Had Evolution Moved Beyond Neo-Darwinism?

[forests]

Eugene Balon is not a creationist, he accepts common descent. That list of Darwin Skeptics that you have there is wrong, it was compiled by young earth creationist Jerry Bergman who is known for misrepresenting science. Where did he get most of those names from the list from?

 

The answer is, he got his list of Darwin Skeptics from - A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

 

You can read the list here:

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

 

Those who have signed the Dissent from Darwinism are only skeptical of "the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life" in other words to sign the list you do not have to reject evolution altogether just the neo-Darwinian mutation + ns.

 

Eugene Balon is not a crank he was a professor of ichthyology and leading expert on fish evolution.

 

Forests, not sure what "mechanisms" presented by Balon you are "looking into", but you should know that Eugene Balon is a documented creationist.

 

If you had read his paper you would see his not a creationist. He is known for his mechanism of Saltatory ontogeny. I am in the process of learning about this at the moment. It is discussed in the book - Environment, Development and Evolution: Toward a Synthesis (Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology) by Brian K Hall (this is a compilation of evolutionary biologists and evo devo scientists who want to go beyond the neo-Darwinian framework).

 

You can also see his other paper here:

 

Saltatory Ontogeny and the Life-History Model: Neglected Processes and Patterns of Evolution

 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/93knvaeqtm2jm94a/

 

A single cell – an egg – cannot be in the same stabilized state as a differentiated multicellular embryo or reproducing adult. The entire ontogeny must, therefore, consist of a sequence of stabilized states. Ontogeny of a phenotype cannot progress gradually but is a saltatory homeorhetic system, proceeding via natural thresholds from one self organized state to the next, hierarchically ever more complex and specialized. The natural boundaries of ontogeny – the far-from-stabilized thresholds – represent also states when changes can be easiest inserted or induced, and especially in the early ontogeny, from the intervals where evolution (change) can occur. As a result, ontogeny can also be divided into distinct life-history intervals called periods, be it embryo, larva (infant, pup), juvenile, adult and senescence, each divided in turn into phases, and each of these into natural steps. It is left to the imagination of scholars in social sciences to find parallels of saltation in economics and history.

 

I will agree not to call Balon a creationist in the future when he agrees to state in public that his name should be removed from Darwin Skeptics list, and that he clearly states that he does believe that evolution and comment decent can account for life on earth.

 

The Darwins Skeptics list is not official, Balon never asked to be on it and neither did any of those other scientists. A young earth creationist just put his name on it. As I said Balon fully accepts evolution and common descent just not the neo-Darwinian mechanisms. Creationists are known for confusing "Darwinism" with evolution.

 

I do not see any problems with Balon's definition of evolution, also his work is more valid than neo-Darwinism becuase gradualism is false, and Im glad Balon is showing how a saltional mechanism may actually work. I am not an expert on this subject so opinions from scientists in the field would be very useful.

 

Regarding the paper by Massimo Pigliucci see Table 1 on page 222 where he lists some of the extended mechanisms, this is good but he doesn't go far enough though as he still wants to work in a Darwinian gradual framework and ignores many of the other mechanisms. See The Altenberg 16 for 16 scientists who met up and want to go beyond the modern synthesis there book is a compilation of their discussions - interestingly Pigliucci is discussed in the book.

 

And what Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg, et al. did was invent. . . . The Anglophone tradition was taught. I was taught and so were my contemporaries. And so were the younger scientists. Evolution was defined as ‘changes in gene frequencies’ in natural populations. The accumulation of genetic mutations were touted to be enough to change one species to another. . . . No. It wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.”

—Lynn Margulis

Edited July 23, 2012 by forests

[maddog]

To all,

 

Excuse me for not being up to speed, I accept Rade's definition of "Neo-Darwinism" being post-DNA and all. I guess I was still operating on Darwinism as defined in the book "Origin of the Species", by Darwin himself. So given that most people posting here are not attempting to topple Evolution itself (aka Creationism, etc), how is it that a "new" paradigm is required to "hang one's hat on?" I remember seeing a book in a bookstore by a biologist J* who believe evolution of a species could occur by two methods: gradual (conventional) or sudden (I think he referred to Catastrophic). I only flipped through it then yet I read how he had numerous examples where acquired traits sometime happened in jumps. Is his level of thinking still considered "Neo-Darwinism"?

