Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
by Natural Selection?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cantuar" data-source="post: 812143" data-attributes="member: 3572"><p>The hopeful-monster theory is the same as the saltationist scenario, where one individual in one species produces an offspring sufficiently different from the parent to count as a new species all in one generation. Punctuated equilibrium has nothing whatever to do with saltationism; it doesn't say that gaps in the fossil record are due to huge differences from one generation to the next, it refers to the speed of evolution in isolated populations that are poorly adapted to new environments, in relation to evolution in the original population that's still in the environment to which it's well adapted.</p><p></p><p>The characterisation of punctuated equilibrium as hopeful-monster saltationism is a favourite trick of creationists and can be refuted by spending a couple of minutes reading the original work or later descriptions of it by Gould or Eldredge or both. When someone comes along with this particular argument, it simply means that he's swallowed the creationist version whole without going back to the source to see what was actually being said.</p><p></p><p>The sad thing is that the creationist version of saltationism isn't really all that close to the actual saltationist theory as it's developed; it's a distortion of that as well as being a total fabrication where punctuated equilibrium is concerned.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cantuar, post: 812143, member: 3572"] The hopeful-monster theory is the same as the saltationist scenario, where one individual in one species produces an offspring sufficiently different from the parent to count as a new species all in one generation. Punctuated equilibrium has nothing whatever to do with saltationism; it doesn't say that gaps in the fossil record are due to huge differences from one generation to the next, it refers to the speed of evolution in isolated populations that are poorly adapted to new environments, in relation to evolution in the original population that's still in the environment to which it's well adapted. The characterisation of punctuated equilibrium as hopeful-monster saltationism is a favourite trick of creationists and can be refuted by spending a couple of minutes reading the original work or later descriptions of it by Gould or Eldredge or both. When someone comes along with this particular argument, it simply means that he's swallowed the creationist version whole without going back to the source to see what was actually being said. The sad thing is that the creationist version of saltationism isn't really all that close to the actual saltationist theory as it's developed; it's a distortion of that as well as being a total fabrication where punctuated equilibrium is concerned. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
by Natural Selection?
Top
Bottom