Punctuated equilibrium or neo-Darwinism?

[Justinian]

Assuming that you're a macroevolutionist, which of these views do you personally prefer (or something else?) - punctuated equilibrium, which states that evolution rather than being a gradual evolving occurs in rapid times between long periods of nothing happening, explaining why there are so few fossils of intermediate links?

Or neo-Darwinism?

Or something else?

I'm a macroevolutionist but I'm trying to get my head more around the ideas raised against the theory. So I'm curious to see what TWC's scientific community thinks of it. If you're a creationist and you'd like to raise your issues/arguments against macroevolution, please do, but do so in an intelligent manner without referencing religion please.

[TheKwas]

Given my (limited and non-expert) knowledge, I don't see much difference between the two, which would put me in the 'Neo-Darwinistic' camp of Dawkins I guess. The traditional view didn't even seem to be challenged by punctuated equilibrium. The traditional view always stated evolution was gradual with different dynamics, and I haven't seen any math or direct evidence that implies that punctuated equilibrium actually changes the dynamics of the traditional model.

However, since I am a non-expert, I get most of my information on punctuated equilibrium from Gould's popsci writings on it, and he's so utterly vague that I could read for days without knowing exactly what is meant.

[Simetrical]

Given my (limited and non-expert) knowledge, I don't see much difference between the two, which would put me in the 'Neo-Darwinistic' camp of Dawkins I guess. The traditional view didn't even seem to be challenged by punctuated equilibrium. The traditional view always stated evolution was gradual with different dynamics, and I haven't seen any math or direct evidence that implies that punctuated equilibrium actually changes the dynamics of the traditional model.

However, since I am a non-expert, I get most of my information on punctuated equilibrium from Gould's popsci writings on it, and he's so utterly vague that I could read for days without knowing exactly what is meant.

In contrast, I've gotten my knowledge on punctuated equilibrium from Dawkins, and I agree with his and your point. Punctuated equilibrium is a refinement to evolutionary theory that may be accurate to a large extent, but it hardly qualifies as radically different. So I guess I'll say neo-Darwinist too.

[Averroës]

In contrast, I've gotten my knowledge on punctuated equilibrium from Dawkins, and I agree with his and your point. Punctuated equilibrium is a refinement to evolutionary theory that may be accurate to a large extent, but it hardly qualifies as radically different. So I guess I'll say neo-Darwinist too.

I agree, but I chose punctuated equilibrium because it isn't antithetical to Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, really. It is merely a possible solution which makes a bit more sense from a purely mathematical standpoint than simply postulating uniform change. A lack of variance in the rate of genetic change would be much more suspect than a chaotic model, which is all punctuated equilibrium really is when boiled down - chaotic, non-uniform rates of genetic change over time, affected by a variety of factors and not in the least bit uniform.

[Simetrical]

A theorical n-body system (a system we have constructed and thus we know to the littlest detail). This implies, no actual ability to have a falsification of Newtonian physics for n-body systems, until we have enough precision of measure (ie: never).

It's true that the equations are chaotic for some ranges of initial values. There's provably no way for any theory to predict the outcome for those values over long time periods for given any imperfect measurement. So it's more of a failing of nature, than a failing of Newtonian mechanics. For other initial values, however, it's possible to make perfectly good predictions.

At any rate, nobody would deny that the three-body system is radically different from the two-body system. Your counterexample was reasonable, I just wanted to clarify the exact situation with n-body problems.

[Medicus]

I'm a Neo-Darwinist.

I determined this after three minutes searching Wikipedia.

[Justinian]

Punctuated equilibrium is somewhat in response to the lack of fossils of intermediate links - thus the no evolution and spikes of evolution, the intermedaries not being alive long enough to leave behind fossils.

[Medicus]

Punctuated equilibrium is somewhat in response to the lack of fossils of intermediate links - thus the no evolution and spikes of evolution, the intermedaries not being alive long enough to leave behind fossils.

I did read part of that article, and I was amazed people actually came up with this ****.

I was obsessed with Dinosaurs when I was a kid; I know how rare it is for an animal to be fossilized.