 

In any case what form would this new paradigm take? How would it be different yet still account for the evidence of the acquiring of evolutionary traits we observe from our past and do so in a way better than Darwinism or Neo-Dawrinism for that matter?

 

maddog

[forests]

To all,

 

Excuse me for not being up to speed, I accept Rade's definition of "Neo-Darwinism" being post-DNA and all. I guess I was still operating on Darwinism as defined in the book "Origin of the Species", by Darwin himself. So given that most people posting here are not attempting to topple Evolution itself (aka Creationism, etc), how is it that a "new" paradigm is required to "hang one's hat on?" I remember seeing a book in a bookstore by a biologist J* who believe evolution of a species could occur by two methods: gradual (conventional) or sudden (I think he referred to Catastrophic). I only flipped through it then yet I read how he had numerous examples where acquired traits sometime happened in jumps. Is his level of thinking still considered "Neo-Darwinism"?

 

In any case what form would this new paradigm take? How would it be different yet still account for the evidence of the acquiring of evolutionary traits we observe from our past and do so in a way better than Darwinism or Neo-Dawrinism for that matter?

 

maddog

 

There is no such thing as Darwinism anymore, that truely is dead becuase Darwin's mechanisms were natural selection, sexual selection and pangenesis. No scientist supports just those mechanisms anymore that is outdated by over 100 years and sexual selection and pangenesis are obsolete. The neo-Darwinian view of evolution is Darwin's gradual theory of evolution via natural selection merged with mendelian genetics and Julian Huxley called it the "modern synthesis".

 

In the 1950's and for a long time the modern synthesis was promoting natural selection and random mutation as the main evolutionary mechanisms, but this was incomplete. Geneticist Motoo Kimura has proven that most mutations are neutral. They are not doing anything for evolution. There are examples of beneficial mutations but there are not as many examples as one would expect. This is why the modern synthesis added in the mechanism of genetic drift.

 

The problem with neo-Darwinism is that it is a gradual theory of evolution. We know however that by looking at the fossil record there is no constant gradualism, mass extinctions and catastrophes have occured all over the earth in the past. Some scientists have worked this out and scientists like Gould and Niles Eldredge attempted a mid way position and proposed Punctuated Equilibria. However David Raup and paleontologist Steven M. Stanley in his book The New Evolutionary Timetable has shown why gradualism is wrong and how evolution has been driven by terrestrial catastrophes. Mass extinctions have occured yet the majority of the neodarwinians ignore this their mechanisms are gradual, yet how do they explain the lack of intermediates? Donald Prothero discusses some of this in his book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters says:

 

We have seen that punctuatred equilibrium is simply an application of modern biological speciation theory to the fossil record, which happened to explain and highlight the long-known facts of stasis in fossil species. The stasis, in turn, is now causing discomfort among many evolutionary biologists, becuase there is not yet any good mechanism in neo-Darwinian theory for it, suggesting we still have a lot to learn about evolution and speciation. But this is a good thing! If we had all the answers, and paleontology provided no new or interesting facts and ideas, science would be very boring.

 

So how does neo-Darwinism explain the stasis and jumps in the fossil record? It doesn't. Gradualism is wrong. This is just one reason for an extended synthesis. We need to go beyond any neo-Darwinian mechanism. Nobody is saying selection, drift or mutation don't occur they all have their role in evolution but the jiggsaw of evolution is missing major pieces. Theres other mechanisms that have been at work. I think that some type of saltational evolution mechanism has occured, but I am not an expert on the subject and am just looking into it at the moment.

 

I remember seeing a book in a bookstore by a biologist J* who believe evolution of a species could occur by two methods: gradual (conventional) or sudden (I think he referred to Catastrophic). I only flipped through it then yet I read how he had numerous examples where acquired traits sometime happened in jumps. Is his level of thinking still considered "Neo-Darwinism"?

 

Sudden jumps, saltational evolution, catastrophic evolution etc is totally non-Darwinian it does not fit into any "neo-Darwinian" framework as neo-Darwinism is gradual and denies sudden jumps or saltational mechanism/s and that is why evolution has moved beyond neoDarwinism.

