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.
Yes, I know; that's what troubles me about it. It is unverifiable. What good is a scientific theory that is unverifiable?
I might be more inclined to believe it if some believable rationale were offered: how, exactly, does one species transform into another (at whatever "speed")? It isn't obvious to me that "natural selection" can explain everything. That sounds just as hand-wavey as "God did it." Judging by the way natural selection actually works, it seems that it sticks us back with gradualism, which we've already agreed is implausible. (Unless I just don't understand how natural selection works, which I admit is possible.)
Gould is usually easier to follow than this particular article was...
Yeah, that one was pretty thick for saying so little. I fear that he may be too biased not to argue for his own theory. He warned as much in the article.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2002-11-17 08:41 pm (UTC)Yes, I know; that's what troubles me about it. It is unverifiable. What good is a scientific theory that is unverifiable?
I might be more inclined to believe it if some believable rationale were offered: how, exactly, does one species transform into another (at whatever "speed")? It isn't obvious to me that "natural selection" can explain everything. That sounds just as hand-wavey as "God did it." Judging by the way natural selection actually works, it seems that it sticks us back with gradualism, which we've already agreed is implausible. (Unless I just don't understand how natural selection works, which I admit is possible.)
Gould is usually easier to follow than this particular article was...
Yeah, that one was pretty thick for saying so little. I fear that he may be too biased not to argue for his own theory. He warned as much in the article.