Punctuated Equilibrium

[BananaSlug]

I received a "challenge" from a member of this forum a while back to explain punctuated equilibrium in terms a kindergardener would understand. Here I go...

Gradualism states that evolution occurs uniformly throughout lineages. In this view, evolution is viewed as usually smooth and continuous. You could view gradualism as an important factor in species evolution within a "stable" evironment (insect eater evolving into a seed eater).

"Punctuated equilibrium" states that species generally remain stable throughout most of their earth history, and that when physical evolution does occur, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation.

Now remember that "rapid" in terms of Earth time is anywhere from a few 100,000 to a few million years. That is a long time, isn't it? Punctuated equlibrium is most likely brought about by major events such as climate change, changes in geography (formation of mountains, etc.) and other environmental factors.
Most likely both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are important parts of evolution.

How did I do?

 

[keith99]

Poorly.

Morphological change is not a pair of words a kindergardener is going to understand.

But your frogs are a start. How about drought resistant frogs? (Oops bad words!)

But the underlying idea works. Show the standard model, then for punctuated equlibrium have a nice lake that gets lots of water then....

Damn breaks, now a stream that dries up and now surviving dryness matters, where before it did not. ...

I wouldn't want to try explaining evolution to an urban kindergardener. Rural where they may have seen a bit would be plenty hard enough, doubt I'd succede even there.

 

[BananaSlug]

I don't know. I wanted to know all about this stuff when I was 5. Maybe it depends on the individual child? Anyway there are some big words. Maybe if I used puppets...

 

[Washington]

Unless I'm mistaken, this better represents how punctuated equlibriam goes.

​

 

[BananaSlug]

I do like that much better.

 

[RobertByers]

PE was simply from the research of new and slightly smarter observers That noticed the fossil record didn't support evolution as it should.
So they came up with a simplistic idea to explain the very great differences in creatures in the rock strata.
PE is a retreat for evolution. A last desperate attempt to explain away the gaps in the fossil record.
In fact the fossils do not show lineage by slow or sudden means but only different areas of earth that were suddenly fossilized. These species are just creatures living at the same time down the road in a more rich world. Then the great flood covered and fossilized everyone in place or so.
Yes PE corrects previous incompetence in these matters but its just as poorly thought through.

 

[Athrond]

What and then the violent flood, sorted particles and pebbles in the right order, but somehow managed to sort the fossils in the order that confirms evolution. Riiight RB. Sure...

The simplest interpretation of these posts is that you are a heavily biased creationist, that will stick with your pet theory no matter how much evidence is piled against it. Your credibility is therefore ZERO.

 

[Hespera]

PE was simply from the research of new and slightly smarter observers That noticed the fossil record didn't support evolution as it should.
So they came up with a simplistic idea to explain the very great differences in creatures in the rock strata.
PE is a retreat for evolution. A last desperate attempt to explain away the gaps in the fossil record.
In fact the fossils do not show lineage by slow or sudden means but only different areas of earth that were suddenly fossilized. These species are just creatures living at the same time down the road in a more rich world. Then the great flood covered and fossilized everyone in place or so.
Yes PE corrects previous incompetence in these matters but its just as poorly thought through.

slightly smarter
came up with simplistic
retreat for evolution
last desperate attempt
explain away
incompetence
poorly thought through

Except for the one about retreat for evolution those all describe creationism, but, dont present fact one. Which is what creationism lacks, is fact one. They do have strings of turgid adjectives tho; check dad for those.

One question about your post tho..could you explain this sentence?

"Then the great flood covered and fossilized everyone in place or so."

I cant make sense of it. Maybe if you rephrase? Do you mean, that ALL fossils are a product of the (string of turgid adjectives) Flood? What DO you mean?

 

[NailsII]

PE was simply from the research of new and slightly smarter observers That noticed the fossil record didn't support evolution as it should.

In the same way that the fossil record supports creation?
Then show me why we do not find mammals in Devonian or Cambrian rock.
Nor birds or reptiles for that matter.
After you have explained this to us all, you may also offer an idea of why there has been no grass found with early dinosaur fossils.

So they came up with a simplistic idea to explain the very great differences in creatures in the rock strata.

It is not a simplification, it is an model used to demonstrate specific examples of how evolution works in certain circumstances. And it is not just a random guess, it is heavily base on evidene.

PE is a retreat for evolution. A last desperate attempt to explain away the gaps in the fossil record.

Oh dear.
You need to get out more and read more than one book.

In fact the fossils do not show lineage by slow or sudden means but only different areas of earth that were suddenly fossilized. These species are just creatures living at the same time down the road in a more rich world.

Have you actually ever looked at a fossil?
Any fossil?
Or even a rock, do you know what they look like?

Then the great flood covered and fossilized everyone in place or so.

Evidence please.

Yes PE corrects previous incompetence in these matters but its just as poorly thought through.

Evidence please.

I do like that much better.

I agree.

 

[RobertByers]

slightly smarter
came up with simplistic
retreat for evolution
last desperate attempt
explain away
incompetence
poorly thought through

Except for the one about retreat for evolution those all describe creationism, but, dont present fact one. Which is what creationism lacks, is fact one. They do have strings of turgid adjectives tho; check dad for those.

One question about your post tho..could you explain this sentence?

"Then the great flood covered and fossilized everyone in place or so."

I cant make sense of it. Maybe if you rephrase? Do you mean, that ALL fossils are a product of the (string of turgid adjectives) Flood? What DO you mean?

