Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cvl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!rlh
From: rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Not Surprising, Twice
Message-ID: <407@cvl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-May-85 10:36:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: cvl.407
Posted: Wed May  8 10:36:36 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 10-May-85 09:07:00 EDT
Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 28

>>"Consequently, after carefully considering the implications of the fossil
>>record, we must conclude that that record represents the remains of gradually
>>and continuously evolving, ancestor-descendent lineages, uninterrupted
>>by special creative acts, and producing succesive different species which
>>eventually become so divergent from the initial form that they constitute
>>new major kinds of organisms."

>  If this is so, then why is it that so many evolutionists like Steven
>  Jay Gould, etc. have abandoned gradualism for lack of evidence in
>  in the fossils?

Do you know what is meant by "punctuated equilibrium"? It means that
evolution takes place in descrete steps. These steps are SMALL however.
On course time scales one still expects to see continuous change with
intermediate forms etc. and there has never been any lack of evidence
for this.

Part of the problem some paleontologists have with P.E. is the question
"What would Gould, etc. count as evidence for gradualism?". Remember
that, if gradualism is true, filling in one gap in the fosil record
creates two new gaps. P.E. can be proven by resolving the time scale at
which discrete changes take place. It is gradualism that can only be
supported by lack of evidence for P.E. not the other way around.

You want unanimity? From science?! If you want unanimity join a church!

				Ralph Hartley
				rlh@cvl