81 thoughts on “Does Puncuated Equilibrium actually destroy evolutionary biology? Yes!”

1. So the fossil record doesn’t even show minor variation within the lower taxa?

   Even Young Earth Creationists accept some evolution (e.g., evolution within “kinds”), so for a YEC, why would it be objectionable if the fossil record did show some evidence of evolution?

   Put another way, why do Young Earth Creationists accept evolution within kinds if there is no evidence for it?

2. It was nice while it lasted , but after all those years, someone was bound to read Gould.

3. Well, since Darwin admitted that long periods of stasis was the norm, and Gould said that PE was not inconsistent with evolutionary theory at the time, I really don’t see what your point is.

4. This is a ridiculously mistaken reading of Gould’s book.

5. It’s pretty much the standard reading at UD.

6. Incidentally, most biologists don’t believe that punctuated equilibria is actually a thing. Stasis, maybe (though only at the morphological level). Fairly short, on the order of thousands of years, periods of significant morphological change interspersed with longer periods of not much, perhaps. Change limited to speciation events, very unlikely.

7. petrushka: It’s pretty much the standard reading at UD.

   Such stirring criticism!

8. Reciprocating Bill: This is a ridiculously mistaken reading of Gould’s book.

   No doubt folks here will be happy to take your word for it. 🙂

9. Mung: No doubt folks here will be happy to take your word for it.

   Over the intellectual conclusions of Mr. Byers? Are you serious?

10. Mung: No doubt folks here will be happy to take your word for it.

    I can think of a way you can find out for yourself. Can you?

11. RB, to Mung:

    I can think of a way you can find out for yourself. Can you?

    Mung has a lot of trouble with that sort of question.

12. Easiest question ever. Just read Gould.

13. Byers:

    Gould makes a exhausted case on how the fossil record SHOWS stasis is the norm and gradualism never happens or did happen…Everyone should read chapter nine.

    Gould, in the very chapter Byers urges us to read:

    Despite some early misunderstandings, long since resolved by all parties to the discussion, we recognize that no individual case for or against punctuated equilibrium, however elegantly documented, can serve as a “crucial experiment” for questions in natural history that must be decided by relative frequencies. No exquisite case of punctuated equilibrium — and many have been documented — can “prove” our theory; while no beautiful example of gradualism — and such have been discovered as well — can refute us. The key question has never been “whether,” but rather “how often,” “with what range of variation in what circumstances of time, taxon, and environment, and especially, “to what degree of control over patterns in phylogeny?” A single good case can only validate the reality of the phenomenon– and the simple claim for existence has not, surely, been an issue for more than 20 years. Similarly, an opposite case of gradualism can only prove that punctuated equilibrium lacks universal validity, and neither we nor any one else ever made such a foolish and vainglorious claim in the first place. The empirical debate about punctuated equilibrium has always, and properly, focussed upon issues of relative frequency (p. 802-803).

14. Acartia:
    Well, since Darwin admitted that long periods of stasis was the norm, and Gould said that PE was not inconsistent with evolutionary theory at the time, I really don’t see what your point is.

    Oh no. Oh no.
    This is most untrue.
    Darwin webbed to the idea of small changes constantly happening anmd thus the fossil records silence was a problem. Gould stressed this like crazy.
    Remember darwin, as Gould also said, ideas on small step evolutionism wewre based on a great idea of small steps leading to great results relative to the beginning.
    Gould stressed he did this in his first stuff on coral islands, geology, and lastly on worms having created the top soil of Britain.
    Gould emphasized Darwin would be shocked to find that statis was the norm.
    Gould saw his idea as revolutionary and overturning old time Darwinism.
    He fought against those who said it was KNOWN ALL ALONG.
    Darwin did not believe in PE

15. Mung:
    So the fossil record doesn’t even show minor variation within the lower taxa?

    Even Young Earth Creationists accept some evolution (e.g., evolution within “kinds”), so for a YEC, why would it be objectionable if the fossil record did show some evidence of evolution?

    Put another way, why do Young Earth Creationists accept evolution within kinds if there is no evidence for it?

