AgnosticWeb.com
Log in
Register
Search:
Back to the entry by David Turell
Post reply
Reply to the message by
David Turell
Name:
E-mail:
(optional, won't be displayed directly)
Leave this field empty:
Homepage:
(optional)
Leave this field empty:
Location:
(optional)
Remember me (cookie)
Category:
Introduction
The atheist delusion
Agnosticism
Evolution
The limitations of science
Origins
The nature of a 'Creator'
Where is it now?
Endings
Identity
Animals
Humans
Religion
Art
Politics
What should be taught in schools?
A mad world
General
Subject:
Formatting help
skip to input
format text bold
[b]bold text[/b]
format text italic
[i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink
[link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color
[color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size
[size=small]small text[/size]
[size=large]large text[/size]
insert list
[list][*]list item[/list]
insert image
[img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(
Message:
> > > David asks, in the light of the new discovery and its relation to the Cambrian Explosion, "[i]Where is Darwin's gradualism[/i]?" This is a point of the theory that I have never quite understood. Darwin is unequivocal about its importance: "[i]If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down[/i]." ([b]Origin[/b], p. 214) In some respects he is on safe ground, because no-one can ever prove that there were no transitional forms, just as no-one can ever prove that there is no God. The Eldredge-Gould concept of 'punctuated equilibrium', however, contradicts that of '[i]Natura non facit saltum[/i]' and it certainly seems to be more in keeping with the fossil record as we know it. What I don't understand is why gradualism should be so crucial to the theory as a whole. It therefore seems to me that evolution doesn't depend on gradualism at all. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.- Eldridge-Gould disturb(ed)some old school rigid Darwinists. In the past I've mentioned Reznick's guppies, now studied 20 years. They can change size to avoid preditors in a two-year period. Now we find that sticklebacks can adapt to colder waters in a three-year period. Epigenetic change may drive evolution more importantly than 'gradual' Darwinian suppositions. - http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2010/08/04/mr-10-111/
OK - Submit
Preview