Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[Miles]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #119]

The crazy thing about this is that TOE already has been falsified many times. It was once believed that evolution had to be slow and gradual. But then when new data was discovered that contradicted this slow and gradual change view like the Great Cambrian Explosion". Evolution evolved into something different call "Punctuated equilibrium".

GOOD GRIEF!

This isn't for you, EarthScienceguy, but for all those who might read what you've written and think you know what you're talking about. He doesn't folks.

First of all, of course the "theory of evolution" has NOT been falsified many times. If it had science wouldn't considered it true, which it does, and those who had falsified it would be on the cover of TIME Magazine and be up for Noble prizes. It isn't, and they aren't.

Secondly, EarthScienceguy doesn't really know what punctuated equilibrium is. He erroneously believes it took the place of evolution. It evolved from evolution, so he tells us. Of course he fails to tell us what he thinks it is because he doesn't know himself. At most he hints at the idea that PE is just evolution at a faster pace, leaving old plodding evolution in its wake, which if true would still leave evolution to be the true state of affairs it is.

Old Evolution: evolution at 10 MPH
Punctuated Equilibrium: evolution at 25 MPH.

The Facts:

Punctuated Equilibrium is commonly defined as "the hypothesis that evolutionary development is marked by isolated episodes of rapid speciation between long periods of little or no change."
[source: Oxford Languages.]

And that's it!!

As evolution, speciation plods along at various speeds, which depends on all sorts of factors. Yet, every once in a while the evolution of a species will momentarily speed up before settling back down. As noted, this doesn't happen across the breadth of life, but among individual species. That is, at any one moment in time PE may be occurring to only one or several species of life. NOT all life forms. And within some genera PE may never take place at all.


PE can be graphed as:


.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Miles in post #121]

Punctuated Equilibrium is commonly defined as "the hypothesis that evolutionary development is marked by isolated episodes of rapid speciation between long periods of little or no change.

And ESG also doesn't seem to appreciate the influence of forcing functions, ie. environmental changes that can drive the rate of evolutionary change. If there is no change to the environment or predator/prey mix, for example, then a species may have no "reason" to change for very long periods of time (eg. the great white shark at the top of its food chain), while some geological catastrophy such as a flood or volcanic eruption could come along and mix things up to the point that only faster evolving plants and animals can adapt and survive in the new environment. There is no expectation that evolution always has to be slow and gradual over time, because the environment does change and the rate at which that happens, and the extent of the change, are highly variable, making the evolutionary response also highly variable.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Miles in post #121]

First of all!!!

Nice emojis.

Second,

Look at your definition again. "the hypothesis that evolutionary development is marked by isolated episodes of rapid speciation between long periods of little or no change." It is not like going what did you say 10 m/s to 25 m/s. Punctuated equilibrium is like my old Mustang, that I used to have, that went for 0-60 in 6.3 seconds or something like that anyway. No change to rapid change is what the "Theory" says anyway. This is in total contrast to Darwin's slow and gradual change.

It is like this, pick your special event, no one who believes in the fairytale of evolution believes in uniformitarianism. The fairytale of evolution is chock full of special events (meteor impacts and such; I think there is even one theory out there that believes that the Earth was hit by a gamma-ray burst.). It was these special events that caused rapid speciation that we see.

If people who believe in evolution want to make believe that the Earth had many mass extinctions caused by gamma-ray burst or the earth was seeded by aliens from afar. They are welcome to there fairytales they do make great stories and very interesting documentaries.

[The Barbarian]

One needs to be sure to differentiate between evolution (change in allele frequencies in a population over time), which is an observed phenomenon, and evolutionary theory, which is a scientific explanation for the observed phenomenon, and common descent of all living things on Earth, which is a consequence of the phenomenon of evolution.

Evolution in the first sense is a fact. That's what we observe happening.

Evolution in the second sense is not a fact, but the best explanation for our observations. It is a theory, because it has numerous predictions which have been repeatedly verified. It does not mean that the theory is "proven"; logical certainty is not a part of science. It is merely the theory that best explains things currently.