[Ummagumma]

I think it is a combination of many theories. There is a mixing of genetics in every successive variation, this is a certainty. The actual effect of this is minimal though ('if it ain't broke, don't fix it'). Over ludicrously long time scales particular elements will become stronger, others weaker. Also though life appears to have happened in 'phases', the last of which was the ice age. Many strange creatures existed and very few familiar ones did. The rapid changes in the environment must have prompted rapid changes (the 'pax gene switch'?). Some species died out, others were able to change enough to survive and then filled out their niche in the environment. I guess if our environment is changing at such a rapid rate as they say there might be evidence for this one way or the other in merely a few hundred years, rather than thousands.

[Dayman]

Neo-Darwinist myself.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Neo-Darwinist.

[Ummon]

I cannot tell you what you should think, but I can tell you that you should avoid genecentrism.

[TheKwas]

Exactly what does genecentrism have to do with punctuated equilibrium? Or must you speak out against Dawkins whenever his name is mentioned in a thread?

[Ummon]

Actually, I was saying that infact, the most serious thinkers consider genecentrism to be absurd (Dupré, for instance). The rest is debatable.

The equation Neodarwinism = Dawkins's stance is also incorrect.

I really don't see why you are so disturbed by my answer.

[TheKwas]

Actually, I was saying that infact, the most serious thinkers consider genecentrism to be absurd (Dupré, for instance). The rest is debatable.

Of course, who is considered a 'serious thinker' is left at your discretion. George Christopher Williams, Robert Trivers, Chris Perrins, John Maynard Smith, WD Hamilton, and countless others are all respected and even lengendary amoung their peers (I know atleast 3 of them have won the Crafoord prize, the closest thing to a Nobel prize in non-medicine biology) . Slandering them, irregardless of your view in 'the debate', illuminates your ignorance.

As far as biological debates are concerned, the gene-centered view is given more respect than punctuated equilibrium.

The equation Neodarwinism = Dawkins's stance is also incorrect.

I really don't see why you are so disturbed by my answer.

I'm not disturbed by your answer, I just have no idea why 'genecentrism' is relevant to the discussion. I immediately saw it as an attack on Dawkins because, well, your post is completely out of place if it wasn't.

Lets re-create the same discussion flow but with another subject:

Justin: What do you guys think about fair tax vs IRS tax?
Sim: I get all my information about Fair tax from Mike Huckabee and I love it.
Ummon: I can't tell you what to think, but let me just tell you that the world is not 6000 years old.

What does the age of the earth have to do with FairTax? Absolutely nothing. The only possible link between the two subjects is the mention of Mike Huckabee, who both supports creationism and FairTax, and thus your comment only makes sense as a swipe at Huckabee.

With that in mind, look back at this thread:

Justin: "which of these views do you personally prefer... punctuated equilibrium,... or neo-Darwinism?"
Sim: "I've gotten my knowledge on punctuated equilibrium from Dawkins, and I agree with his...point"
Ummon: "I cannot tell you what you should think, but I can tell you that you should avoid genecentrism."


If you weren't taking a sideswipe at Dawkins, you were just being very off-topic on purpose, which is probably even more annoying. I mean, look where this thread has already gone.

By suggesting that genes are units of natural selection, with his concept of "egoist gene" Dawkins disregards interactions between them, and between them and the environement, which may turn a useful trait into a damaging one, and vice-versa.

Dawkins does nothing of the sort as far as I can remember. I distinctly remember Dawkins going into great depths with his 'German/English rowing team' analogy talking about interactions between genes in The Selfish Gene, and the same logic behind that analogy applies to the enviroment as well.

[Simetrical]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by gene-centrism?

[Ummon]

The idea that the only object of selection are single genes.

[Simetrical]

The statement "the only object of selection are single genes" does not appear to be empirical, or at any rate it is not stated in an empirical form. It strikes me as semantics. What difference does it make, empirically? I imagine I could recast any discussion of natural selection in terms of either individual genes or populations' genes, just by changing the phrasing.

[Ummon]

The object of selection is the phenotype. Genes with their coded messages and interactions determine the phenotype, and environement does too.

[Simetrical]

Well, natural selection occurs when 1) there is descent with modification, and 2) modifications can affect the probability of having descendants. (1) is essentially genotypal, while (2) is caused by genotype affecting reproduction through the mechanism of phenotype. Phenotype is part of the mechanism for selection insofar as it is caused by genotype. Other factors that affect phenotype (environmental factors) are irrelevant to natural selection, since they are not passed down through descent.