows that the evidence doesn't support evolution. (Not to mention his claim that humans definitely have a third set of teeth which comes out when we get "old enough.")

The only reason Punk Eek exists is because people like Gould couldn't come up with another way to explain the fossil record.

Click to expand...

Can you say "self-correcting nature of science"? Your comments are similar to saying that relativity only exists because Einstein couldn’t come up with another way to explain the motion of Mercury.

The problem with Punk Eek and every other theory incorporating eovlution [sic] is that there's no actual evidence that selection pressure can result in bacteria-to-kangaroo evolution AT ALL,

Click to expand...

Please find me a single biological theory which states that it is selection pressure that produces “bacteria-to-kangaroo” evolution. Evolutionary theory is much more complex than the cartoon version you have stated here and takes into account mutation, drift, gene flow, population level effects, generations, etc.

evolution as a continuous gradual process (which is how it was first defined) or a series of spurts due to increased selection pressure.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but evolution has never been defined to be gradual, just described as such because that is to what the evidence points. Modern textbooks might toss that in for the students’ benefit, but “evolution” is not limited by definition to any rate. See my sig for an actual definition as used in biology.

ANYONE can explain the fossil record by making up stories. The scientific challenge is to test and prove that story, which is something nobody has even come close to doing.

Click to expand...

But scientists are not just anyone. Unlike the stories produced by Gish and the other creationists, the explanations provided by scientists are based on actual data. In fact, evolutionary explanations are tested and refined each time a new fossil is uncovered, a new gene is sequenced, a new mechanism is proposed, a new radiometric date is calculated. Is there still scientific debate on how A is related to B? Sure. Is there still scientific debate on whether A is related to B? No.

I have yet to see creationists employ a comparable mechanism to test their stories? But then again, zealots don’t bother testing against the facts because, if the mythology doesn’t fit the facts, then it’s obviously the facts that need correcting.

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

You still haven't explained how you aren't erroneously equating the two, when you say that punctuated equilibrium is “basically the same idea” as hopeful monster.

Click to expand...

I did explain how they are similar. Twice. Here's a repeat performance for the comprehension impaired.

The hopeful monster suggests that there are sudden dramatic mutations that create a whole new type of creature. To exaggerate just so you get what I mean, a bird's egg hatches an elephant. While that's meant only as a humorous exaggeration, it's really about as stupid an idea as that. Yet at one time Stephen Jay Gould, whom many people here worship, thought it would eventually be proven correct.

Punk eek is "pucutated equilibrium," which is really just a more palatable version of the hopeful monster. It's basically the same idea, only toned down and restated so that it won't sound as outrageous. It simply says that there are periods of equilibrium where evolution doesn't really do much. Then suddenly, for some reason nobody really knows, many mutations occur that causes evolution to speed up really fast for a while and produce dramatically new and improved creatures. Then it settles down again.

Click to expand...

[Punk Eek is] the 33 rpm record of gradualism warped and played at 45 rpm instead of warped and played at 78 (hopeful monster). Both of them were attempts to compensate for the fact that the song of evolution sounds so bad when you play it at 33 (gradualism) [because the fossil record does not support gradualism].

Click to expand...

Translation for the conceptually impaired:

Fossils don't support gradualism. So Otto "Barney" Schindewolf suggested that there is a lack of transitional fossils because there were no transitional species. A reptile egg hatched a bird, and voila, no transitionals needed. After all, as people here keep saying, evollution isn't based on imagination, it's based on evidence.

Richard "Barney" Goldschmidt grabbed this idea and ran with it and probably named it "hopeful monster" because he "hoped" he could use this "monstrosity" of a theory to cram the square evolution peg into the round fossil hole.

The hopeful monster idea was eventually laughed off the planet. But that left a teensy weensy problem unsolved. The fossils STILL didn't fit gradualism. So Gould suggested punk eek as way to cram the square evolution peg into the round fossil hole. The process he proposed was more gradual than the hopeful monster, but not as gradual as gradualism.

Other than saying evolution isn't as gradual as Darwin suggested, the most important thing these ideas have in common is that they were both pulled out of their inventors' keisters to compensate for the fact that the fossil record fails to support gradualism in evolution.

