In a message dated 9/24/2000 7:13:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
FMAJ1019@aol.com writes:
<< << phyletic (gradual) evolution accomplishing a major morphologic
transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model
can be valid.' (Stanley, S.M., "Macroevolution," 1979, p.39)
(Denton, 1985, pp.177,182).
>>
A bit outdated it seems. And furthermore it seems that Stanley was arguing
for punctuated equilibrium
"> |Other scientist are even more candid. Stanley of John Hopkins writes:
|> |"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of
|> |phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and
|> |hence offers no evidence that gradualistic model can be valid.
|> |(Stanley 1979 p. 39)
|>
|> This one I am familiar with. Did you read the rest of Stanley's
|> book? You know, the part where he argues that what the evidence
|> actually shows, instead, is transitions in the fossil record that are
|> accomplished in intergrading, but faster, steps between species, rather
|> than constant-rate intergradations. Species change episodically, in
|> terms of morphology, rather than at a more continuous rate all the
|> time. Even so, there are still fine intergradations observed between
|> them when the record
|> is sampled in sufficient detail. Stanley is not saying transitional
|> fossils are absent, he is saying that the transitional fossils known
|> show that the change is episodic.
|>
|You are describing Punctuated Equilibrium.
Yes, exactly. That is what Stanley was talking about when he says "phyletic
evolution" and "gradualistic model" in that quote -- in
order to contrast it with punctuated equilibrium." >>
Forgot the reference
http://x67.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=643567233.3
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 24 2000 - 22:15:19 EDT