However, what is noticed in atomic physics is that interactions
between the particles behave as if there are quarks. That is, according
to the predictions of quark theory. Here is a case of physics doing the
very thing you disdain in evolution. If you don't like that example what
about gravitons? These are the particles which govern gravity yet their
existence, has not been independently confirmed,(unless it is recently).
But matter behaves as if there were such things. From the observed
behavior of matter, we believe that gravitons and quarks do actually
exist even though not directly seen.
In evolution, the actual intermediate species may not be observed.
But the similarities and changes between the specimens found in the
fossil record behave as if there were intermediate species. Why is it
reasonable to watch behavior in a particle accelerator and deduce quarks
etc but not to deduce by the same methodology, the existence of species
we are unaware of? Why is the just-so-story O.K. in physics but not in
paleontology?
========================================================================
Glenn, you have drawn an analogy between "unobservables" in particle physics
and hypothetical transitional forms in evolutionary biology. I think to be
fair it must be pointed out (as you did earlier in your post) that there are
good reasons to expect that we will NEVER be able to observe an isolated quark,
and that observational confirmation of the existence of gravitons will be VERY
DIFFICULT. These expectations arise from theory itself, having to do with
the incredible strength of the nuclear force and the relative weakness of the
gravitational force, respectively. Is there a similar expectation within
evolutionary theory (or paleontology) that transitional forms should be
impossible (or very difficult) to observe in the fossil record? Certainly
within traditional neo-Darwinian theory there is no such expectation (that I
know of), as Darwin himself appealed to the poor sampling of the fossil record
to explain why transitional forms were absent in his day. On the other hand,
it seems to me that a punctuational model of evolution does not PREDICT that
transitional forms SHOULD A PRIORI be difficult to find, but takes this
difficulty as its starting point, in order to replace gradualism with
punctuationalism.
If this is correct (and I am not sure...I'd like to hear more from others about
the fossil record), then your analogy is not a good one.
Regards,
Stan Zygmunt