
Originally Posted by
Gyrokai
Dude... do I have to teach you this stuff! haha
Evolution doesn't state that there must be a slow and gradual change. Evolution actually works in spurts. But I won't get into that since you don't know about that.
Actually seeing as you brought this up I really can't let this go!
Remember Gould is a paleontologist, he deals (he's dead now) with fossils on a daily basis, he was a world expert on the fossil record. His theory of punctuated equilibruim or growth spurts as you call them was an attempt to explain the complete and total absence of any single piece of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record.
Let me be clear Gould was an absolute 100% evolutionist, he hates creationism as much as you do :P but he saw for himself there was no evidence for evolution in the fossile record, none whatsoever.
He formulated his theory to explain those gaps. Unfortunately Gould is a paleontologist not a microbiologist.
Consequently he was attacked by the rest of the evolutionary community for his views as they are absolutely impossible to explain at a molecular level,
This has led to the most famous division in evolutionary research. The question being asked, are you a puncuated equilbriuist or a neo Darwinian?
There are countless books on this subject, with each side labelling the other's viewpoint impossible and untenable.
Some examples,
Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest
by Kim Sterelny
The Accidental Creationist: Why Stephen Jay Gould is bad for evolution. by Robert Wright.
Melvin Konner. American Prospect, July-Aug, 1999 Fool's Gould : Will the Left Finally Stop Buying It?
The Holes in Gould’s Semipermeable Membrane Between Science and Religion - review of by Ursula Goodenough
These two evolutionary camps both provide firm and conclusive evidence to demonstrate the wrongness of their opponents.
Bookmarks