    Human people groups show variation. So yes YEC believes in variation and so change from a original type.
    The fossil record can show variation but not the mechanism of it.

16. John Harshman:
    Incidentally, most biologists don’t believe that punctuated equilibria is actually a thing. Stasis, maybe (though only at the morphological level). Fairly short, on the order of thousands of years, periods of significant morphological change interspersed with longer periods of not much, perhaps. Change limited to speciation events, very unlikely.

    PE is a famous thing. its why Gould was the most famous evolutionist. he was on THE SIMPSONS.
    PE means a blitz of selection on traits in a segregated part of a population and then, when over, it stays dormant until another blitz. Therefore this happens seldom.
    So stasis is the norm. If PE is still fought over then they are fighting over the fossil record. Its not my record but evolutionists live and die by it.

17. Reciprocating Bill:
    Byers:

    Gould, in the very chapter Byers urges us to read:

    This paragraph in NO WAY contradicts what he stressed. He was making a minor point here how any single case can not prove his idea or disprove or prove the other side.

18. Robert Byers: This paragraph in NO WAY contradicts what he stressed.

    It does establish that your characterization of his view of gradualism is false.

    You said: “Gould makes a exhausted case on how the fossil record SHOWS stasis is the norm and gradualism never happens or did happen.”

    That is false, as Gould acknowledged that beautiful examples of gradualism are evident and argued that the important empirical question at play is the relative frequency of gradualism versus stasis. He characterized the assertion that gradualism “never happens or did happen” as foolish.

    More generally, the entire thrust of Gould’s book is to build upon the essential structure of Darwinism, not to replace it.

    Gould:

    “Atlhough I feel that our best current formulation of evolutionary theory includes modes of reasoning and a set of mechanisms substantially at variance with strict Darwinian natural selection, the logical structure of the Darwinian foundation remains remarkably intact – a fascinating historical argument in itself, and a stunning tribute the the intellectual power of our profession’s founder. Thus, and not only to indulge my personal propensities for historical analysis, I believe that the best way to exemplify our modern understanding lies in an extensive analysis of Darwin’s basic logical commitments, the reasons for his choices, and the subsequent manner in which these aspects of “the structure of evolutionary theory” have established and motivated all our major debates and substantial changes since Darwin’s original publication of 1859.” (page 12)

    Gould’s book is a thoroughgoing analysis and extension of Darwin’s early insights, and everything he does builds upon and extends Darwin – a theme apparent everywhere in the book, even in the cover art. He attributes to mutation and selection the ability to originate novel adaptations, while citing hierarchical selection and developmental constraints as essential to our understanding of larger phylogenetic patterns observed across evolutionary time. This includes an acknowledgment of the occurrence of both gradualism and stasis in evolution, as indicated in the quote above.

19. Robert Byers,

    PE is a famous thing. its why Gould was the most famous evolutionist. he was on THE SIMPSONS.

    That settles it then! Wasn’t that the episode where the religious nuts burnt books, among them ‘Logic For First Graders’? Ha ha.

    ‘World’s most famous evolutionist’ says PE is a thing, evolutionists must agree that evolution therefore cannot be true. ‘World’s most famous evolutionist’ says evolution is a thing, he’s wrong!

20. petrushka: Easiest question ever. Just read Gould.

    Can I just read chapter 9?

21. Reciprocating Bill: It does establish that your characterization of his view of gradualism is false.

    You said: “Gould makes a exhausted case on how the fossil record SHOWS stasis is the norm and gradualism never happens or did happen.”

    That is false, as Gould acknowledged that beautiful examples of gradualism are evident and argued that the important empirical question at play is the relative frequency of gradualism versus stasis. He characterized the assertion that gradualism “never happens or did happen” as foolish.

    More generally, the entire thrust of Gould’s book is to build upon the essential structure of Darwinism, not to replace it.

