S.J. Gould Quotes to Check
Date: Tue Mar 09 1993 14:41:00
From: Barbara Brasfield
To: Phil Nicholls
Subj: Re: Primer.Evo
Gould has written: "When Niles Eldredge and I
proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in evolution, we did so
to grant stasis in phylogenetic lineages the status of 'worth
reporting' -for stasis had previously been ignored as nonevidence of
evolution, though all paleontologists knew its high relative
frequency." Gould has also called "the extreme rarity of transitional
forms in the fossil record" the "trade secret of paleontology."
Date: Mon Mar 15 1993 15:30:00
From: John Thompson
To: Barbara Brasfield
Subj: Re: Hello
BB> Part of those "pervasive trends in the fossil record" were the huge
BB> gaps that could not be bridged. Another part of those "pervasive
BB> trends in the fossil record" was, according to Gould\
:
BB>
BB> "The history of most fossil species includes two features
BB> particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
BB> 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during
BB> their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking
BB> pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change
BB> is usually limited and directionless.
BB> 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not
BB> arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it
BB> appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
BB>
BB>
BB> Creationists have consistently pointed to the fact of the abrupt
BB> appearance and the obvious stasis of species in the fossil record.
BB> Gould and Eldridge may be taking the same evidence and giving it a new
BB> and interesting name, but the fact is that creationists have ALWAYS
BB> emphasized the sudden origin of new species and their failure to change
BB> drastically.
Date: Sat Mar 13 1993 16:22:12
From: Barbara Brasfield
To: Phil Nicholls
Subj: Re: Hello
Part of those "pervasive trends in the fossil record" were the huge gaps
that could not be bridged. Another part of those "pervasive trends in
the fossil record" was, according to Gould:
"The history of most fossil species includes two features
particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their
tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty
much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is
usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not
arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it
appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it
appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
Creationists have consistently pointed to the fact of the abrupt
appearance and the obvious stasis of species in the fossil record.
Gould and Eldridge may be taking the same evidence and giving it a new
and interesting name, but the fact is that creationists have ALWAYS
emphasized the sudden origin of new species and their failure to change
drastically.
Gould also wrote:
When Niles Eldridge and I proposed the theory of punctuated
equilibrium in evolution, we did so to grant stasis in phylogenetic
lineages the status of 'worth reporting' - for stasis had
previously been ignored as nonevidence of evolution, though all
paleontologists knew its high relative frequency.
(Cardboard Darwinism)
This sounds as if there might be a tendency among paleontologists to
ignore evidence that doesn't fit into their particular paradigm...
Date: Sat Mar 13 1993 18:28:16
From: Barbara Brasfield
To: David Myers
Subj: Punctuated Equilibrium..
DM>Monday March 08 1993, Barbara Brasfield writes to Dr Pepper:
DM>> What is hilarious about many of these "controversies" especially in the
DM>> area of Niles' and Gould's punctuated equilibria theory is that they are
DM>> using the exact arguments that have been used by creationists for
DM>> decades.
DM>Have you *ever* seen Gould speak? He's a tough little sob, and if you even
DM>suggested to him that his theory and creationism had
DM>anything in common, he'd not only tell you why it didn't,
DM>he'd tear your ear off.
What Gould may personally feel when people quote his material is really
irrelevent as long as that material is not misrepresented. I am well
aware of Gould's distaste for creationists, but the fact is that data is
data, and while Gould may want to limit his findings within the
parameters of evolution, the questions and points he has raised within
the "evolution community" are very much like the same questions and
points that have been raised within the "creationist community" for
several decades.
DM>The idea, as I understand it, is that speciation events
DM>must take place on the edge of a population, that this sub-
DM>population must be isolated (or else the mutation would be
DM>diluted into the gene pool), that the speciation event is
DM>rapid on a geological time scale, and then if the mutation
DM>is successful, the new species them re-invades the range of
DM>the origin species and takes over.
Neo-Darwinists do not accept Gould's hypothesis that evolutionary change
is related to specification. Evidence is lacking of daughter
populations forming and later rejoining or replacing the parent species.