Yup. Most fossils are from the flood year. they are what they appear. covered suddenly life/sediment.
No silly progressions of unlikely pressurized events.

 

[RobertByers]

In the same way that the fossil record supports creation?
Then show me why we do not find mammals in Devonian or Cambrian rock.
Nor birds or reptiles for that matter.
After you have explained this to us all, you may also offer an idea of why there has been no grass found with early dinosaur fossils.

It is not a simplification, it is an model used to demonstrate specific examples of how evolution works in certain circumstances. And it is not just a random guess, it is heavily base on evidene.

Oh dear.
You need to get out more and read more than one book.

Have you actually ever looked at a fossil?
Any fossil?
Or even a rock, do you know what they look like?
Evidence please.
Evidence please.


I agree.

Your drawing conclusions from minor fossil assemblages.
There would be no mammal assemblages below the k-t line to any extent.
Mammals only took over the earth after the flood. This because of the ratio of clean/unclean on the Ark. We can presume before the flood it was a unclean dominance. The fossil record is spotty and doesn't show the whole fauna and probably mostly areas of earth filled with dinos.

 

[BananaSlug]

"Minor fossil assemblages?" We've found fossil sites with thousands of individual bones belong to hundreds of different species! How many fossils must a site have to be considered "major"?

 

[Hespera]

"Minor fossil assemblages?" We've found fossil sites with thousands of individual bones belong to hundreds of different species! How many fossils must a site have to be considered "major"?

There is a very strong correlation between a person's level of English usage and their overall education / intelligence level. RB there just makes things up, or takes lies from creationist site. You use logic, he uses magic and nonsense. What chance does data have against magic? Not much, in the minds of the uneducated.

 

[MoonLancer]

don't be too quick to judge English usage. I myself was tested and find to have very high knowledge and intelligence while proper grammar and spelling was, lacking when writing. It is uncommon that such synergy doesn't exist, but it can happen.

I think 1337 speak however actively makes ones brain rot away.

 

[Hespera]

don't be too quick to judge English usage. I myself was tested and find to have very high knowledge and intelligence while proper grammar and spelling was, lacking when writing. It is uncommon that such synergy doesn't exist, but it can happen.

I think 1337 speak however actively makes ones brain rot away.

Oh yes for sure that is certainly true. I know very well that educated and smart are not the same thing.

Not long ago my English was terrible, but then I did have an excuse

When you consistently see someone make silly 5th grade errors, though, it usually means something. Namely, that this person is not educated. I guess it bothers me more than it might others because I didnt start out knowing English, and I have worked hard to master it.

When bad spelling and grammar is combined with illogical constructions, made up "facts", inability to follow an argument, credulity (like with suspect sources), and that kind of thing, it all fits into a pattern.

 

[MoonLancer]

I guess it bothers me more than it might others because I didnt start out knowing English, and I have worked hard to master it.

I definitely can see your point of view.

 

[NailsII]

Your drawing conclusions from minor fossil assemblages.

As opposed to a minor collection of stories from a stone-age tribe of desert nomads?

There would be no mammal assemblages below the k-t line to any extent.

Really?
Are you offering a reason for this are, a line of scripture perhaps?

Mammals only took over the earth after the flood. This because of the ratio of clean/unclean on the Ark.

Mammals havn't took over the earth, we are still a minority in mass, numbers and diversity on this planet.

We can presume before the flood it was a unclean dominance.

And your reasons for this line of thinking are?

The fossil record is spotty and doesn't show the whole fauna and probably mostly areas of earth filled with dinos.

Do you actually know what the fossil record shows or are you just repeating other people's words?

 

[RobertByers]

As opposed to a minor collection of stories from a stone-age tribe of desert nomads?


Really?
Are you offering a reason for this are, a line of scripture perhaps?

Mammals havn't took over the earth, we are still a minority in mass, numbers and diversity on this planet.
And your reasons for this line of thinking are?


Do you actually know what the fossil record shows or are you just repeating other people's words?

The k-t line is, or should be, the great excellent piece of evidence for biblical creationism. It shows a clear difference in fauna/flora suddenly between two fossil assemblages.
Therefore we know it is the flood line.
We find under the line the unique world of dinos etc and above the mammal world.
The bible says indeed a ratio of 7:1 clean/unclean was on the ark. Since we know the mammals today are king and before it was not so then the ratio is the reason.
simple. The bible called the fossil record before it was discovered.

 

[AV1611VET]

The bible says indeed a ratio of 7:1 clean/unclean was on the ark.

Wouldn't that be 7:2, bro?

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Note the chapter and verse as well --- coincidental?

 

[Tomk80]

The k-t line is, or should be, the great excellent piece of evidence for biblical creationism. It shows a clear difference in fauna/flora suddenly between two fossil assemblages.
Therefore we know it is the flood line.

So do the Cambrian/Ordovician, Ordovician/Silurian, Late Devonian and Periman/Triassic lines before the k-t line, as does the holocene extinction after the k-t line. What are those supposed to be then? Also, while the mass extinction around the k-t line goes on for quite some time in the triassic (above the k-t line).

We find under the line the unique world of dinos etc and above the mammal world.

It's only a mammal world if you ignore most of the species.

The bible says indeed a ratio of 7:1 clean/unclean was on the ark. Since we know the mammals today are king and before it was not so then the ratio is the reason.
simple. The bible called the fossil record before it was discovered.

The only thing simple here is your ignorance of the actual facts. But that has already been established without a doubt.