Correcting An Error
Ray Martinez
ago) I have said that punctuation theory interprets stasis to
represent speciation in geologic time.
This is error.
Punctaution theory does not interpret stasis to represent speciation
in geologic time; rather, stasis, in punctuation theory, is real; the
same alternates or gives way to rapid speciation events. And "rapid
speciation events" presupposes Darwinian gradualism (defined as "non
[or] anti-saltational").
Other schools of neo-Darwinism interpret stasis to represent
microevolution. I mistook these views to be the view of punctuation
theory.
Ray
Mitchell Coffey
Except my understand is that punctuated equilibrium refers to changes
above the speciation level, which is all one may usually expect to
detect in the fossil record and in geologic time.
Mitchell Coffey
Ernest Major
<472ab7bc-56e6-4121...@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
Mitchell Coffey <m.co...@starpower.net> writes
evolutionary change in lineages is episodic, and usually that it occurs
in smaller, isolated, populations, and is associated with speciation.
It's basically Ernst Mayr's peripatric speciation model applied to the
fossil record.
It does not, contra Ray, entail no changes to lineages between
punctuations.
--
alias Ernest Major
Reddfrogg
> In several posts over the last few years (and as recent as a few days
> ago) I have said that punctuation theory interprets stasis to
> represent speciation in geologic time.
>
> This is error.
Indeed it is. "Stasis" doesn't represent speciation at all. The
relative morphological stasis of a fossil species shows a population
in equilibrium. Speciation happens in the periods of instability, or
in outlying populations.
>
> Punctaution theory does not interpret stasis to represent speciation
> in geologic time; rather, stasis, in punctuation theory, is real;
"Stasis" again is misleading, as it refers to mere morphology. A
species may be evolving even if it's morphology is remaining very
similar. It also is an artifact of the fossilization process.
Speciation events, rather than involving the whole population
changing, are thought to happen in smaller, more isolated
populations.
> the
> same alternates or gives way to rapid speciation events. And "rapid
> speciation events" presupposes Darwinian gradualism (defined as "non
> [or] anti-saltational").
Even rapid speciation events usually take many generations. It's
rapid in geological time.
>
> Other schools of neo-Darwinism interpret stasis to represent
> microevolution.
Or not. Again "stasis" is largely an artifact of the preservation
process. The overall pattern seen in the fossil record is one of
change. It's only on the small scale where "stasis" can be invoked.
\
> I mistook these views to be the view of punctuation
> theory.
It looks like you are just as mistaken now.
DJT
bpuharic
that's for the 2nd edition of his book...for his 2nd nobel prize
John Harshman
> In several posts over the last few years (and as recent as a few days
> ago) I have said that punctuation theory interprets stasis to
> represent speciation in geologic time.
>
> This is error.
Hadn't I already told you that about a hundred times?
> Punctaution theory does not interpret stasis to represent speciation
> in geologic time; rather, stasis, in punctuation theory, is real; the
> same alternates or gives way to rapid speciation events. And "rapid
> speciation events" presupposes Darwinian gradualism (defined as "non
> [or] anti-saltational").
> Other schools of neo-Darwinism interpret stasis to represent
> microevolution. I mistook these views to be the view of punctuation
> theory.
Nobody interprets stasis to represent microevolution. You are still
confused.
John Harshman
Your understanding is wrong. Ray actually has correctly described the PE
theory here, for a wonder.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
For what it is worth, John, I wanted to backdrop my correction against
a recent message of mine that castigated your "wrong" view of PE----
but I couldn't find the thread when I went looking.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > In several posts over the last few years (and as recent as a few days
> > ago) I have said that punctuation theory interprets stasis to
> > represent speciation in geologic time.
>
> > This is error.
>
> Hadn't I already told you that about a hundred times?
>
http://physweb.bgu.ac.il/COURSES/PHYSICS1_BioTech/happy_face.jpg
> > Punctaution theory does not interpret stasis to represent speciation
> > in geologic time; rather, stasis, in punctuation theory, is real; the
> > same alternates or gives way to rapid speciation events. And "rapid
> > speciation events" presupposes Darwinian gradualism (defined as "non
> > [or] anti-saltational").
> > Other schools of neo-Darwinism interpret stasis to represent
> > microevolution. I mistook these views to be the view of punctuation
> > theory.
>
> Nobody interprets stasis to represent microevolution. You are still
> confused.
Would you like a cite?
I really do not want to see a correction post from you.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Are you forgetting the mantra of much literature ("species appear
abruptly, endure for a time while changing slightly, then disappear
abruptly")?
Ray
John Harshman
> On May 17, 2:59 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> In several posts over the last few years (and as recent as a few days
>>> ago) I have said that punctuation theory interprets stasis to
>>> represent speciation in geologic time.
>>> This is error.
>> Hadn't I already told you that about a hundred times?
>>
>
> http://physweb.bgu.ac.il/COURSES/PHYSICS1_BioTech/happy_face.jpg
So perhaps next time you'll give me a little benefit of the doubt.
>> Punctaution theory does not interpret stasis to represent speciation
>>> in geologic time; rather, stasis, in punctuation theory, is real; the
>>> same alternates or gives way to rapid speciation events. And "rapid
>>> speciation events" presupposes Darwinian gradualism (defined as "non
>>> [or] anti-saltational").
>>> Other schools of neo-Darwinism interpret stasis to represent
>>> microevolution. I mistook these views to be the view of punctuation
>>> theory.
>> Nobody interprets stasis to represent microevolution. You are still
>> confused.
>
> Would you like a cite?
Yes.
John Harshman
No, I'm not forgetting. But stasis still isn't microevolution.
Microevolution can certainly take place during periods of stasis, if
that's what you meant. But you should say what you mean, not its second
cousin.
By the way, if microevolution can happen during stasis, is that in
conflict with your theory of species immutability?
Mitchell Coffey
> In message
> <472ab7bc-56e6-4121-a74c-334c9218e...@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> writes
Thank you.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
Well, then I'm proud of my small role in this historical occurrence.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
Will you accept a chirp?
Mitchell Coffey
Glenn
those three words hold significant meaning.
Does literature exist documenting or inferring *no* evolutionary
change in the time frames that makes "stasis" relevant?
Ray Martinez
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On May 17, 2:59 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> In several posts over the last few years (and as recent as a few days
> >>> ago) I have said that punctuation theory interprets stasis to
> >>> represent speciation in geologic time.
> >>> This is error.
> >> Hadn't I already told you that about a hundred times?
>
> >>> Punctaution theory does not interpret stasis to represent speciation
> >>> in geologic time; rather, stasis, in punctuation theory, is real; the
> >>> same alternates or gives way to rapid speciation events. And "rapid
> >>> speciation events" presupposes Darwinian gradualism (defined as "non
> >>> [or] anti-saltational").
> >>> Other schools of neo-Darwinism interpret stasis to represent
> >>> microevolution. I mistook these views to be the view of punctuation
> >>> theory.
> >> Nobody interprets stasis to represent microevolution. You are still
> >> confused.
>
> > Are you forgetting the mantra of much literature ("species appear
> > abruptly, endure for a time while changing slightly, then disappear
> > abruptly")?
>
> No, I'm not forgetting.
Then is it not conceivable that some Darwinists, at some time, have
interpreted the same to represent microevolution?
> But stasis still isn't microevolution.
Of course not! But some Darwinists say that it represents "ultra-slow
evolution" (Dawkins 1986:246).
> Microevolution can certainly take place during periods of stasis, if
> that's what you meant. But you should say what you mean, not its second
> cousin.
>
These comments make no sense whatsoever.
> By the way, if microevolution can happen during stasis, is that in
> conflict with your theory of species immutability?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I never said or implied that micro can happen during stasis. I said
some evos interpret stasis to represent microevolution or "ultra-slow
evolution." Then I said that I mistook these views to be the view of
punctuation theory.
Ray
John Harshman
Not to me it isn't.
>> But stasis still isn't microevolution.
>
> Of course not! But some Darwinists say that it represents "ultra-slow
> evolution" (Dawkins 1986:246).
No, it perhaps represents a condition under which evolution is
ultra-slow, but that isn't the same thing.
>> Microevolution can certainly take place during periods of stasis, if
>> that's what you meant. But you should say what you mean, not its second
>> cousin.
>
> These comments make no sense whatsoever.
I disagree.
>> By the way, if microevolution can happen during stasis, is that in
>> conflict with your theory of species immutability?
> I never said or implied that micro can happen during stasis. I said
> some evos interpret stasis to represent microevolution or "ultra-slow
> evolution." Then I said that I mistook these views to be the view of
> punctuation theory.
No "evos" interpret it that way; you have misunderstood. But I accept
your clarification of your claims.
John Harshman
If you're interested, Gould's book The Structure of Evolutionary Theory
will provide citations and a review of the literature. Of course one
can't really document zero evolutionary change, because you're sampling
a population that has some variance, and no single sample can exactly
characterize even the population mean. So even if that mean remained
absolutely stationary, successive samples would show some differences.
Hence "little". Often, "little" has been defined vaguely. One could make
a rigorous attempt at defining by restricting the allowable difference
between samples in terms of sample variance.
Glenn
No evolutionary change contradicts evolutionary theory. Again, how is
stasis interpreted? You didn't answer. Perhaps it would be more
accurate to say that evolutionary change in "stasis" is ignored.
John Harshman
Beg pardon?
> Again, how is
> stasis interpreted? You didn't answer.
Yes I did. It doesn't mean exactly zero evolutionary change. It means a
non-significant amount of evolutionary change, where significance has
most often been interpreted subjectively, though there are attempts at
rigor in the literature. Further, it generally refers to morphological
changes only, not to genetic changes. Nobody (as far as I'm aware)
thinks that there is such a thing as genetic stasis.
> Perhaps it would be more
> accurate to say that evolutionary change in "stasis" is ignored.
Or not. Read Gould and get back to me, if you're interested.
Glenn
I'm interested in why you claimed that stasis is not interpreted as
microevolution. So far you have defined it so.
John Harshman
Charles Brenner
Is this the argument?
Stasis defined as: No apparent change (seen in the fossil record)
Glenn: But there must have been unapparent change, i.e.
microevolution. Hence stasis really means a period of
microevolutionary change.
That's not logical but the point is merely semantics. The true fact
about stasis (or any word) isn't necessarily incorporated in the
meaning of the word. Boeings are made in Seattle but no one thinks of
"made in Seattle" as part of the definition of "Boeing".
Glenn
Perhaps it is all just semantics.
aganunitsi
I think it's all just paleontologists doing the best they can with
what they've got to work with. They would love to be able to show the
evolution of the language center of the brain using the fossil record,
but it ain't gonna happen. Did it happen during a period of
morphological stasis, or at one of the more obvious evolutionary
events? Unknown.
Glenn
"It means a non-significant amount of evolutionary change". Perhaps
you make a distinction between interpreted and defined. But that isn't
what you disagreed with. "Stasis is interpreted to represent
microevolution", and that's what you just interpreted stasis to
represent.
Glenn
Dude, in the room you're in nothing is "ain't gonna happen".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_linguistics
John Harshman
No, I didn't. Do you perhaps have an unusual definition of
microevolution, something like "not very much evolution"? That isn't
what the word means. And I can't make sense of your equation otherwise.
Stasis is lack of evolution, which operationally means not very much
evolution. You could have not very much microevolution, or you could
have quite a lot of microevolution. The former would be stasis, the
latter would not.
Glenn
Nope, but what is the definition of microevolution? A lot of stasis?
"Non-significant" evolutionary change?
> That isn't
> what the word means. And I can't make sense of your equation otherwise.
> Stasis is lack of evolution, which operationally means not very much
> evolution.
So "operationally" stasis is "not very much" microevolution, not a
"complete" lack.
> You could have not very much microevolution, or you could
> have quite a lot of microevolution. The former would be stasis, the
> latter would not.
Why?
John Harshman
No, neither. Microevolution is usualy defined as evolution within
species. That is, processes that happen within populations, such as
mutation, selection, drift, and migration. (Whether there are any
processes that don't happen within populations is a matter of
contention, though I happen to think there are.)
>> That isn't
>> what the word means. And I can't make sense of your equation otherwise.
>> Stasis is lack of evolution, which operationally means not very much
>> evolution.
>
> So "operationally" stasis is "not very much" microevolution, not a
> "complete" lack.
Yes. Why the scare quotes around all those words? You should know that
in biology there are few if any absolutes.
>> You could have not very much microevolution, or you could
>> have quite a lot of microevolution. The former would be stasis, the
>> latter would not.
>
> Why?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Because stasis is defined as a state
in which very little evolution happens. It seems to me it shouldn't be
necessary for me to explain to you that "very little evolution" doesn't
include "quite a lot of evolution".
Glenn
Yes, evolution within species, or at or below the species level.
>
> >> That isn't
> >> what the word means. And I can't make sense of your equation otherwise.
> >> Stasis is lack of evolution, which operationally means not very much
> >> evolution.
>
> > So "operationally" stasis is "not very much" microevolution, not a
> > "complete" lack.
>
> Yes. Why the scare quotes around all those words? You should know that
> in biology there are few if any absolutes.
Yet you seem intent on making them. Why could there not be a "whole
lot" of evolution going on during stasis?
Microevolution is as you say just evolution below the species level.
There are no "quantitative" restrictions on that change. Or are there?
>
> >> You could have not very much microevolution, or you could
> >> have quite a lot of microevolution. The former would be stasis, the
> >> latter would not.
>
> > Why?
>
> Are you being intentionally obtuse? Because stasis is defined as a state
> in which very little evolution happens. It seems to me it shouldn't be
> necessary for me to explain to you that "very little evolution" doesn't
> include "quite a lot of evolution".
No, John. Stasis is the state at which little or no evolution beyond
the species level happens. And speciation can be the result of "very
little" evolution.
John Harshman
Because of the definition of stasis. Why can't a green parrot be purple?
> Microevolution is as you say just evolution below the species level.
> There are no "quantitative" restrictions on that change. Or are there?
There are not.
>>>> You could have not very much microevolution, or you could
>>>> have quite a lot of microevolution. The former would be stasis, the
>>>> latter would not.
>>> Why?
>> Are you being intentionally obtuse? Because stasis is defined as a state
>> in which very little evolution happens. It seems to me it shouldn't be
>> necessary for me to explain to you that "very little evolution" doesn't
>> include "quite a lot of evolution".
>
> No, John. Stasis is the state at which little or no evolution beyond
> the species level happens. And speciation can be the result of "very
> little" evolution.
You are incorrect in your definition of stasis. Wherever did you get it?
If stasis were defined that way, PE would be trivially true by definition.