Common descent of all organisms on Earth is a conclusion based on evidence and the theory. The first evidence was found before evolution was proposed. Linnaeus found that living things, unlike most other natural things, could be arranged in a nested family tree that implied common descent. Darwin found other evidence, and geneticists, after rediscovering Mendel's work, predicted that genes of organisms would also indicate common descent. This prediction has been confirmed.

And as predicted by scientists in Darwin's time, transitional forms between major groups began to be found, just as predicted. Even more convincing, there were no transitionals where there shouldn't be any. No mammals with feathers, no arthropods with bones, etc. This is why YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise wrote that the large number of transitional forms is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." However, Dr. Wise still believes in special creation. How can he do this?

It is because he understands what a theory is. It's an idea or group of ideas, supported by evidence and confirmed predictions. It does not mean that common descent (what Dr. Wise calls "macroevolutionary theory") is true. It's just that the present evidence points that way. Wise believes that there will be someday, a consistent creationist interpretation of the evidence.

It should also be noted that most creationist organizations like AIG, openly admit common descent to a degree. They now admit the fact of speciation, and even consider new genera, and in some cases families arising from other organisms.

[The Barbarian]

Punctuated equilibrium was predicted by Darwin, who pointed out that the pace of evolution would vary, depending on the population and the environment. As he wrote, a well-fitted population, in a constant environment, would be prevented from changing very much by natural selection. A population entering a new environment, or one experiencing a changing environment, would experience more rapid evolution.

There are a number of good examples of such rapid evolution, often accompanied by disruptive selection, leading to a number of new species.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #125]

Evolution in the first sense is a fact. That's what we observe happening.

Welcome to the forum Barbarian! As you can see there is a mix of believers and nonbelievers (in gods, evolution, and all lots of other things) and subjects of all types available for civilized debate and discussion. Look forward to your contributions and dialog.

[The Barbarian]

Thank you. Seems like a civilized forum. I think I'll like it here.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to Miles in post #121]

If there is no change to the environment or predator/prey mix, for example, then a species may have no "reason" to change for very long periods of time (eg. the great white shark at the top of its food chain), while some geological catastrophy such as a flood or volcanic eruption could come along and mix things up to the point that only faster evolving plants and animals can adapt and survive in the new environment.

In fact, this is what Darwin wrote about the pace of evolution, in his book. Natural selection preserves organisms that are well-fitted to an environment, thereby slowing or stopping evolution. But if the population is not well-fitted, then natural selection will speed up evolutionary change.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Miles in post #121]
Look at your definition again. "the hypothesis that evolutionary development is marked by isolated episodes of rapid speciation between long periods of little or no change." It is not like going what did you say 10 m/s to 25 m/s. Punctuated equilibrium is like my old Mustang, that I used to have, that went for 0-60 in 6.3 seconds or something like that anyway. No change to rapid change is what the "Theory" says anyway. This is in total contrast to Darwin's slow and gradual change.

That is an interesting interpretation of PE. How does your interpretation compare with those of the expert scientists who dedicate their lives to investigating and studying PE? Do the consensus of these experts agree that PE is in total contrast to Darwinian evolution?

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to Miles in post #121]
Look at your definition again. "the hypothesis that evolutionary development is marked by isolated episodes of rapid speciation between long periods of little or no change." It is not like going what did you say 10 m/s to 25 m/s. Punctuated equilibrium is like my old Mustang, that I used to have, that went for 0-60 in 6.3 seconds or something like that anyway. No change to rapid change is what the "Theory" says anyway. This is in total contrast to Darwin's slow and gradual change.

That is an interesting interpretation of PE. How does your interpretation compare with those of the expert scientists who dedicate their lives to investigating and studying PE? Do the consensus of these experts agree that PE is in total contrast to Darwinian evolution?

Since Stephen Gould, co-founder of PE, described himself as an "orthodox Darwinian", I think your interpretation of PE must be the correct one.