Evolutionists, What the heck is up with the Punctuated Equilibrium and the Hopeful Monster Theory....?

Question

And why dont you have to be subject to fossil records? Isnt this bad science?

What do you mean it makes no sense? why dont you have to follow science procedure like everyone else, also, how can you use these two theorys to support your claims, would you explain what they are? tell me what they say?

Ok, in case you didnt know, Punctuated Equilibrium says that evolution is stable for long periods of time, then a new species suddenly comes into being and others immediatly become extinct, and at the same time they leave no fossil evidence,
Your hopeful monster theory, as stated buy Dr. Richard Goldschmidt, of yale university, who is a zoologist and geneticist, says this is when a reptile would lay an egg, and a bird is hatched, and of course that is why there is no fossil evidence of any transitions.

HEY MONICA! just so you know, evolution is not a fact, actually, it doesnt even qualify for being a theory, none, not one, zero trials have been made to suggest that this can even work. in order for a theory to be considered a theory, you must have been able to replicate that which you state, which is something can come from nothing, and you havent done that. also, even if you did prove it to be a theory, you cant make it fact on speculation. there is no evidence, not one peice of it, that can even suggest that this might have happened, you need to do your homework.

Answer 1

For everyone's edification:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopeful_Monster
http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro12.html

LOL... Found this: http://www.gennet.org/facts/devil.html

HOPEFUL MONSTER THEORY

A concept first introduced out of necessity by the geneticist, Richard Goldschmidt, which states that evolution occurs by sudden and large changes in the offspring of a species resulting in radically different but well adapted organisms, i.e. "hopeful monsters." After being widely discredited for many years this idea is being reintroduced, out of necessity, as a serious theory. The great leaps forward implicit in this theory entirely account for the absence of the "missing links." (See Punctuated Equilibrium)

PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM

An ad hoc hypothesis or alibi that claims the reason there are no known transitional forms in the fossil record is because evolutionary changes occur so quickly and the reason we can't see evolutionary changes in the laboratory is because they occur so slowly. (see Hopeful Monster Theory).

Answer 2

You're probably just misunderstanding punctuated equilibrium (which is a form of gradualism, but with discrete rather than "continuous" rates of change). This is essentially a statement about the phylogenic record. Your understanding of it, based on your comment, is deeply flawed.

"Hopeful Monster" just means that a change in a short time (geologically speaking--this still takes thousands of generations), at least today. It was originally thought to be a criticism of Darwinian mechanisms, but today we know better.

"Hopeful Monster," as originally conceived, was almost universally rejected.

This is not bad science.


There are lots of fossils out there, though most species don't fossilize. There are far more fossils than there would be if the Earth were only 6000 years old.

Also, we have far more evidence than just fossils. Everything we learn in biology, including in new fields Darwin never would dreamed of, points to evolution. Evolution is a fact.


Edit: As those of us in the field of biology (though I'm only here for another month) continue to find more and more evidence for and examples of evolution, your insisting that there is nothing is tantamount to covering your ears and shout, "La la la! I can't hear you!" Grow up.

Answer 3

elementary misconceptions Sterelny (2007) claimed that Eldredge and Gould's "hypothesis has been misunderstood in 2 substantial strategies. In some early discussions of the assumption, the assessment between geological and ecological time grow to be blurred. subsequently, Gould and Eldredge have been interpreted as creating an fairly radical declare: species originate greater or much less in one day, in one step. (yet) Gould and Eldredge agree that the recent systems are often assembled over various generations, somewhat than without notice by skill of macromutation...So by skill of 'right now', they recommend right now by skill of geologist's standards". So with a coarse and incomplete fossil checklist, "a speciation that took 9bf31c7ff062936a96d3c8bd1f8f2ff30,000 years could seem on the spot", relative to diverse million years of a species existence.[9bf31c7ff062936a96d3c8bd1f8f2ff39bf31c7ff062936a96d3c8bd1f8f2ff3] Sterelny notes that "in present day paintings, they have clarified a 2nd fake impact. In claiming that species usually undergo not greater evolutionary exchange as quickly as speciation is finished, they at the instant are not claiming that there isn't any exchange in any respect between one technology and the subsequent. Lineages do exchange. however the exchange between generations would not acquire. somewhat, over the years, the species wobbles approximately its phenotypic recommend. Jonathan Weiner's The Beak of the Finch describes this very technique

Answer 4

While strict gradualism is the predominant theme in the fossil record, there are periods of rapid change and radical changes in the fossil record. The "punctuated equilibrium" is easily explained by climactic shifts. When the rules change, creatures well adapted to the previous rules lose their advantages and some struggling creatures are better equipped to adapt to the new environment. (Those "struggling" creatures give us the "transitional" fossils.)

As for the "hopeful monsters" the rise of radically different forms over the span of a few generations is not precluded and discovery of homeobox genes offers a mechanistic explanation.

Answer 5

I'm guessing you just found those few keywords in your Creationist propaganda and never bothered fact-checking it on your own.

> Among the evidence supporting punctuated
> equilibrium, said David Jablonski, chair of the
> committee on evolutionary biology at the
> University of Chicago, is "an impressive array of
> examples in the fossil record, from snails to
> horses . . . a core of solid analyses that are very
> convincing."

The University of Chicago, by the way, is a Christian school. (And PE, it should be noted, is not widely accepted the way evolution itself is...)

Answer 6

There's no such thing as an evolutionist, because evolution is not a belief system. Evolutionary science has many theories associated with it, we all work hard to debunk these theories with observations and testing. If they are good theories, they stand up to this sceintific scrutiny. The fact that you have found a theory you don't like is good! Now work to prove it false like the rest of us and you will actaully advance science!

Answer 7

Even if the mountains of evidence for evolution were to be disproved, it would not prove the existence of a god or gods.

Why is it that some people can believe in a god or gods without a shred of evidence, yet deny scientific knowledge which has overwhelming evidence?

Answer 8

Simply cutting and pasting things that only fit your agenda, rather than agreed upon by the larger scientific community, isn't a refutation of anything really. The concept of an omnipotent creator being is illogical... STILL.

_()_

Answer 9

Gould's theory was good for a while but it's been questioned by better people than you, based on a peer reassessment of the science. All you're doing is ranting in unfinished rhetorical questions. Calm down, make your case, and we'll listen.

Answer 10

Oh my goodness, the theory of evolution CONTRADICTS the fossil record? Isn't that...completely made up by you?