    Gould:

    Gould’s book is a thoroughgoing analysis and extension of Darwin’s early insights, and everything he does builds upon and extends Darwin – a theme apparent everywhere in the book, even in the cover art. He attributes to mutation and selection the ability to originate novel adaptations, while citing hierarchical selection and developmental constraints as essential to our understanding of larger phylogenetic patterns observed across evolutionary time. This includes an acknowledgment of the occurrence of both gradualism and stasis in evolution, as indicated in the quote above.

    Your reading it wrong. Its not so AT ALL.
    The whole book is a refutation of gradualism. It allows onkly a little. It is that PE dominates and replaces gradualism completely. Darwin was completely. Gould says, wrong on this matter.
    It only keeps the core of Darwin.
    He was attacked fopr seeming to overthrow Darwin and he said he wasn’t. only on the matter of mechanisms behind selection. Yet not on selection. etc.
    I insist you need reread it and especially chapter nine.
    Relative to Darwins etc claims of gradualism there is no gradualism.
    Gould allows a tiny bit maybe.
    Yet it was not the mechanism at all.

22. Robert Byers: Relative to Darwins etc claims of gradualism there is no gradualism.
    Gould allows a tiny bit maybe.

    Gould:

    As I have emphasized throughout this book, natural history is a science of relative frequencies, not unique cases, however well documented. We have never doubted that examples of both gradualism and punctuation can be found in the history of almost any group. The debate about punctuated equilibrium rests upon our claim for a dominant relative frequency, not for mere occurrence. (p. 752)

23. I count 17 books by Gould on my shelf. Do i win?

24. Gould:

    Finally, once we recognize gradualism as an interesting puzzle rather than a dull expectation, we may be led to “dissect” the phylogenetic “anatomy” of such trends more carefully, thus adding an operational benefit to the renewed theoretical interest. In a striking example, Kucera and Malmgren (1998) published an elegant study of morphological change in the late Cretaceous Contusotruncana lineage of planktonic forams. After several million years of stasis, the defining feature of “mean shell conicity” increased in a gradualistic manner for 3.5 million years, beginning 68.5 million years ago, in this anagenetic lineage.

    The mean values of Figure 9-16 record a conventional gradualistic sequence, but the greater detail of figure 9-17, illustrating the morphology of all specimens, not only the means for each level, reveals fascinating details that suggest novel interpretations. In short, the range of variation, after remaining stable during the preceding period of morphological stasis, increased rapidly during the half million year interval from 68.5 million to 68.0 million years ago. The subsequent gradual trend then developed within the envelop of this expanded range…

    I do not mention these details as a punctuational partisan trying to down-grade this example of gradualism, or to reinterpret the trend as a “mere” consequence of a punctuationally expanded range of variation. The gradual trend is both genuine and well documented – but he mapping of variation into its space gives us new insight in to potential mechanisms of gradualism (while also imparting an important lesson about the significance of variation…the gradual trend to greater conicity in Contusotruncana probably warrants a conventional selectionist explanation – shifting means resulting from selective removal of disadvantaged flatter specimens. But we also need to understand the potentiating condition established by an initial (and geologically rapid) expansion in the range of variation. What mechanisms unerlie such change in a variational spectrum? Evolution can’t anticipate future needs for altered means, so the enlarged range can only be exaptive for the subsequent trend. what mechansisms, then, underlie such rarely documented (but eminently testable) expansions and contractions of variational ranges? (p. 836 – 839)

    (To put this into perspective, note that the rapid, “punctuational” expansion in range of variability that preceded the observed period of gradualism occurred over a period of 5,000 centuries.)

25. Mung,

    I count 17 books by Gould on my shelf. Do i win?

    Von book by Gould, har har. Two books by Gould, har har …

26. If you understood Gould, one would be enough.

27. Gould drops by to comment:

    Since modern creationists, particularly the “young earth” dogmatists who must cram an entire geological record into the few thousand years of the literal biblical chronology, advanced no conceivable argument in the domain of proper logic or accurate empirics, they have always relied, as a primary strategy, upon the misquotation of scientific sources. They have shamelessly distorted all major evolutionists in their behalf, including the most committed gradualists of the Modern Synthesis (their appropriations of Dobzhansky and Simpson make particularly amusing reading). Since punctuated equilibrium provides an even easier target for this form of intellectual dishonesty (or crass stupidity if a charge of dishonesty grants them too much acumen), no one should be surprised that our views have become grist for their mills and skills of distortion. I have been told that Duane Gish, their leading propagandist, refers to his compendium of partial and distorted quotations from my work as his “Goulden File.”

