Faith and Evidence .......

Originally posted by scottishinnz
What do you mean?

Dawkins and Gould are/were diametrically opposed on significant aspects of their base beliefs.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Dawkins and Gould are/were diametrically opposed on significant aspects of their base beliefs.

Yes, and whilst Gould believed his point to be significantly different in terms of the "evolutionary progress", they were both classical neo-Darwinians. If you read the wiki article I posted, you'll see that Gould says that himself.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I have. Have you?

And the point was about punctuated equilibrium vs. neo-Darwinism.

Some. Punctuated equilibrum, which relies on long periods of stasis, is incompatible with Dawkins' views (probably why the latter wrote so much against it).

Originally posted by no1marauder
Some. Punctuated equilibrum, which relies on long periods of stasis, is incompatible with Dawkins' views (probably why the latter wrote so much against it).

What is "punctuated" about 10,000 or more generations?

Marauder, stick to law.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
What is "punctuated" about 10,000 or more generations?

Marauder, stick to law.

You're an arrogant piece of work.

Did Gould call his theory "punctuated equilibrum" or not? Maybe you know more about his theory than he did.

EDIT: I also see you've changed from "10,000 years" in your earlier post to "10,000 generations". Cute.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're an arrogant piece of work.

Did Gould call his theory "punctuated equilibrum" or not? Maybe you know more about his theory than he did.

EDIT: I also see you've changed from "10,000 years" in your earlier post to "10,000 generations". Cute.

He did. The same way there is a theory of sexual selection. And kin selection. PE is not a different theory than evolution - it's just one part.

10,000 years / 10,000 gens. What's the difference? It's still several thousand generations for most species either way.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
He did. The same way there is a theory of sexual selection. And kin selection. PE is not a different theory than evolution - it's just one part.

10,000 years / 10,000 gens. What's the difference? It's still several thousand generations for most species either way.

What's the difference?
Why let something pesky like words get in the way of something so sublime?

EDIT: Despite its internal inconsistency, of course.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
From wiki;

"The relationship between punctuationism and gradualism can be better appreciated by considering an example. Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches) over 70,000 years—a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the average generation is seven years, then our given time spa ideas of catastrophism and stasis."


Hmmm, maybe I do know what I'm talking about....

Perhaps you could point to where in the fossil record there is support for a limb size increasing at 0.005 cm a generation in ANY species.

Yes, Gould believed in evolution; no he didn't agree with Dawkins. Why you keep insisting that there is only one "correct" evolutionary theory is beyond me.

EDIT: And being an arrogant, pretend know-it-all prick while doing it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Perhaps you could point to where in the fossil record there is support for a limb size increasing at 0.005 cm a generation in ANY species.

That's the entire point. It doesn't show up in the fossil record. The fossil record is imperfect. Oh, humans would be a good support for an increase in mean size over time. Or cows, sheep, many many things, in fact.


There is ONLY one evolutionary theory! Darwinian evolution!

Originally posted by no1marauder
Perhaps you could point to where in the fossil record there is support for a limb size increasing at 0.005 cm a generation in ANY species.

Yes, Gould believed in evolution; no he didn't agree with Dawkins. Why you keep insisting that there is only one "correct" evolutionary theory is beyond me.

EDIT: And being an arrogant, pretend know-it-all prick while doing it.

Whey hey! Ad hom a go-go! Knew you couldn't help yourself. You really have a problem with people knowing more than you, don't you?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
That's the entire point. It doesn't show up in the fossil record. The fossil record is imperfect. Oh, humans would be a good support for an increase in mean size over time. Or cows, sheep, many many things, in fact.


There is ONLY one evolutionary theory! Darwinian evolution!

Or perhaps gradualism isn't correct. That's a perfectly reasonable reading of the evidence, isn't it?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Whey hey! Ad hom a go-go! Knew you couldn't help yourself. You really have a problem with people knowing more than you, don't you?

" Marauder, stick to law".

Hypocrite.

EDIT: The arrogance continues.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Or perhaps gradualism isn't correct. That's a perfectly reasonable reading of the evidence, isn't it?

And the alternative? Saltationism perhaps? Gradual genetic change has been observed, saltation is exceptionally unlikely.

Originally posted by no1marauder
" Marauder, stick to law".

Hypocrite.

Hey, I wouldn't second guess your knowledge of law, especially since I know mine isn't good.