Punctuated equilibria

Doug Mason

Incorrect assumptions surrounding Evolution and Creation include:

Life was inevitable
Changes were improvements
Homo Sapiens is the purpose and objective; hence there was an intended design (with Creationists and their fellow travellers ignoring the issue of Theodicy).

The present danger of ignoring the lessons provided through Evolution's story of Punctuated equilibria include denying the present extinction phase by saying that "God will not allow his Earth to be destroyed", ignoring the earlier several mass extinctions of life. The outcome is that Man is speeding the process as it raids Earth's finite resources.

I hope my illustration will provoke thoughts:

https://jwstudies.com/Science_or_Myothlogy.pdf

Doug

Simon

Changes were improvements

Changes are always improvements in the sense that the features best suited for the environment typically are favoured. This may give rise to some created that we imaging are kind of less than ideal - who would invent a sloth for instance, they seem helpless.

Our judgement of what is an improvement is usually biased in no small part by what we judge things personally. And an improvement may cease to be such when the environment changes - what could have been an improvement and an evolutionary edge may be a liability when things change too fast.

At a more individual level, of course changes may not always be beneficial but for evolution and creation you have to look at the macro level and the species as whole.

Doug Mason

Yes, I fully agree with you, Simon.

There is a limit available to me to expose the full significance of my terse statement.

As you say, the improvement lies in terms of the ability to cope with the changed environment. In terms of my diagram, I am referring to the massive massive life threatening events following the rise of animals during the Cambrian "explosion".

I feel, and I am open to other views, that this does not mean the "survivors" of each cataclysmic event are therefore an improvement (such as stronger or faster) over the previous iteration.

I guess I am saying that in my opinion, I do not align with the gradualism that featured with the early evolutionists, including Lamarck, Darwin and Wallace, among others. I do not see an "ascent" of Man. I do not see Homo Sapiens necessarily being faster and stronger than other iterations of the homo species.

Doug

Half banana

I do not align with the gradualism that featured with the early evolutionists, including Lamarck, Darwin and Wallace

On the other hand the punctuated equilibrium indicates periods of rapid genetic change as was the "Cambrian explosion". However when things take place over geological time as evolution must, we have to remember that the "explosion" took place over 13 to 25 million years.

As a consequence they are now beginning to favour the name "Cambrian radiation".

I went to an exhibition of fossils at the Oxford Nat. Hist. Museum of the period in question--it's still on--but I think a bit far for you to travel?

Simon

I feel, and I am open to other views, that this does not mean the "survivors" of each cataclysmic event are therefore an improvement (such as stronger or faster) over the previous iteration.

That is the problem - we tend to view "stronger" or "faster" as the definition of "improvement" but it isn't how environmental pressure sees things. Sometimes a different strategy wins, one that we may not see as being an improvement - that judgement can only come from results of survival.

Doug Mason

Thank you both for your thoughts, which I agree with.

My understanding of evolution is evolving and I learn more every day. It is a subject that I, living in Australia as I do, have not needed to address. So it is a huge learning curve for me.

I can see that that period of the Cambrian age would be known as a "radiation". Tell me if my understanding is incorrect, but I expect this was the outcome of the development of complex cells and hence the formation of animal life (0.6 GYA). I did not know that the subsequent mass extinctions would be known as a "radiation". Have I got that wrong?

No additional phyla have been formed since the Cambrian radiation and each subsequent cataclysmic saw massive removal of species, with each event survived by species that possessed the appropriate mutations.

Doug

cofty

It's similar to the common misunderstanding about what 'survival of the fittest' means.

Depending on the environment the 'fittest' specimens might not be the strongest but the ones most willing to cooperate.

Doug Mason

Hi Cofty,

I suppose if I were to put "survival of the fittest" in contemporary terms, perhaps "fit for purpose"?

Doug

Half banana

"Fit for purpose" is good but suffers from "having a purpose" which could imply intention? Trying to thrash this predicament out:

Perhaps even; The survival of those most suited to the altered ecosystem. (Not snappy but has the essence) How about survival of those with the right genetic equipment? (Still not catchy but better) Only those sub specie variants who have the right genes to flourish in the newly prevailing ecosystem.(closer but too wordy) Hence: survival only by those genetically favoured?

It was was after all Herbert Spenser in 1864, with reference to economics, who came up with the term "the survival of the fittest". Darwin borrowed this innocuous phrase but it does not quite hit the mark. Business survival is not the same as survival in evolutionary terms. Survival in business might have to do with extrinsic motivation; fame, greed, machismo etc. Evolution does not favour the strongest, only those who by chance have the right genes to flourish in the prevailing conditions.

Still can't think of a snappy alternative to "survival of the fittest."........"survival of the genetically favoured" is my best attempt.

Half banana

Doug, "adaptive radiation" is the term used which describes the proliferation of new species due to new environments.

Punctuated equilibria

Share this