Edited July 23, 2012 by forests

[Turtle]

...The problem with neo-Darwinism is that it is a gradual theory of evolution. We know however that by looking at the fossil record there is no constant gradualism, mass extinctions and catastrophes have occured all over the earth in the past. Some scientists have worked this out and scientists like Gould and Niles Eldredge attempted a mid way position and proposed Punctuated Equilibria. However David Raup and paleontologist Steven M. Stanley in his book The New Evolutionary Timetable has shown why gradualism is wrong and how evolution has been driven by terrestrial catastrophes. Mass extinctions have occured yet the majority of the neodarwinians ignore this their mechanisms are gradual, yet how do they explain the lack of intermediates? ...

 

every species is an "intermediate". what's more, the preservation of fossils is hit and miss and it is illogical to expect some continuous line.

[maddog]

There is no such thing as Darwinism anymore, that truely is dead becuase Darwin's mechanisms were natural selection, sexual selection and pangenesis. No scientist supports just those mechanisms anymore that is outdated by over 100 years and sexual selection and pangenesis are obsolete. The neo-Darwinian view of evolution is Darwin's gradual theory of evolution via natural selection merged with mendelian genetics and Julian Huxley called it the "modern synthesis".

You bring up more points that I am not aware of. What is Pangenesis? (sorry to get off point) How is "natural selection" not sexual ?? The rest of this paragraph, I

understand. OK.

 

In the 1950's and for a long time the modern synthesis was promoting natural selection and random mutation as the main evolutionary mechanisms, but this was incomplete. Geneticist Motoo Kimura has proven that most mutations are neutral. They are not doing anything for evolution. There are examples of beneficial mutations but there are not as many examples as one would expect. This is why the modern synthesis added in the mechanism of genetic drift.

OK.

 

The problem with neo-Darwinism is that it is a gradual theory of evolution. We know however that by looking at the fossil record there is no constant gradualism, mass extinctions and catastrophes have occured all over the earth in the past. Some scientists have worked this out and scientists like Gould and Niles Eldredge attempted a mid way position and proposed Punctuated Equilibria. However David Raup and paleontologist Steven M. Stanley in his book The New Evolutionary Timetable has shown why gradualism is wrong and how evolution has been driven by terrestrial catastrophes. Mass extinctions have occured yet the majority of the neodarwinians ignore this their mechanisms are gradual, yet how do they explain the lack of intermediates? Donald Prothero discusses some of this in his book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters says:

It was Stephen J. Gould that I was referring to. I knew I would eventually remember the name. I liked his sudden jump concept in evolution. I was not aware this was post-"neo-Darwinism".

 

So how does neo-Darwinism explain the stasis and jumps in the fossil record? It doesn't. Gradualism is wrong. This is just one reason for an extended synthesis. We need to go beyond any neo-Darwinian mechanism. Nobody is saying selection, drift or mutation don't occur they all have their role in evolution but the jiggsaw of evolution is missing major pieces. Theres other mechanisms that have been at work. I think that some type of saltational evolution mechanism has occured, but I am not an expert on the subject and am just looking into it at the moment.

 

Sudden jumps, saltational evolution, catastrophic evolution etc is totally non-Darwinian it does not fit into any "neo-Darwinian" framework as neo-Darwinism is gradual and denies sudden jumps or saltational mechanism/s and that is why evolution has moved beyond neoDarwinism.

I would concur "gradualism" being inadequate (continuous approx - like Turtle says). So all you are saying is we have a new paradigm without yet naming it ?

 

I will have to look-up a wiki on "saltational"... This doesn't mean salty - does it?

 

maddog

[sman]

 

I will have to look-up a wiki on "saltational"... This doesn't mean salty - does it?

 

maddog

 

It means, like, a snake giving birth to a snake-with-legs. Don't laugh - it wasn't a bad idea in Lamark's time - but biologists today who cry "saltation" should be taken with a grain of salt, IMO.

[forests]

You bring up more points that I am not aware of. What is Pangenesis? (sorry to get off point) How is "natural selection" not sexual ?? The rest of this paragraph...

 

Pangenesis was an evolutionary mechanism for heredity which Darwin came up with, it was actually a Lamarckian type mechanism which said that parents could pass on traits acquired in their lifetime to their offspring. Neo-Darwinism says any kind of Lamarckian type feedback is impossible and does not occur, but as seen in the book Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka a form of Lamarckism does indeed occur. Thats another reason for the extended synthesis.

