At 16:53 02/02/2007, you wrote:
>"The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil
>record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace
>the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through
>a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms." (Gould, S.J. Luria,
>S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641)
John,
Appreciate you being willing to take on this debate, well done.
Does evolution require or even necessarily imply: "the gradual
transformation of one entire species into another".
The standard approach that I was taught was that some individuals in
a species possessed a characteristic that enhanced their capacity to
reproduce. Sometimes, perhaps in circumstances of relative
isolation, this would result in the creation of a new species which
would then deprive the old one of its food / habitat etc. The two
species might co-exist for a while, or indefinitely.
How would this be expected to show in the fossil record?
Early differences between species would likely be no greater than the
differences between individuals or races. We are now able to define
pretty accurately the boundaries of a species in living creatures,
but applying this to the geological record when searching for
intermediates seems, prima facie, almost impossible, though I am not
a paleo-biologist.
Is this addressed in the criticisms? Certainly the quote suggests a
very different understanding of the nature of evolution to the one that I hold.
Julian
|