leopold said:
this is micro evolution. [Darwin's finches]
They are over a dozen new species - hence it can't correctly be characterized as microevolution.
not according to the definition provided by a prestigious university.
They will be the same folks that author the evolution textbooks you said are teaching lies. It's not clear how you rely on authority that you also disavow. If you reach for any of their textbooks, you'll immediately notice that Darwin's finches are universally described as the reason that he had no choice but to conclude that species evolve. They're not properly classified as examples of microevolution, but of speciation by adaptive radiation. Nothing more solidly grounds the Theory of Evolution than the central discovery Darwin made on Galapagos. Nothing undermines the reality of it, certainly not the single op ed piece by Lewin. Speciation happens -- due to isolation, mutation, genetic drift and natural selection. None of the concerns about how microevolution and macroevolution relate, nor gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium, will ever lessen the weight of evidence at Galapagos. We could just as well never have found a single fossil and Darwin's theory would be equally valid, since it stands on the evidence of living creatures whose existence can only be explained by evolution by natural selection -- regardless of the precise molecular mechanisms in play or the rates at which they accelerate or decelerate, or any of the countless phenomena that affect rates of stratification, geographic spread of evolved species from their ancestral habitats, statistical paucity of particular phenotypes and so on.
it was the conclusion of these scientists that this process can't be extrapolated to macro evolution.
Nothing I've read fits that characterization.
then you are either blind, a liar, or refuse to accept it because that is EXACTLY what was said, read the article.
The "this" in the "this process" part of your statement was in reply to my statements about evolution on Galapagos. My statement, that I've never read any scientist claiming that adaptive radiation cannot be "extrapolated" to macro evolution, stands pat - since no authority on evolutionary biology has ever, to my knowledge, discounted the truth of Darwin's conclusions about the finches.
Yes, but I presume you would agree that Gould and Ayala were two of the three most authoritative experts in the field
i am not going to say who was the most authoritative at the meeting, i wasn't there nor do i have list of who was.
i WILL say gould and ayala were both mentioned by name in the piece.
Since Gould coined the phrase "punctuated equilibrium" it's important to remember his place in this discussion. Ayala stands at an arm's length, often critical of Gould. It's important to understand the position of both men in order to place Lewin's op ed in proper perspective. I will use the term "op ed" to distinguish this type of article from what you are calling "peer reviewed journal" material. There is a huge difference between this piece and actual authoritative work (typically studies) that would properly be known as peer reviewed material. There are essential elements missing from Lewin's article to characterize it as such, nor is he qualified to be known as a published authority. He's a reporter, and though
Science gave him leeway to stir the pot, they did so understanding that their average reader is competent enough to distinguish the difference between a research report and an op ed piece. Remember the political backlash that was in play with Reagan's Religious Right in 1980. Scientists were appalled by the way that dragon raised its ugly head, and were wanting to read material like Lewin's to better understand the phenomena that were unfolding at the tent revivals and snake charmers' churches just across the street from the university labs.
- with Dawkins being the third (I wonder what he was doing then).
maybe out front protesting.
I mentioned Dawkins in part because I think he forms the third school of thought from that era. Ayala and Gould are not exactly on the same page. Dawkins is the proponent of molecular evolution, which you gave early in your remarks as your basis for throwing out the textbooks. Yet as diverse as these three acclaimed authorities may be, none of them has ever denounced adaptive radiation and its reliance on genetic isolation and natural selection. This is why I am in disagreement with your reasons for proposing that punctuated equilibrium overturns the theory even one iota. That conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. To test what I'm saying, try to formulate a concise logical statement of how it does.
these scientists FOUND NO EVIDENCE for accumulating changes that lead to macro evolution.
I disagree with the way this is stated.
correct, i'm sorry.
i should have stated what was written, at the risk to some a clear, no as to the question (and the central theme of the meeting) of whether the process of microevolution can be applied to macro evolution.
The application of micro to macro evolution is not a discussion that turns on evidence, but on a particular kind of absence of evidence: the interruptions in sedimentation and fossilization which Gould, Ayala, Dawkins - and even Lewin - and all of the "50" (sounds Biblical) all understand, and which all students of earth science and biology are introduced to in the standard high school curricula. The isolated discussion in 1980, as Lewin casts it, has this information as background and cannot be properly interpreted without doing so in the context of that background. Explain what kind of migratory patterns and fossilization you would expect after the K-T event and I think you'll get closer to what this discussion entails.
It should be expanded to include the fact that they were talking about a particular issue in Gould's theory, and without qualifying the details, this remark would not convey the truth of the matter.
yes, they discussed various ways of trying to explain what they found, goulds hypothesis amoung them.
Aside from some of the better ways of analyzing the statistical treatment of fossil phenotypes, there was no finding. There was a discussion about what rpenner refers to as the "rhythm" of fossilization. Is it a genetic rhythm? Is it a geologic rhythm? Climatic? Obviously, all of the above. But it does them no justice to reduce the significance of the true nature of organic evolution by concluding that the textbooks are fundamentally flawed and that science is a lie. Au contraire, this was a lively discussion in 1980, and many a scientist understood that the future of American education depended on bringing the technology to a populist level, which is one way of characterizing Lewin's desire to stir the pot.
That omits the caveats that still are being buried in this thread.
what caveats are those?
it's a very simple matter aqueous, these scientists simply did not have the evidence.