 

It was Stephen J. Gould that I was referring to. I knew I would eventually remember the name. I liked his sudden jump concept in evolution. I was not aware this was post-"neo-Darwinism".

 

Gould near the end of his life became a critic of some of the things proposed in neo-Darwinism and he called for an extended synthesis himself yet he still wanted to remain in a Darwinian framework. I think that the idea that he proposed sudden jumps is a major confusion, that seems to be a creationist confusion and also a public confusion who have misrepresented his model. Punctuated equilibrium talks about rapid events of speciation but then periods of stasis... nothing to do with any jumps. The idea of jumps is firmly called saltationism and it originally came from mutation theorists, there are quite a few theories of this but not all ivolve large mutations.

 

It means, like, a snake giving birth to a snake-with-legs. Don't laugh - it wasn't a bad idea in Lamark's time - but biologists today who cry "saltation" should be taken with a grain of salt, IMO.

 

Yes, this is the hopeful-monster hypothesis of Richard Goldschmidt, it is a form of saltationism but this version of saltation is obsolete. Firstly even if a macromutation was to occur it would probably kill the species and secondly we have never observed giant macromutations.

 

But you need to understand why Goldschmidt proposed the idea. For 50 years or more the neo-Darwinians were playing around in the lab with micromutations with fruit flies but after this period of time the changes that had been observed were so tiny that he calculated that even if thousands of mutations were even combined in one specimen there would still be no new species, nothing. He came to the conclusion that macroevolution would have to have another mechanism. Of course creationists love this and use it as an example of a scientist who only claimed microevolution is observable yet some of Goldschmidts arguments are still valid. You have to remember however that back in the 1950s or 1960s most of the other mechanisms such as genetic drift nobody knew about them.

 

I would concur "gradualism" being inadequate (continuous approx - like Turtle says). So all you are saying is we have a new paradigm without yet naming it ?

 

There is a new paradigm in the works and most of these ideas are documented here by Gert Korthof http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof.htm#C5 see the section Extensions, revisions & alternative evolutionary theories. The problem is, is that the new paradigm involves many different evolutionary mechanisms by many different scientists and some of them reject eachother's work.

 

See his section on evidence against gradualism:

 

Darwinism is a gradualist theory of evolution. Horizontal inheritance is the transfer of genes, sometimes genomes, across species borders in contrast to vertical inheritance which is inheritance from generation to generation. Horizontal inheritance is an extension of (some would say contradicts or is an alternative to) the branching tree-of-life, and it usually contradicts gradualism.

 

Also one scientist I spoke to an evo devo scientist said that by 2020 there will be a totally new synthesis and he sees it going back to the ideas of Lamarck. James A. Shapiro an American biologist has already attempted at an extended synthesis and so have many others. A book a couple of years ago got released called The Altenberg 16, it brought together 16 evolutionary biologists and other scientists who discussed the problems with neo-Darwinism and called for a new synthesis with many interesting ideas. The problem however is that the book was hijacked by creationists and panned by critics. Stanley Salthe and another groups of scientists are in the making of a new book called "post-Darwinism" which might be released in 2013.

Edited July 24, 2012 by forests

[maddog]

Also one scientist I spoke to an evo devo scientist said that by 2020 there will be a totally new synthesis and he sees it going back to the ideas of Lamarck. James A. Shapiro an American biologist has already attempted at an extended synthesis and so have many others. A book a couple of years ago got released called The Altenberg 16, it brought together 16 evolutionary biologists and other scientists who discussed the problems with neo-Darwinism and called for a new synthesis with many interesting ideas. The problem however is that the book was hijacked by creationists and panned by critics. Stanley Salthe and another groups of scientists are in the making of a new book called "post-Darwinism" which might be released in 2013.

I will look for these books when they come out or already published. I am not sure how a group (any) could "hijack" a book. However, creationists do silly things for their cause. ;-)

 

maddog

[sman]

 

It means, like, a snake giving birth to a snake-with-legs. Don't laugh - it wasn't a bad idea in Lamark's time - but biologists today who cry "saltation" should be taken with a grain of salt, IMO.

Yes, this is the hopeful-monster hypothesis of Richard Goldschmidt, it is a form of saltationism but this version of saltation is obsolete.

 

What does the term mean today, forests? What version are you using it in this thread?