Douglas Futuyma has pointed out that few if any example\
s of ancestral
forms persisting in the same area with the modified decendent have been
documented.
DM>Note that the theory says something about the rapidity with which a new
DM>species is formed, but says little about transitional
DM>species per se. Archeopteryx would still be Archeopteryx
DM>in Gould's world.
DM>So, if my understanding is correct, then mutation and
DM>natural selection are necessary for speciation,
At a conference at Hobart College Feb. 14, 1980 when asked what role
mutations play in speciation, Gould said, "A mutation doe\
sn't produce
major new raw material. You DON'T MAKE A NEW SPECIES BY MUTATING THE
SPECIES...That's a common idea people have; that evolution is due to
random mutations. A mutation is NOT the cause of evolutionary change.
SOMETHING ELSE than natural selection brings about species at new
levels, trends, and direction."
and NOTHING
DM>THAT GOULD IS SAYING IN PUNCTUATED EVOLUTION CONTRADICTS
DM>THE IDEAS OF DARWIN AT ALL.
Gould however does not believe in Darwin's gradualistic e\
volution:
"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much
for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual
change and every paleontologist has known that ever since Cuvier.
If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection
of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species,
most species, don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to
believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually
precludes your studying the very process you went into school to
study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible
distress." (Hobart Lecture)
Methinks, there is evidence of a "contradiction" between Gould and
Darwin. :)
Date: Sun Mar 28 1993 23:52:18
From: Barbara Brasfield
To: John Thompson
Subj: Primer.evo
Attr:
evolution -------------------------------
JT>While the Gould and other quotes have been carefully dissected from their
JT>context to appear "anti-evolutionary",
Horse feathers, John. As far as I can recall the Gould quotes have not
been misrepresented and I have never at any time pretended that Gould
was anything but an evolutionist. If you can show any such intentional
twisting of quotes please feel free to correct them. Gould just enjoys
rattling the evolutionist cage a little but if what he says is true when
he is rattling then pointing out the "difficulties" in traditional
evolution isn't some sort of malicious crime. For instance when talking
with people that think science in all its forms is always empirical or
"scientific" it is helpful to use quotes from the establishment that
show just how erroneous that suppostion is...
Like when Gould said:
"Paleontologists (and evolutionary biologists in general) are famous for
their facility in devising plausible stories; but they often forget that
plausible stories need not be true" (Paleobiology, vol 3, 1977).
Or for the folks that think that all scientists are unbiased and
embrace evolution because it was an excellent theory can read Professor
George Wald in Scientific American (The Origin of Life):
"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay
lip-service to Darwinian Theory only because it supposedly excludes a
Creator from yet another area of material phenomena, and not because it
has been paradigmatic in establishing the canons of research in the life
sciences and the earth sciences."
Or if one encounters the oft repeated axiom that scientists deal with
facts and will abandon any theory that doesn't jibe with the facts
they can read Pierre-Paul Grasse' (Evolution of Living Organisms):
"Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a
simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly
unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the
weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians
put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes
unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their
sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the
inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs."
Denton's book *IS* an attack on
JT>evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, Denton (an Australian medical doctor
JT>and clinical microbiologist) is clearly over his head in discussing
JT>evolutionary issues in his book. We had a long-running debate on this in
JT>the SCIENCE echo last year; Jeff Otto and did I literature searches on
JT>Denton and could find no evidence that he has *EVER* published *ANY*
JT>research on evolutionary biology or molecular biology (the dust jacket of
JT>his book claims he is a world-renowned molecular biologist)
Could someone explain to me this apparent fetish of literature searches
as an attempt to prove something? Is publication in professional
journals some right of passage (sort of like a Bar Mitzvah) which
establishes once and forever in the eyes of all that this person can now
be accepted as a poobah of professional publications? Denton's book
questions orthodox Darwinism and Denton himself is an evolutionst who
subscribes to Gould's punctuated equilibria theory. Nowhere on the dust
jacket is the claim made that he "is a world-renowned molecular
biologist". It says the following: Michael Denton, an Australian
medical doctor and scientist who has lived and worked in London and
Toronto, is currently doing biological research in Sydney. On the other
side it says "...the evidence from his specialty, molecular biology,
lends them no support." No "world-renowned" anywhere to be found. I
have however detected a pattern - someone with the gall to question
aspects of Darwinism or evolution suddenly finds his/her character
questionable, education debatable, intelligence superficial, motives
dispicable...