    Standard creationist literature on punctuated equilibrium rarely goes beyond the continuous recycling of two false characterizations: the conflation of punctuated equilibrium with the true saltationism of Goldschmidt’s hopeful monsters, and the misscaling of punctuated equilibrium’s genuine breaks between species to the claim that no intermediates exist for the largest morphological transitions between classes and phyla. I regard the latter distortion as particularly egregious because we formulated punctuated equilibrium as a positive theory about the nature of intermediacy in such large-scale structural trends – the “stair-step” rather than the “ball up the inclined plane” model, if you will. Moreover, I have written numerous essays in my popular series, spanning 10 printed volumes, on the documentation of this style of intermediacy in a variety of lineages, including the transition to terrestrial vertebrates, the origin of birds, and the evolution of mammals, whales and humans – the very cases that the usual creationist literature has proclaimed impossible (p. 986).

28. Of course, what matters isn’t what Gould actually said, but rather what people SAY he said because that’s what they want to believe he said. As Dawkins might say, these people are vying for first prize in a contest of virtuoso believing.

29. Reciprocating Bill: Gould:

    AMEN. Exactly what I said. The frequency is dominated by PE. Gradualism being defeatd as a concept in Darwins ideas.
    Gould was speaking carefully becvause of opposition.
    The whole read is packed full of chapter and verse of the rejection and diminishment of gradualism and the replacement by PE.
    To pick a minor statement like this is to miss a zillion statements and the whole purpose.
    Just read it. Its not well written, and wordly etc etcf, but its still making a consistent case.
    Its also , unintended, making a case against all evolution.
    By destroying gradualism it leaves no mechanism for evolution except a last gasping QUICK DRAW evolution on traits in a newly segregated population.

30. Reciprocating Bill,

    Changes nothing. He says he doesn’t want to be just a pE partisan but PE is the replacement even in this case. he stresses it was not gradual but PE’d.
    Even with these timelines, in this case, the length doesn’t change that it suddeluy was accelerated.
    The whole Chapter from Gould was absolutely the rejection of gradualism and its replacement by PE.
    However much gradualism can happen its only a pale reflection of its foirmer claims.
    This is what Gould was on about entirely.

31. Reciprocating Bill,

    He was rightly afraid creationists would use PE to say previour evolutionist SCIENCE was wrong and so even PE is wrong for its all based on speculation of fossils which are based on speculation of geological deposition stories.
    Actually PE has been pushed aside so much Creationists, wrongly, ignore it. They just fight evolution based on pre PE gradualistic claims like from dawkins and friends.
    on the wiki article on pE is amazing top see its written by the adversaries of gould. on every point.
    I think evolutionism understands PE is a disastor for evolutionism.
    Yet its true in its basic points about the fossil; record not showing what Darwin desperately wanted.
    Thats all Gould contributed on this matter.
    geology/fossils has nothing to do with biology yet using it damages oevolution very badly as a hypothesis.

32. Flint:
    Of course, what matters isn’t what Gould actually said, but rather what people SAY he said because that’s what they want to believe he said. As Dawkins might say, these people are vying for first prize in a contest of virtuoso believing.
    Gould came out swinging against Dawkins. What gould said is clearly written down. in facxt he said Dawkins changed his points without admitting it.
    its hilarious how gould reveals how backward evolutionary biology is in scientific investigation.
    its all speculation, inference, personalities.

33. Robert Byers,

    The frequency is dominated by PE. Gradualism being defeatd as a concept in Darwins ideas.

    You seem to be reading PE as invoking large change happening in a single generation. That’s tosh. There’s no conflict between variable-rate evolution and gradualism. Gradualism does not mean a linear rate of change.

    But anyway … you already think evolution’s shite. Why are you looking for reasons to think evolution’s shite?