[Rade]

Forests, it is just not true that there is no evidence of gradual processes of changes in gene frequency over time (= theory of organic evolution by definition), here is an informative overview:

 

http://ncse.com/cej/7/1/origin-species-by-punctuated-equilibria

 

[EDIT_1} For those not interested in reading the link, here is the statement by S.J. Gould concerning modern understanding of Darwinism:

 

 

The modern theory of evolution—little more than a contemporary restatement of basic Darwinism—does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. . . . Our model is fully consistent with Darwin's central postulate that natural selection controls evolutionary change. Natural selection requires continuity and intermediacy, for selection must create the fit by steadily increasing the frequency of favorable variants. It does not require exceedingly slow and gradual transformation of entire populations.

 

[s. J. Gould, 1977]

 

And see here for paper on gradual evolution in a bacteria:

 

[Edit_2] http://mic.sgmjournals.org/content/149/12/3565.full

 

And Fruit Flies:

 

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/3/647.full.pdf

 

I appreciate all the research you have done to uncover alternative mechanism to natural selection used by nature to allow for organic evolution to occur, and the Extended Synthesis that is taught in college level courses on Organic Evolution includes all of them.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Rade

[blamski]

i think just about every scientist, evolutionary biologist and enthusiast is agreed that the theory of evolution and its mechanisms needs to be constantly reappraised in the light of new knowledge. the same as for every other branch of science you'd care to name. darwin's theories still give us the best base on which to build these modifications though, and the majority of credible proposals will have darwin's ideas at their core. it doesn't really matter what it's called though, does it? whether it is 'neo-darwinism', 'modern synthesis', 'animal changiness' or whatever. as long as we don't include creationism all the myriad modern variations on theories of evolution follow pretty much the same track.

[forests]

I am not sure how a group (any) could "hijack" a book. However, creationists do silly things for their cause. ;-)

 

Creationists often confuse "Darwinism" with evolution and its clear they sometimes do this on purpose. Jerry Fodor for example wrote a book titled "What Darwin Got Wrong" and the book was not an attack against evolution, it was a book which only criticised natural selection but the creationists mistunderstood it and were all over the internet saying Fodor had refuted evolution which of course is not true.

 

 

What does the term mean today, forests? What version are you using it in this thread?

 

Well saltation is evolution by jumps or large changes opposed to any strict gradual basis, a recent mechanism which was proposed was a form of saltational symbiosis and the evolutionary biologist Frank Ryan discusses it in his papers and his book "Darwin's Blind Spot" I am currently researching this at the moment so hopefully I will be able to discuss it in more detail.

 

I appreciate all the research you have done to uncover alternative mechanism to natural selection used by nature to allow for organic evolution to occur

 

As I said nobody is trying to find an alternative to natural selection. The evidence for selection in nature is accepted and well documentated but it is only a part of the puzzle theres many other mechanisms at work and that is what this thread is about. Evolution is complex and there is no reason to limit it to only a few mechanisms and you already have pasted in a paper explaining some of the mechanisms for an extended synthesis which is in the making.

 

Forests, it is just not true that there is no evidence of gradual processes of changes in gene frequency over time (= theory of organic evolution by definition), here is an informative overview:

 

I agree there is evidence for gradual processes in evolution I am not denying that evidence, but a pure gradualism like which neo-Darwinism advocates is not supported by the fossil record so what this shows us is that there is more than just gradual mechanisms at work.

Edited August 27, 2012 by forests

[sman]

Well saltation is evolution by jumps or large changes opposed to any strict gradual basis...

 

 

How big a jump? How large a change? Does the observations of sympatric speciation (for instance) overthrow Darwinism?

 

No. When we observe speciation or major morphological changes within one or a few generations we don’t run & re-write evolution. It’d be like thermodynamicists observing matter or energy accumulating in an improbable way and immediately throwing their hands in the air and saying “****! Entropy was wrong all along! What are we gonna do now!”

 

 

 

I agree there is evidence for gradual processes in evolution I am not denying that evidence, but a pure gradualism like which neo-Darwinism advocates is not supported by the fossil record so what this shows us is that there is more than just gradual mechanisms at work.

 

No. The fossil record is not evidence of non-gradualism. Please stop restating this error.

 

 

every species is an "intermediate". what's more, the preservation of fossils is hit and miss and it is illogical to expect some continuous line.

Edited August 27, 2012 by sman

[forests]

No. The fossil record is not evidence of non-gradualism. Please stop restating this error.

