Punctuated equilibrium is a refinement of Darwin’s idea that species change slowly over time to became news species. Gould said that species tended to stay about the same for long periods until something forces a sudden change in the population, such as sudden climate change, epidemics, or new predators. My suspicion is that Darwin understood this perfectly well but kept things simple because of all the resistance he knew he was going to get for his whole concept of evolution through natural selection. (This is for you, emjaycee.)
wow, you will defend evolution as a whole -irreguardless. [just as I will defend creation] What you support is micro-evolution – as do I. Obviously we see minor changes. But the whole sale change of one family to a different family of organism by this method is a very large pill for me to swallow. Small changes can in no way ADD the millions of bit of genetic information required to change a reptile into mammal – I don’t care how much time you allow. WE both know to you – mutations are magic bullet propelled by time that makes a statistically impossible series of events possible. Your model – is not possible even if this planet were 4.7 billions of years old – or even 4.7 trillions of years old.
… they’d rather BELIEVE and forcefully inflict — intentionally, and with obvious malice — their belief-structure on the rest of us..They’re the spiritual equivalent of pigeons… but they lack the pigeons’ innocence, and soul, kindness, and decency…. and they can’t fly!
In the spirit of fairness, punctuated equilibrium was Niles Eldredge’s idea, not Stephen Jay Gould’s. Gould DID act as the presenter of the theory at a convention, and did much of the writing for publication, but Eldredge was the “brains” behind it. Insinuating that Gould was the “man” is unfair. Granted he is much the better known of the two, but this particular theory resulted from Eldredge’s work.
Every theory we come up with is only a “catch up” at best… right? Some are simply more up-to-date, or fact-based than others..I seriously doubt that God is ever offended if some of his clever critters try to figure him out.
pschearer: Thomas Huxley (aka Darwin’s Bulldog) warned Darwin about specifying gradualism, on grounds that while natural selection was obvious, there was no evidence that it had to be gradual. In addition to soundly defeating Soapy Wilburforce at the Oxford Union, Huxley had a high reputation in the study of mollusks.
The whole evolution vs creationism is indistinguishable from “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.” Neither can plausibly claim to be science – they are mirror beliefs, neither of which has any practical prospective application.
Most purported-Darwinists do not actually favor his theory, preferring a dumbed-down “things change” interpretation. I lean toward Creationism because of the racism that explicitly underpinned Darwin’s theory (see “Descent of Man.”) That, and the conscious efforts of the Eugenicists in their effort to apply Darwinism. When a theory inspires such evil actions with no compensating beneficial cases, I see it as a belief to avoid.
Templo S.U.D. over 11 years ago
well, at least the Bermudez siblings are doing something together instead against each other
rayannina over 11 years ago
For once.
emjaycee over 11 years ago
I did not know this. Who said you cannot learn from a comic strip?
pschearer Premium Member over 11 years ago
Punctuated equilibrium is a refinement of Darwin’s idea that species change slowly over time to became news species. Gould said that species tended to stay about the same for long periods until something forces a sudden change in the population, such as sudden climate change, epidemics, or new predators. My suspicion is that Darwin understood this perfectly well but kept things simple because of all the resistance he knew he was going to get for his whole concept of evolution through natural selection. (This is for you, emjaycee.)
cdward over 11 years ago
I’ve seen them cooperate often, and I really like Baldo’s support of his little sister. These two really love each other.
rnmontgomery over 11 years ago
wow, you will defend evolution as a whole -irreguardless. [just as I will defend creation] What you support is micro-evolution – as do I. Obviously we see minor changes. But the whole sale change of one family to a different family of organism by this method is a very large pill for me to swallow. Small changes can in no way ADD the millions of bit of genetic information required to change a reptile into mammal – I don’t care how much time you allow. WE both know to you – mutations are magic bullet propelled by time that makes a statistically impossible series of events possible. Your model – is not possible even if this planet were 4.7 billions of years old – or even 4.7 trillions of years old.
baileydean over 11 years ago
… they’d rather BELIEVE and forcefully inflict — intentionally, and with obvious malice — their belief-structure on the rest of us..They’re the spiritual equivalent of pigeons… but they lack the pigeons’ innocence, and soul, kindness, and decency…. and they can’t fly!
bevgreyjones over 11 years ago
Bailey, up unitl your contributions, the discussion was polite. Talk about ‘obvious malice’.
Comic Minister Premium Member over 11 years ago
Have fun!
Thriller87 over 11 years ago
Nice debate of the 2 sides.
William Taylor over 11 years ago
In the spirit of fairness, punctuated equilibrium was Niles Eldredge’s idea, not Stephen Jay Gould’s. Gould DID act as the presenter of the theory at a convention, and did much of the writing for publication, but Eldredge was the “brains” behind it. Insinuating that Gould was the “man” is unfair. Granted he is much the better known of the two, but this particular theory resulted from Eldredge’s work.
katrinkadinka over 11 years ago
Why can’t you believe in creation and evolution? I’m pretty sure that God is smart enough to use natural laws as He created everything.
baileydean over 11 years ago
Every theory we come up with is only a “catch up” at best… right? Some are simply more up-to-date, or fact-based than others..I seriously doubt that God is ever offended if some of his clever critters try to figure him out.
baileydean over 11 years ago
… not the only one… but it has its obvious limits, too.
hippogriff over 11 years ago
pschearer: Thomas Huxley (aka Darwin’s Bulldog) warned Darwin about specifying gradualism, on grounds that while natural selection was obvious, there was no evidence that it had to be gradual. In addition to soundly defeating Soapy Wilburforce at the Oxford Union, Huxley had a high reputation in the study of mollusks.
jbmlaw01 over 11 years ago
The whole evolution vs creationism is indistinguishable from “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.” Neither can plausibly claim to be science – they are mirror beliefs, neither of which has any practical prospective application.
Most purported-Darwinists do not actually favor his theory, preferring a dumbed-down “things change” interpretation. I lean toward Creationism because of the racism that explicitly underpinned Darwin’s theory (see “Descent of Man.”) That, and the conscious efforts of the Eugenicists in their effort to apply Darwinism. When a theory inspires such evil actions with no compensating beneficial cases, I see it as a belief to avoid.
barister over 11 years ago
blah, blah, blah…did anyone else notice Baldo’s legs are drawn feminine?