alt.education

"Danwood" wrote in message
news: @ ...
> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:57:12 -0400, in , Danwood
>> in < @ > wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> The fallacies are entirely in the form of misunderstandings that
>>>> people have as to what "evolution" entails.
>>>>
>>> Things change. Evolution is self-corrective. For example" piltdown man.
>>> gradualism and Ernst Haeckels falsified drawings of the embryos of
>>> various animals.
>>>
>>> /
>>
>> *Science* is self-corrective. You had just take a nice creationist
>> list of "errors" and tossed them out as though it had some impact.
>> Piltdown was a fake, but we don't know who did it or why it was faked.
>> Scientists figured it out.
>
> Gradualism is not a fake and not an error
>>
> No, but Darwin, recognized stasis, as having been observed in the fossil
> record at the persistence of paleontologist of his day, nevertheless,
> Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show insensibly fine
> gradations between ancestor and descendant. His insistence, I believe was
> to draw a distinction between his theory and "fixity", of species which
> was the convention wisdom at the time.

And the modern science of genetics has shown he was correct in his
assessment. We see fine gradations between ancestors and descendants. You
are not identical to your parents.

Species are not immutable.

> Consequently, paleontologist searching for evidence of gradualism, ignored
> stasis for decades, stasis essentially was looked upon as "no data" and
> swept under the rug. That was until G & E resurrected it showing that
> stasis is the prevailing characteristic of fossil record: instead of
> finding the innumerable transitional forms in countless numbers embedded
> in every stratum of the earth's crust, as Darwin expected, the fossil
> record shows that stasis, rather than being rare
> is ubiquitous in the record.
>

I believe you misunderstand the use of 'stasis' in this instance. The 'lack'
of transitional fossils depends on how one defines have
been pointed to evidence of such transitional forms that have been found.
Also, many gradual steps will not fossilize. If you do not believe that,
check the skeletal remains of various birds that are visually identical, but
different species.

> I realize that while G & E were critical, I think their criticism
> was directed more at the earlier scientist rather than evolution
> per se. As dedicated evolutionist and scientist, they were chidding other
> scientist while attempting to fold stasis, the orphan stepchild into the
> evolutionist "household".
>

Again, I don't think you understand what is meant by punctuated equilibrium.
The cornerstone is that evolution tends to happen 'off-stage', with the
fossil record showing the remixing of prior strains that have now drifted
apart to separate species. The 'stasis' is simply evolution that does not
show in the fossilized record.

You and your parent would produce exactly the same fossil, even though you
are not all gradual changes will be reflected in the fossil
record.

James Powell