Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Casey Luskin asks: Can claims about punctuated equilibrium accommodate the scientific data?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Some of us would have thought that quantum mechanics killed all that off but in any event:

As Stephen Jay Gould put it: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.”1 Because of this difficulty, in the 1970s, Gould and his colleague Niles Eldredge developed punctuated equilibrium as a model where evolution takes place in small populations over relatively short geological time periods that are too rapid for transitional forms to become fossilized.2 But this model has many problems.3

Punctuated equilibrium compresses the vast majority of evolutionary change into small populations that lived during shorter segments of time, allowing too few opportunities for novel, beneficial traits to arise. Punctuated equilibrium is also unconvincing in that it predicts that with respect to the fossil record, evidence confirming Darwinian theory will not be found. Would you believe someone who claimed that fairies and leprechauns exist and were caught on video, but when asked to produce the film, declares, “Well, they are on camera, but they are too small or too fast to be seen”? That doesn’t make for a compelling theory.

Analogous problems plague attempts to account for the life-friendly fine-tuning of physical laws by appealing to a multiverse.

Casey Luskin, “Can Materialistic Models Accommodate the Scientific Data?” at Evolution News and Science Today (May 7, 2022)

As Luskin implies, appealing to a multiverse is like appealing to fairies.

Here’s Casey Luskin’s whole series on the topic.

You may also wish to read: Rescuing the multiverse as a science concept… ? Luke Barnes on the multiverse: In the cycle of the scientific method, the multiverse is in an exploratory phase. We’ve got an idea that might explain a few things, if it was true. That makes it worthy of our attention, but it’s not quite science yet. We need to find evidence that is more direct, more decisive.

Comments
But he also deserves respect for adjusting the model to fit the data rather that cherry-pick the data to fit the model.
But the adjustment requires a process that also has problems. A research program could easily verify or refute this process. There should be evidence of it in every genome. My guess is they know evidence doesn’t exist to validate their ideas. So no attempt to verify it.jerry
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
There has always been some disagreement with some aspects of Gould’s punctuated equilibrium. But he also deserves respect for adjusting the model to fit the data rather that cherry-pick the data to fit the model.JHolo
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
Please note that punctuated equilibrium is an excellent example of the malleability of the Theory of Evolution to accommodate any convenient idea needed for the moment. In this case, the tiny increments in random genome mutations accumulate over time until they magically appear like Athena, "fully formed from the brow of Zeus." The result is the immediate appearance of new species that overthrow the old! But that's not the point. The point is that punctuated equilibrium demonstrates the transcendent principle of Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis as applied in Marxism. This convergence is what makes it True in some minds, regardless of the "temporarily confounding data" (i.e. more science fiction). -QQuerius
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
I also wondered whether Gould was backing away from punctuated equilibrium. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/stephen-jay-gould-on-marx-kuhn-and-punk-meek/ In the third episode, “Evolution by Jerks,” out now from Discovery Institute, Ruegger turns to the three problems with punctuated equilibrium, problems so serious that they resulted in Gould’s backing away from his own theory. By the time of his death, he had come full circle, in effect, returning to traditional Darwinism. https://evolutionnews.org/2022/03/lukas-ruegger-three-problems-with-punctuated-equilibrium/
Silver Asiatic
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Gould realized that the theory didn’t make any sense.
Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium as the solution. I suggest people read Jurgen Brosius. He is very serious about his idea of punctuated equilibrium and once headed one of the most prestigious university programs in evolutionary theory. He claims to have examples of this happening in several places. Which is why I proposed a research program to evaluate this. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/do-nylon-eating-bacteria-show-that-new-functional-information-is-easy-to-evolve/#comment-631468 in a journal issue dedicated to eulogizing Gould, Brosius was given the lead article which outlines the theory of punctuated equilibrium and how it happens. https://bioone.org/journals/paleobiology/volume-31/issue-sp5/0094-8373_2005_031_0001_DAEBAC_2.0.CO_2/Disparity-adaptation-exaptation-bookkeeping-and-contingency-at-the-genome-level/10.1666/0094-8373(2005)031[0001:DAEBAC]2.0.CO;2.short https://bioone.org/journals/bioscience/volume-57/issue-9/B570918/PAYING-GOULD-TRIBUTE/10.1641/B570918.fulljerry
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
It’s just that the changes accumulate without changing the organism till they are exapted and come into fruition as a viable system.
As you stated, not possible. It's absurd and contradictory and falsifies evolution. "Changes accumulate without being changes". Or they'll say that "evolutionary potential" builds up until there's enough to enact a visible change. But evolution is blind. There's no foresight about what would be good for the future. If the mutation doesn't provide a fitness benefit in the present, then it won't be preserved. If it is, supposedly "a change that doesn't change the organism", then where's the evidence that the change ever existed? What they're saying is that "evolution continues persistently making changes in some secret, invisible realm and then one day it all suddenly bursts out into real life with a new body plan." Gould realized that the theory didn't make any sense.Silver Asiatic
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
No! Punctuated Equilibrium is still Evolution by very small amounts. It’s just that the changes accumulate without changing the organism till they are exapted and come into fruition as a viable system. Not possible but that is the basis for it. I used to post links to Jurgen Brosius but most have disappeared as 404 errors at Munster university where he used to work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jürgen_Brosius Who is Jurgen Brosius? Apparently still alive but now obscure. He was given the privilege of eulogizing Gould in the Literature. First introduced here by Allen MacNeill who is also still alive and has little current internet presence.jerry
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
1 8 9 10

Leave a Reply