You misunderstand me. The caveats I'm referring to include the facts which you dismissed earlier, which include the fact that speciation involves genetic isolation, therefore the geographic location of the radiation is separate from the locale of the ancestral phenotype. It includes the punctuation in stratification itself, which represents a "wiping of the record" due to overriding natural causes, some of which were colossal catastrophes. Nothing said in 1980 overturns the reality of this, and few, if any, of Lewin's caricatures of the scientists present, can be swallowed without taking this reality pill in tandem. Otherwise, you're left with nothing more than hyperbole.
i have no idea why you can't understand that.
do you think they had the evidence but failed to recognize it? all 50 of them?
I think you have missed the boat on my remarks thus far. I'm at a loss to say how to direct you to the source of your error other than to ask you to repeat back to me the salient points I've made, and to show me how I've deviated from anything said by the now-famous "50", or the university professors who write the high school textbooks that you are up in arms about.
Part of the disconnect here is that we are talking about Darwin's Theory of Evolution, as amended, which only addresses speciation and nothing more.
incorrect, the discussion here is about the conclusion of the conference and how/ why they reached it.
The discussion here, as you are driving it, involves perhaps a dozen claims against the Theory of Evolution. Nowhere in this discussion has there been a citation about the content of that theory, other than the posts I made 4 or 5 times now giving the summary of Darwin's
Origin of Species found in the typical classroom textbook. Without stating what that content is, and where it is disputed by the conference, the argument remains unplugged from science. There is no logical connection for any reader here to arrive at your conclusion that the theory is broken, that science is broken, that a conspiracy is afoot and our children are being lied to. So far we are just not really talking about science. This has broken down into a discussion of opinion about what Lewin said about what the conferees said, while dismissing the caveats I am referring to, and without ever answering the mail about the existence of Darwin's finches and the ethical responsibility of educators to keep Darwin's discovery of them in constant focus in the science classrooms. It's a discussion about speciation, whether or not gradualism or punctuated gradualism, or any other synthesis bears fruit; as I mentioned before, with or without the fossil record, evolution of the finches by adaptive radiation, through genetic isolation and natural selection, into 13 or 14 individual species, is correctly explained by the theory and serves as the necessary example for any discussion involving Darwin's work, which is why even Gould himself (to my knowledge) never advocated against the content of classroom texts. I should also point out that it seems you are assuming that current books have not been updated, which is simply not true. Wherever the instructional level is appropriate for exploring the details (say, beyond 6th grade) you will find generous discussion of modern synthesis in its various incarnations.
My reason for harping on creationism is that it's invalid.
for the puroses of this thread i don't give a rats ass about creationism.
You've twice told me that I should listen to them. You said you were relying on some information you retrieved from a creationist site. We can't dismiss the harm done by them in creating public confusion about the authority and accuracy of credentialed scientists, and for fomenting the notion of a conspiracy by the Devil working through academia.
The fact is, the Theory of Evolution accounts for the nascence of divergent groups which no longer interbreed, from a common breeding pair (or pairs). This critical fact has somehow been buried in this thread.
and you must remember the very real problem of erroneous statistical correlations.
There is no statistics or error analysis that applies to the statement "Evolution accounts for the nascence of divergent groups which no longer interbreed, from a common breeding pair". It's a pure, unassailable formulation of the world around us, conceived of by a man who lived a remarkable life and gave us the answer that solidly controverts the Creation Myth. If having done that deserves minimizing the accuracy and elegance of the theory, that's one thing. But to call it erroneous or attribute it to some hypothetical statistical correlation issues is quite another. I guess you would have to explain what you mean, since the best statisticians and bean counters work in labs. The statistics from Galapagos are that Darwin's finches evolved into non-interbreeding species from a common breeding ancestral stock. What's left in dispute by anything said in 1980?
That's why we have to be careful to distinguish the meaning of words here.
and i am trying to do that aqueous because i want answers to this.
There has been a lot of good information forthcoming. Hopefully your questions have been answered.
We have been talking apples and oranges for quite a while now. if anything, we ought to at least agree on definitions. That seems to elude this thread for some reason.
apparently because most here just simply refuse to acknowledge what these scientists concluded and why.
My guess is that the "50" were nearly all in violent agreement about basic definitions. To hold court with the likes of Gould says they had decent chops. The same is true for the majority of science professionals, students, teachers, retirees and fans who are posting here. Many of them have had to do research papers and understand what I meant when I said that Lewin's article does not qualify as more than an op ed piece. But the question of apples and oranges boils down to something specific -- they (we) have always been talking about speciation, whereas you seem to be focused on the origins of classes and orders. It's apples and oranges. They are completely different definitions.
they simply do not want to admit that WE HAVE APPARENTLY BEEN LIED TO, and any scientist with integrity should be thoroughly pissed off about it.
That's your conclusion from failing to find the traceability of orders and classes out of the evolution of species? Veracity isn't even at stake here - it can all be cleared up by agreeing on some basic definitions. I would strongly encourage you to lay your hands on a current textbook and contrast its actual content with what you just said. They are beautifully done, richly illustrated, concisely explained, and augmented by wonderful online tutorials and all kinds of resources for developing young minds. I think if you direct your attention to the actual content of what you are opposing you will be pleasantly surprised by the remarkable achievements of the authors.