If you want to examine other similarities between the two ideas, I recommend that you consult Gould's article in Natural History, 1997, called "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," in which Gould says that Barney, er, Goldschmidt was likely to be vindicated someday.

Yeah, right.

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

Sorry, but evolution has never been defined to be gradual, just described as such because that is to what the evidence points.

Click to expand...

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

-Charles Darwin

Click to expand...

Oh, but I guess I'm just playing with semantics again, right?

no, you're using an out of date definition of evolution, proposed before even the mechanisms of inheritance were understood.

Originally posted by npetreley
I did explain how they are similar. Twice. Here's a repeat performance for the comprehension impaired.

Click to expand...

That's funny, I though you have been arguing all this time that I was wrong to say that you were equating the two. Yet, now you've made this big long post explaining how you are equating them. How again is this supposed to prove me wrong about your argument?

I also find it funny how you reference the nature of past scientific debates to show how modern concepts of evolution are flawed. That's like me saying that the evidence doesn't support relativity, that's why Newton proposed his laws of gravity and motion. (As if that is even relevant.) Furthermore, you have just demonstrated that common creationist complaints about evolutionary theory are unfounded. Creationists like to say that evolution require one be indoctrinated into it, that macroevolution is only an assumption, that evolution is a matter of faith and not well tested, that people who challenge the prevailing dogma of evolution are blackballed by a scientific conspiracy, etc. Even you have used similar claims. But these statements rely on an ignorance about the history of evolutionary theory.

There was much debate in the eight years between the first publication of Darwin’s ideas and the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory. Many alternate hypothesis were proposed to explain the fact of evolution. But as the data was accumulated, it only confirmed what Darwin had first proposed decades earlier: adaptation is important and natural selection is the primary force behind it. Furthermore, as you have demonstrated here, macroevolution has not ever been an assumption. Out of those debates, emerged the well tested and well developed theory of evolution as we know it today. It is from there that we know that differences between species are no different genetically than differences within a species. Thus macroevolution is the result of the accumulation of microevolution. Goldschmidt and Schindewolf’s claims for saltational evolution were explored and shown to not be supported by the evidence. I don’t see how you dredging up old and disproved hypotheses is supposed to cast doubt on the nature of the field today.

Originally posted by npetreley

Oh, but I guess I'm just playing with semantics again, right?

Click to expand...

Yep. I noted that evolution has never been defined so that it is dependent on a specific rate. (See my sig. Do you see a mention of rate there?) And how do you reply to me? By producing a Darwin quote in which he refers to his theory to explain evolution, not evolution itself.

Thus you still haven't acutally addressed my citicism of your comments. I don't know if it's because you're trying to hand-wave around it or becauseyou don't know enough about the history of biology to understand it.

If you want to examine other similarities between the two ideas, I recommend that you consult Gould's article in Natural History, 1997, called "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," in which Gould says that Barney, er, Goldschmidt was likely to be vindicated someday.

Click to expand...

Hey, since you obviously have a copy of that issue handy (it should probably say "1977", not "1997")... would you mind just posting the quote from Gould where he says that Goldshmidt would likely be vindicated? See, it is difficult for me to run down every quote, and since Creationists have a tendency to read things "in to" (or sometimes "out of") what they are quoting or paraphrasing, I just can't do it over and over again. If you gave me the actual quote then at least we could appraise whether your assessment of it was correct or not, before spending valuable time going to the library to check your reference.

In the past I have paid for on-line viewing of journal articles. It doesn't appear that Natural History has an e-journal, though. I'm not sure I would want to spend that money anyway.

Sauron, the thing is, we will probably never know, short having the actual paper in front of us... 'course PE & the "hopeful monster" debacle have nothing in common, but if Gould actually said he thought that Goldschmidt would be vindicated, even in an unrelated paper, I would like to know about it. I may take a few minutes tomorrow to see if that journal is in the local University's library anyway. I am interested for my own part, regardless of its ties to punctuated equilibrium.

I wonder if Nick and his croneys have figured out yet that punctuated equilibrium is an explanation of the fossil record from 'gradualistic' neo-darwinian evolution. It sounds like he still thinks that punk eek is saltation, just in smaller increments. Oh well. Until he starts caring about the facts, he will likely never learn them.