 

 

Gradualism says that organisms evolve through a process of slow and constant change but that is not what we see in the fossil record.

 

As Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."

[Buffy]

Gradualism says that organisms evolve through a process of slow and constant change but that is not what we see in the fossil record.

 

As Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."

 

...and that is the basis for Drs. Eldredge and Gould's theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. However it is very important to understand that the theory's argument against gradualism is primarily about *morphology*, and what has gotten confused in the posts above, is that that gradual *genetic* change can still drive the process. There's oodles of data and solid theories behind the "gradualism" of mitochondrial DNA's use as a mechanism for dating ancient DNA and separation of species. What's so cool about Punctuated Equilibrium is that it explains how attempts at large morphological changes can both be built up and suppressed over time, so that when large changes in environment occur, this can unleash the gradually developed changes in "junk DNA" (which we now know is not junk, it's natures scratch pad for planning new bio-gizmos) all at once, with geologically blinding speed.

 

Gould *hated* the fact that his theories were twisted by creationists to "show the controversy" in evolutionary science, and as a result, he did indeed push to call it *all* "Darwinism". So Forests, he'd quite frankly whip you over the head with a wet noodle for being a, well, neo-intellectual.

 

It's sure good to ask questions and question the conventional wisdom, but when you cross the line into dismissing the past as "no longer relevant", you start to lose the very benefit that all those shoulders we stand upon bring.

 

There are plenty of folks who go out of their way to claim to be "neutral" in the creationism/ID debate, who are quite frankly doing whatever they can to "create controversy" and call into question the quite certain truth to "Darwinism". Punctuated Equilibrium and other new evolutionary theories do no more to "refute" Darwin than Einstein "refuted" Newton: Newton still works the 99.9% of the time that you're not moving near the speed of light.

 

On the other hand, Lamarck was not even wrong.

 

The proof of evolution lies in those adaptations that arise from improbable foundations, :phones:

Buffy

[sman]

Gradualism says that organisms evolve through a process of slow and constant change but that is not what we see in the fossil record.

 

As Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."

 

 

I’m very happy to see you’ve read a bit o’ Stephen J. Gould in&among the other authors you’ve referenced. Here is an article from Nature in which he (and Eldredge) are privileged to re-cap Punctuated Equilibrium from the convenience of hindsight (it’s from 1993). I’ll take the liberty to accent what I think is the most pertinent quote for this thread:

 

Unruly accidents of history included the misunderstanding of colleagues (who, for example, failed to grasp the key claim about geological scaling, misread geological abruptness as true suddenness, and then interpreted punctuated equilibrium as a saltational theory),...

 

You see, “abruptness”, from the eye of paleontology, allows plenty of time for gradualism. Punctuations are gradual changes from one species to another by way of - in most cases probably - the good ol’fashion peripatric speciation elucidated so well by Ernst Mayr (and others of the synthesis).

 

Forgive the terseness of my preceding post. If you are here to learn, like the rest of us, then the rest of us are here to help. But when you proclaim that “Darwinism no longer exists...” and declare it to be “dogma” - the rest of us are likely to assume you’re just here to troll. Or to use our board to publish misconception and seed confusion. I encourage you to prove me wrong.

Edited August 28, 2012 by sman

[forests]

But when you proclaim that “Darwinism no longer exists...” and declare it to be “dogma” - the rest of us are likely to assume you’re just here to troll.

 

Firstly you need to assume good faith and perhaps read over the posts in this thread again. Nowhere did I say "Darwinism no longer exists", I said that some scientists believe evolution has moved beyond the neo-Darwinian framework as evidence has been found that cannot fit into a strict Darwinian framework. Most of these scientists are not denying the evidence which was presented by neo-Darwinism they are just saying it is incomplete. Perhaps you should read these articles here:

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-Darwinian_evolution

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extended_evolutionary_synthesis

 

As you can see from the quote by Adam S. Wilkins recently in evolutionary biology there is increasingly two groups that have seperated themselves. One group is the orthodox neo-Darwinians such as Jerry Coyne or Richard Dawkins who believe natural selection still has a primary role in evolution whilst other scientists such as James A. Shapiro and Eugene Koonin believe that other mechanisms are just as important and call for a new framework in the evolutionary synthesis.

Edited September 14, 2012 by forests