Can we assume that every scientist doing research around the world is
something less than the scientist that gets published in a journal?
before or since
JT>his book. Jeff (and some others) did a very nice job in demolishing his
JT>arguments and revealing the superficial level of his knowledge in these
JT>areas. I believe Wes Elsberry (the EVOLUTION echo moderator) has a FAQ file
JT>on Denton available for freq.
Well, did Jeff (and some others) get their demolishing arguments
published in peer reviewed professional journals? Did you do a sweeping
literature search on Jeff (and some others) and if so what did you find?
Did Denton have the opportunity to address the arguments or was Jeff
(and some others) declared the winner through default? Were Jeff (and
some others) personally slammed and did they have claims attributed to
themselves that they never made? And did their arguments establish for
one and all to see - their depth of understanding, their incredible
heights of knowledge, the sheer elegance of their demolishing arguments?
My apologies to Jeff (and some others) for no insult is intended -it
just seems that the pomposity level sometimes approaches critical mass
and needs occasional release...
Date: Sat Jun 26 1993 18:06:00
From: Mark Arvid Johnson
To: Dave Horn
Subj: Allele frequency defintion
Attr:
evolution -------------------------------
-=> Quoting Dave Horn to Eddie Johnston <=- DH> Evolution is both a fact and a set of theories.
DH> The fact of evolution has to do with the observed changes in allele
DH>frequencies in a population.
"The modern synthesis drew most of its direct conclusions from studies of
local populations and their immediate adaptations. It then extrapolated the
postulated mechanism of these adaptations - gradual, allelic substitution -
to encompass all larger-scale events. The synthesis is now breaking down on
both sides of this argument. Many evolutionists now doubt exclusive control
by selection upon genetic change within local populations. Moreover, even
if local populations alter as the synthesis maintains, we now doubt that the
same style of change controls events at the two major higher levels:
speciation and patterns of macroevolution." Gould, _Is a New and General
Theory of Evolution Emerging_, Paleobiology 6, no.1, 1980
Earlier in the same paper Gould said the Neo-Darwinian synthesis "as a
general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistance as textbook
orthodoxy"
"The role of natural selection in the present world of living things is
concerned with the balance of populations; it is primarily of demographic
interest. To assert that population dynamics gives a picture of evolution
in action is an unfounded opinion, or rather a postulate, that relies on not
a single proved fact showing that transformations in the two kingdoms have
been essentially linked to changes in the balance of genes in a population."
Grasse, _Evolution of Living Organisms_, p.170
"In the chapters that follow the reader will learn what place and
significance we attach to variations in the gene composition of natural
populations. NO experiment justifies the assimilation of demographic
changes of population to a slice of evolution as an innovative, creative
process." ibid, p.171
Nor are these the only scientists to contest the allele frequency definition
of evolution. Ayala, Mayr, and Stebbins do as well (quotes on request)
Earlier, on the SCIENCE echo, you had been claiming that neither Gould nor
Grasse challenged the allele frequency definition of evolution. I wonder if
you are man enough to admit your mistake yet.
Date: Tue Sep 08 1992 18:44:56
From: Mick James
To: John Thompson
Subj: Created Evolution
Attr:
science -------------------------------
Stephen J. Gould, Professor of Geology at Harvard University, as quoted
in the May 1977 Natural History, Vol. 86
"We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet
to preserve out favored account of evolution by natural selection
we view our data as so bad that we never see the process we profess
to study"... "The family trees which adorn our textbooks are
based on inference, however, reasonable, not the evidence of
fossils."