34. Robert Byers: Exactly what I said. The frequency is dominated by PE. Gradualism being defeatd as a concept in Darwins ideas.

    No.

    There’s change in the genome, and there’s change in the phenotype. Gould was examining the fossil record, which has to do with phenotype. It’s likely that there was a lot of gradual genetic change that was not obvious in the fossil record. And then, that genetic change provided the basis for rapid phenotype change, which might have been mainly selection acting on the accumulated genetic change.

35. Byers:

    AMEN. Exactly what I said. The frequency is dominated by PE.

    No, what you said was that Gould argued that “gradualism never happens or did happen.”

    Which is false, as the quotes above establish.

    By destroying gradualism it leaves no mechanism for evolution.

    A central theme of the book is a specific and achingly detailed discussion of mechanisms that, he argued, account for the macroevolutionary pattern of stasis and rapid change evident in the evolutionary record, specifically multilevel selection in combination with the role of constraints (structural, developmental, etc). It was his rejection of the pan-adaptionist “selfish gene” model of selection, and his insistence that higher level “evolutionary individuals” (organisms, species) were also subject to selection, that put him most at odds with Dawkins.

    Further, Gould was quite explicit in citing hierarchical selection as a mechanism that accounts for the periods of stasis often seen in the fossil record.

    The hierarchical theory of selection suggests a theoretically quite different and dynamic reason for many of nature’s stabilities: an achieved balance, at an intermediary point optimal for neither, between two levels of selection working in opposite directions. Several important phenomenon may be so explained: weak female bias as the negative interaction of organismal and interdemic selection (see above); restriction of multiple copy number in “selfish DNA” as a balance between positive selection and gene level suppressed by negative selection (based, perhaps, on energetic costs of producing so many copies irrelevant to the phenotype) at the organismic level. I also suspect that stable and distinctive features of species and clades must represent balances between positive organismic selection that would drive a feature to further elaboration, and negative species selection to limit the geological longevity of such over specialized forms. In any case, a world of conceptual difference exists between stabilities read as optima of a single process, and stabilities interpreted as compromises between active and opposed forces (p. 678).

    To argue that Gould’s theoretical extensions and amendments of Darwin leave evolutionary theory devoid of causal mechanisms is bizarre and ridiculous.

36. Allan Miller: Gradualism does not mean a linear rate of change.

    ok. So what then does gradualism mean? Is it [gradualism] even about the rate of evolution at all?

    If there were objective empirical evidence for gradualism, what would it look like?

37. Neil Rickert: It’s likely that there was a lot of gradual genetic change that was not obvious in the fossil record. And then, that genetic change provided the basis for rapid phenotype change, which might have been mainly selection acting on the accumulated genetic change.

    Can this hypothesis be tested?

38. By the way, Neil, natural selection “sees” the phenotype, doesn’t it? It follows that there must be phenotypic changes or there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. Under gradualism we expect phenotypic change else you may as well invoke miracles.

    [But then, Gould was probably no fan of pan-selectionism either.]

39. Mung: [But then, Gould was probably no fan of pan-selectionism either.]

    “Probably?” And you have 17 of his books on your shelf?

40. Mung: By the way, Neil, natural selection “sees” the phenotype, doesn’t it?

    So what?

    Or are you asserting that natural selection is all that there is to evolution?

41. Reciprocating Bill: “Probably?” And you have 17 of his books on your shelf?

    And not just by Gould, also about Gould.

42. Figure it out Neil. Follow the logic.

43. The broadest third meaning of gradualism may not be required for natural selection at the organismic level, but gradualism as slowness and smoothness of rate (not just as insensible intermediacy between endpoints of a transition) forms the centerpiece of Darwin’s larger worldview, indeed of his entire ontology … Darwin strongly advocated this most inclusive form of gradualism as slowness and smoothness …

    – TSoET p. 756.

44. I must express my disappointment in not being able to find where Gould discusses “the power of cumulative selection,” given it’s central importance to the theory of evolution.

45. Mung: And not just by Gould, also about Gould.

    And you’re not sure he was no fan of pan-selectionism?

