Re: Gould criticism and reviews

Tim Tyler wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:

Basically before the PE upheaval, evolutionary biologists were
concerned with change, not stasis. Stasis was boring. Stasis
is still pretty boring - but now thanks largely to Gould's
promotion of the idea, we have a mountain of creationists
who think it refutes Darwin's theory.

Gould is not responsible for creationist distortions. [...]

Gould's 1972 graph does seem to show species disappearing and then reappearing at different morphological locations: creation!
In some cases - because of the confusing 3D graph used - it even
produces the optical effect of them travelling backwards in time
in the process.

``THE ACCIDENTAL CREATIONIST
Why Stephen Jay Gould is bad for evolution. BY ROBERT WRIGHT

``There are lots of gaps in the fossil record, and though
many biologists believe that Gould cites the record too
selectively, it isn't his fault when creationists quote
him dishonestly, as they sometimes do. The problem is
that often they don't have to. The biochemist Michael
Behe writes, in the anti-evolutionist text "Darwin's
Black Box," "Gould has argued that the rapid rate of
appearance of new life forms demands a mechanism other
than natural selection for its explanation." Gould does
say that, when he depicts punctuated equilibrium as a
major new concept, requiring "additional laws," beyond
natural selection.''

- http://www.nonzero.org/newyorker.htm

For an author, controversy is cheap marketing - and it does
look rather as though Gould courted such effects to me.

I agree that he courted controversy for marketing effect. But not in this particular case. Gould never said that any mechanism other than natural selection was needed for the rapid rate of appearance of new life forms. PE has nothing to do with the rapidity of appearance of new life forms. Gould in fact knew that natural selection -- which was in fact his chosen method for directional character change -- acts faster than is generally visible in geological time. What he thought needed explanation was in fact not change, but stasis. Behe was wrong about what Gould said. You can't blame Gould for that.

Or would you like to show a place where Gould claimed that some other mechanism was needed to explain change?

(It's true that Gould did flirt with saltationism, hopeful monsters, etc. from time to time. But that's separate from PE.)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Gould criticism and reviews
    ... Stasis was boring. ... we have a mountain of creationists ... Why Stephen Jay Gould is bad for evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Can any Darwinist in this Forum....
    ... not Gould who made the detailed study of the trilobite. ... otherwise marked by stasis for this feature as well.". ... we all really know evolution is false, but we're afraid of losing our ... Isn't that an appeal to an imperfect fossil record, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Can any Darwinist in this Forum....
    ... not Gould who made the detailed study of the trilobite. ... otherwise marked by stasis for this feature as well.". ... we all really know evolution is false, but we're afraid of losing our ... Isn't that an appeal to an imperfect fossil record, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Gould criticism and reviews
    ... Everyone in the field knew about stasis /long/ before Gould, ... If most living species were considered living fossils, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Gould criticism and reviews
    ... Everyone in the field knew about stasis /long/ before Gould, ... You misunderstand Gould's misunderstanding. ... If most living species were considered living fossils, ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading