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

On 6/9/24 12:27 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

On 2024-06-08 20:51:39 +0000, John Harshman said:
>

On 6/8/24 1:38 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

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.

>
Mostly OK, if oddly stated. A few problems
>
1. "Sudden disappearance" is not in any way a part of the theory.
>
2. You have the equilibrium part all wrong. The equilibrium is stasis.
>
3. The term is "peripheral isolates", adopted from Ernst Mayr, and I'm not sure you know what they are. They're just small, geographically isolated populations on the periphery of a species range.

>
Speciation in such cases can happen remarkably rapidly. On the island of Madeira there are six races (the term they use, though they fit Mayr's definition of species) of mice, that cannot breed either with one another or with the common European mouse. They appear to have evolved within the past 1000 years (if you assume they are descended from mice introduced by the Vikings), or much less than that if they came with the Portuguese. (Madeira is an island with numerous deep valleys separated by high ground that mice can't cross.)

 >
I don't have a problem with this. I know about birds that surround an island each grope can cross breed with the a-joining population in both the fore and the back groups, but not beyond.

I think you're trying to talk about ring species. Two problems: that's not what jillery is talking about, and there are in fact no known examples of ring species of birds that surround an island.

 Some peripheral isolates are in fact observed. If you look at the original publication, Eldredge N., Gould S.J. Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf T.J.M. editor. Models of Paleobiology, 1972. p. 82-115, you will see that it produces a couple of examples of peripheral isolates, notably in a trilobite, Phacops rana.
>
4. You should know that punctuated equilibria is not very popular with evolutionary biologists.

>
>