It "fits the facts" in the sense that it does not directly contradict them. The facts do not directly contradict "God said 'let there be light'", either. But they do directly contradict things like "The earth is flat and rests on the backs of four elephants standing on a turtle shell."
The fossil record, as I understand it (and I may be wrong) is not precise enough to pinpoint transitional forms in a "short" (geologically speaking) period of times. Punctuated equilibrium says that changes from one species happened too quickly for us to see them by looking at the fossil record, in most cases. Further, it contends that most species don't change very often. The fossil record will show, say, a new worm species suddenly popping up ten to eleven million years ago, different but not wholly dissimiliar to pre-existing worm species. Then it stays almost exactly the same for 10 million years. Gradualism has trouble with this concept, because gradualism wants everything to always be in flux to the next species.
Gradualist proponents say "You can't see transitional forms because the fossil record is grossly imperfect [which it is] and just happens to not have preserved them", which is possible but not very satisfying. Puncuated equilibrium says "It happened too quickly for the rocks to notice" which isn't proof, but which is more plausible. You could also say that the Creator made new species out of clay and planted them fully formed on the earth at various points in history, and it would also fit the same fact. But punk eke also meshes with the theory of natural selection, and with what evdence does exist of transitional forms.
I will poke around later to see if I can find a clearer explanation of the whole thing. Gould is usually easier to follow than this particular article was, and I should think that, having made a career of evolutionary study, he will have a better shot at convincing you than I possibly could. ;)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2002-11-17 06:51 pm (UTC)The fossil record, as I understand it (and I may be wrong) is not precise enough to pinpoint transitional forms in a "short" (geologically speaking) period of times. Punctuated equilibrium says that changes from one species happened too quickly for us to see them by looking at the fossil record, in most cases. Further, it contends that most species don't change very often. The fossil record will show, say, a new worm species suddenly popping up ten to eleven million years ago, different but not wholly dissimiliar to pre-existing worm species. Then it stays almost exactly the same for 10 million years. Gradualism has trouble with this concept, because gradualism wants everything to always be in flux to the next species.
Gradualist proponents say "You can't see transitional forms because the fossil record is grossly imperfect [which it is] and just happens to not have preserved them", which is possible but not very satisfying. Puncuated equilibrium says "It happened too quickly for the rocks to notice" which isn't proof, but which is more plausible. You could also say that the Creator made new species out of clay and planted them fully formed on the earth at various points in history, and it would also fit the same fact. But punk eke also meshes with the theory of natural selection, and with what evdence does exist of transitional forms.
I will poke around later to see if I can find a clearer explanation of the whole thing. Gould is usually easier to follow than this particular article was, and I should think that, having made a career of evolutionary study, he will have a better shot at convincing you than I possibly could. ;)