Re: Wistar Symposium "Mathematical Challenge to Neo-Darwinism".

jillery wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
 

jillery wrote:

On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>

How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

>
>
The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.
>

IOW - None!

>
>
IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.
>

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

  Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.

 >
I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw it as "no data".
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and ignored by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's theory. I think that explains the "no data".
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated equilibrium, as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis followed by punctuated (rapid appearance of new species (geologically speaking)), then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then sudden disappearance.
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved rapidly) into a new stable "y species".  He calls punctuated which is not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge