/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12661516
In other words, Eldredge and Gould noticed two features in the fossil record that were inconsistent with Darwinian gradualism. First, most species show no directional change; and, second, new species abruptly appear in the fossil record. Natural selection cannot account for these peculiarities, argued Eldredge and Gould.

In light of these problems with the modern Darwinian synthesis, Gould asked in the title of his now (in)famous article, "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?" In this article Gould writes:

"I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's. Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal description of evolution. The molecular assault came first, followed quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox theories of speciation and by challenges at the level of macroevolution itself. I have been reluctant to admit it - since beguiling is often forever - but if Mayr's characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as text-book orthodoxy" (p. 120).

Punctuated equilibrium, with its claim of stasis, represents a significant departure from the standard gradualistic model that Darwin pioneered. Some scientists, even Dawkins himself, have been careful to downplay the significance of this debate. Dawkins called it a "minor dispute" that "has been blown up to give the impression that Darwinism's foundations are quivering" (A Devil's Chaplain, 199). But Dawkins is clearly downplaying the significance of this debate so that creationists will have one less weapon in their arsenal. Indeed, the debate warranted a book by philosopher of science. The very emergence of punctuated equilibrium (evolution by "jerks") in opposition to phyletic gradualism (evolution by "creeps") suggests that the Neo-Darwinian synthesis is far from proven.

>doesn't post sources for the crap that he copypasted
>bait thread
>deboonks Darwin in order to deboonk evolution even though 150 years have passed since he formulated his theories and tons of reasearch have been done since then
>same old lie of lack of transitional species in the fossil record

Provide a theory that's better than neo-darwinism at making future testable prediction and explaining what we observe (fossil record, phylogenetic data, role of mutations in population genetics, the fact that the idea of a genetic clock works and everything else) or fuck off.

>>12661570
The burden of proof isn't on me to disprove neo-Darwinism, especially since prominent evolutionary biologists share my concerns. Sorry you didn't have an argument. I thought someone on this board might be able to post something interesting/coherent. Maybe I was wrong.
>high IQ board

>>12661570
Stephen Gould isn't 150 years old last time I checked?

>>12661573
>especially since prominent evolutionary biologists share my concerns

No, they don't you dumb nigger. Both Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium and the gradualist one are thought within the framework of neo-darwinism. But you would already know this if you weren't a dumb nigger.

>>12661621
How is punctuated equilibrium not just ad hoc bullshit?

>>12661621
>Both Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium and the gradualist one are thought within the framework of neo-darwinism.
Oh so they're the same because you said so? Which of the two models explains the development of new organs within a species. Where is there any even implicit evidence of this happening?

So it was God all along.

Thanks for clearing this up, bros.

Atheists BTFO!

>>12661656
damn this is really not an argument tho... evolutionist bros...

>>12661640
Are you mentally challenged? Did you even bother to look up what are the tenets of neo-darwinism?
>they're the same because you say so
No, they are not "the same" nigger, otherwise they wouldn't have different names. They are not even mutually exclusive. The direction and intensity of selection with other factors (genetic drift, migrations etc.) can at times produce small and gradual genetic changes within populations through the generations or abrupt ones. The debate is about wich one is the norm, but neither of those two theories challenge neo-darwinism.
>Which of the two models explains the development of new organs within a species. Where is there any even implicit evidence of this happening?
>hurr durr how do complex organs come into existence without my jewish deity creating them from dust?
Maybe pick up a book on the subject? Do you really expect me to explain you the evolution of the brain/liver/whatever in a post?
There's plenty of stuff that you can find for free on libgen that go into the deatails.
Check out something like "Evolution of the Nervous systems" by John Kaas or something along those lines. I can't summarize something 2k pages in a few lines.

>>12661516
It is real. Horse, dog, even plant breeds show you that it is a thing.

>>12661516
If you are genuinely interested, don't reed Darwin. Thats old stuff. Read anyithing on moren synthesys theory of evolution. Look up the Lensky experiments, and the SELEX experiments. Read up on speciation, and genetic drift. Youll find plenty of material on these on google scholar + scihub. I would also suggest reading up on genetics, and especially on HOX genes, that will help you understand how all this works. There is a realy good summary on modern synthesys by Adam Kun, but it is in hunngarian, which i doubt you can read.

>>12661573
>The burden of proof isn't on me to disprove neo-Darwinism
It certainly is since it's been proven over and over again.

>especially since prominent evolutionary biologists
Zero share your fake concern.