46. Mung,

    If you want to discuss by means of duelling quotes, I give you Dawkins’s chapter ‘Puncturing Punctuationism’ in The Blind Watchmaker when he discusses the matter at length.

    Define gradualism such that punctuated equilibrium is not it, and lo! gradualism is defeated. Provided, of course, that PE is all that happens.

    Whether Darwin was a gradualist in those terms … I’d say not. He was a gradualist in the ‘small changes’ sense, not the ‘small changes at a steady rate’ sense. Huxley urged him to drop his ‘small change’ notions, not because he thought the rate was variable, but because he thought large change should be accommodated in the theory. The evidence on that is with Darwin.

47. Allan Miller:
    Robert Byers,

    You seem to be reading PE as invoking large change happening in a single generation. That’s tosh. There’s no conflict between variable-rate evolution and gradualism. Gradualism does not mean a linear rate of change.

    But anyway … you already think evolution’s shite. Why are you looking for reasons to think evolution’s shite?

    No. I know its not about quick generations.
    PE is however a rejection of gradualism which was a major concept in evolutionism since darwin.
    PE however ruins all of evolutionism because it ruins the evidence for cganges happening in creatures.
    It only shows results. Gould embraced this to defeat gradualism but it defeats any fossil evidence for EVOLUTION AT ALL.
    All there is is results in the fossil record.
    PE also doesn’t show fossil evidence for its bursts of activity.
    Gould , like Darwin, dismisses this based on probability of fossilization but it just leaves no evidence at all for evolution.
    Just presumption different tyupes did evolve.

48. Neil Rickert: No.

    There’s change in the genome, and there’s change in the phenotype.Gould was examining the fossil record, which has to do with phenotype.It’s likely that there was a lot of gradual genetic change that was not obvious in the fossil record.And then, that genetic change provided the basis for rapid phenotype change, which might have been mainly selection acting on the accumulated genetic change.

    He brought that up.
    I think i remember he criticized it.
    I think he said the genetic change is not evidenced period. The claim its hidden in the fossil record is not evidence its there!
    Trying to say genetic selection is still by gradualism is a rejection of what he was saying.
    He was saying it was punctuated/bursts of activity.
    a rejection of gradualism as had been preached since Darwin.

49. Reciprocating Bill,

    Gould did say gradualism happened. However it was a rejection of gradualism as a important thing that is the essence of PE.
    Gradualism is irrelevant to evolution relative to PE.
    He allowed a little.

    I know he invoked other mechanisms and explanations for evolution.
    I’m saying that his PE makes it impossible to find muchanisms in the fossil record.
    In his desire to show the fossil shows no gradualism he really showed it showed no evolution.
    Only results AFTER THE FACT.
    So it destroys the fossil evidence as any evidence for evolution.
    Thats what is bizarre.

    Its more then intermediates not being in the fossil record.
    ITs no intermediates can be found in the fossil record.
    PE makes it improbable to find it. The bursts unlikely to be caught in deposition events.

50. Allan Miller:
    Mung,

    If you want to discuss by means of duelling quotes, I give you Dawkins’s chapter ‘Puncturing Punctuationism’ in The Blind Watchmaker when he discusses the matter at length.

    Define gradualism such that punctuated equilibrium is not it, and lo! gradualism is defeated. Provided, of course, that PE is all that happens.

    Whether Darwin was a gradualist in those terms … I’d say not. He was a gradualist in the ‘small changes’ sense, not the ‘small changes at a steady rate’ sense. Huxley urged him to drop his ‘small change’ notions, not because he thought the rate was variable, but because he thought large change should be accommodated in the theory. The evidence on that is with Darwin.

    yes. he was only a gradualist and so was worried the fossil record was silent on what should be mostly gradual cases in creatures evolution.
    gould says darwin was wrong and his idea of the fossil record being poor was wrong.
    there never was small steps happening constantly.
    just bursts, under special conditions, and then stasis.
    not a failure of the fossil record. the record, Gould says, was right.
    Never did biology evolve from small steps gradualism.
    it was a burst of steps, small or big, and then over good.