Atheists: Which evolution do you believe in?

Question

Do you believe in gradualistic evolution, where populations are constantly changing.

Or do you believe in punctuated equalibrium evolution, where populations have times of rapid change and then periods of "rest" where we stay the same?

(this is really for everyone but don't be like "I don't think we came from monkeys!")

It can't be both if one is constantly changing and the other is times where we DO NOT change...

I don't see how it's both seeing how they're exact opposites...

Megatron, I'm not making the differences, we learned that Darwin theory was gradualistic but Lamarck's was punctuated equalibrium...

Answer 1

Evolutionists believe in evolution.
It does not automatically follow that atheists believe in evolution.
Would you like a definition of atheism?

Answer 2

Actually most of the evidence seems to indicate that evolution generally works via both - a process that has sometimes been dubbed the 'passing cloud'.

It all depends on the selective pressures that exist on the population, and how much pressure they exert, and for how long.

A sudden break in a population, such as a sudden geographic isolation, followed by a strong selective force, like new food sources or new predators can produce the kind of dramatic evolutionary change expected in punctuated equilibrium.

Long term, slow changes in environments, however, can easily produce the tiny, incremental changes expected in gradualism. Something like very long term heating or cooling trends are not likely to produce sudden selective changes for acclimatizing to new environments, but as small environmental changes accumulate each generation, and each generation sees a small selective pressure where better cold/heat adapted organisms survive better, then it can accumulate large changes over many generations.

This synthesis of punctuated equilibrium and gradualism doesn't get much press, mainly because pitting things as a battle between opposing viewpoints makes for more dramatic headlines.

Answer 3

Evolution is not a matter of 'belief'.

In science, a 'theory' is not just 'an idea', as the scientifically ignorant seem to think, in common parlance... it is an explanatory framework for a set of observed facts... a description, or model, of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same sort, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

In science, a 'theory' occupies a higher level of importance than mere 'facts'... theories so not INVENT facts... they EXPLAIN facts. The 'Theory of Evolution' explains the OBSERVED FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms (the gene pool) changes, over time. The explanation is genetic drift (statistical variations of allele frequency within a population) and genetic mutations (random), operated on by natural selection (NOT random). In other words, "The non-random survival of randomly varying replicators." ~ (Richard Dawkins)

NONE of this is in dispute among scientists. The FACTS are not in dispute. This represents a consistent body of scientific fact extending back almost 150 years, which is well supported by genetics and by the fossil record. There has NEVER been anything found to refute it. However, there is ongoing conversation about aspects of evolution which seem to require further explanation... ideas such as 'punctuated equilibrium'.

'Punctuated equilibrium' is presently thought to be more likely evidence of migration, rather than as evidence of abrupt change... although abrupt change is not ruled out. And, really, there is no 'rest' in evolution... there is always 'genetic drift'... statistical variation in allele frequencies.

Anyway... punctuated equilibrium... it is thought that large populations, well adapted to a particular environment that is stable over a long period of time, will not leave evidence of 'natural selection'. However, population pressure may drive groups of critters AWAY from the main habitat. In those areas far AWAY from the main habitat, these sub-groups MAY experience the kinds of environmental stressors that drive natural selection... over time... speciation. As population pressure grows in the NEW environment, sub-groups may be driven BACK to the old stomping grounds... where they are now able to out-compete the native (ancestral) population for available resources... and end up REPLACING the original population. IF the area is one that is suited for the preservation of fossils, THEN the fossil record will show an abrupt shift... a speciation... creating the ILLUSION of a rapid evolutionary change when, in fact, the change ACTUALLY took thousands or tens of thousands of years... in the normal fashion... and perhaps in an environment that was NOT amenable to the preservation of fossils.

I hope that helps.
.

Answer 4

Both can happen. It is fact that every generation will be different from the previous. No two generations will be genetically the same, exactly. But if a species is very suited to its environment, the overall change in, lets say, 100 generations will be very, very slight. And sometimes the net effect of all the changes results in basically no change. Alligators are good examples of this. Then if the environment changes dramatically, it can force rapid changes. Other species are constantly changing with their environment and evolve at a seemingly same speed. Viruses are a good example of this.

You are also misunderstanding Darwin and Lamark. Darwin said that an individual is born with genetics, which allow them to survive, or die. Lamark said that during the lifetime of the individual, it could gain genetics and pass it on to future generations.

Answer 5

You don't understand how it works. If a population of turtles on the land is under no evolutionary pressure to change, then they won't. Hundreds of thousands of years pass, and the fossils look just the same.

However, another population of turtle faces a food shortage. Some of them venture into the water and find food there. Over eons, their feet become flippers, because it's an advantage in the water, and they can hunt better.

However, if the mutations that brought about the change from feet to flippers don't happen, the turtles could have just starved and gone extinct. Most forms of life on this planet have gone extinct. The ones who don't are the ones that evolved.

You have to read *current* evolutionary theory, not what was proposed a hundred years ago and discarded.

Answer 6

Punctuated equilibrium is not "periods of rest". In periods of environmental stability, large relatively stable populations develop. A dramatic destabilization of the environment (like the numerous mass-extinction events), means a scramble for suddenly scarce resources, and that old favorable adaptations may not be advantageous in the new conditions. Selective pressures are radically increased and populations are simultaneously decreased.

Answer 7

I think a little of both. Mostly gradualist, but at other times punctuated...such as after major world disasters (ie KT boundary disaster)
In Chernobyl, the ground is poisoned radioactively, but scientists have found life flourishing even here. Moles have been found to live much shorter lives now, but they adapted by having larger litters of offspring. Punctuated evolution.

Answer 8

It's not a matter of "belief". It is a fact. Evolution is always taking place. Nothing in the universe lives or survives in a vacuum. Constant flux and change is the nature of things.

What has effected the course of evolution here on earth have been galactic events that have effected the earth and earthly events that have effected the living beings on earth.

In the billions of years our earth has existed, "life" has been almost completely destroyed by galactic events and has to start over again. I seen no reason to believe it can't happen again.

We are only inhabitants here - at a certain level of evolution. We, like the dinosaurs, could become extinct in a heartbeat and, once again, what survives will have to start over.

Answer 9

It's not a matter of "belief". It's not like this is a religion and we're talking about different sects. No biologist actually disputes the fact that evolution took place. It's the precise mechanics of evolution that some biologists argue about.

I've read some of what biologists like Stephen Jay Gould (who creationists love to misquote) have proposed regarded punctuated equilibrium. I think there's something to it. It make sense. Dawkins gave some particularly good analogies in "The Blind Watchmaker".

Why was this addressed at "atheists" anyway? It's not like you have to be an atheist to accept the science of evolution.

>>"I don't see how it's both seeing how they're exact
>>opposites"

Well, "People are born in the US" and "People emigrate to the US" are two exclusive events too, in and of themselves. However, they both happen, and our current US population is a product of both.

Did you ever stop and think of why they picked the term "PUNCTUATED equilibrium"?

Answer 10

I'm a strong follower of evolution

(and i don't think we came from monkeys either, the only people who ever say that are church related, they lie)

and to answer...gradualistic AND punctuated...constant change,

for example my son is an evolved person from myself and my wife though he has characteristics of both, he is his own person...amazing evolution right before my eyes!

Answer 11

I'm not an expert in the different models of evolution but I don't see why both can't happen at various times. But I cannot think of what molecular mechanism would cause the evolutionary process to "rest". Are you sure that is a correct interpretation of puntuated evolution?