On 10/20/23 8:22 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:10:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 10/18/23 7:07 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:43:59 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/27/23 6:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>
>>>>> On the other hand, it IS legitimate sbp talk to ask whether this huge variety
>>>>> of critters could be accounted for using just "random mutation and
>>>>> competition within populations." A much more appealing idea is that, with so many
>>>>> environments devoid of "harvesters" (including carnivores "harvesting" other animals)
>>>>> it was a perfect time for an explosion of Punctuated Equilibrium (PE).
>>>>>
>>>>> Small breakaway groups from flourishing populations could explore new niches,
>>>>> and undergo rapid mutation favoring e.g. those bold enough to try novel foods.
>>>>> Isolation from other small populations in new environments would result in mutations
>>>>> affecting different groups differently, and these groups in turn would fragment
>>>>> into others as they spread far and wide thru the continents.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> John Harshman dislikes the whole idea of PE. I wonder what he would say to all this.
>>>
>>>> I don't dislike the idea. I just don't think the evidence favors it.
>>>
>>> What do you think the following statement by Stephen Jay Gould is about?
>>> Chopped liver?
>
> John, you prefaced what I quoted with the following:
>
>> There are a number of problems with the statement. For one thing, Gould
>> didn't understand phylogenetics very well.
>
> Is this going to be a fixture of your posting, making put-downs
> like this without explanation?

Was one needed? Gould seldom, if ever, discussed phylogenetic analysis,
and that quote shows that lack of knowledge when he says, as if it's
pejorative, that fossils are only at the tips of trees.

>>> "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record
>>> persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary
>>> trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and
>>> nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable,
>>> not the evidence of fossils.
>>> --Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," _Natural History_,
>>> vol. 86(5) (May 1987): pp. 12-16, at p. 14
>>> Reprinted in _The Panda's Thumb_, pp. 181-182.
>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2
>>>
>>> The above quote continued:
>>>
>>> "Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory
>>> on a denial of this literal record:
>>>
>>> `The geological record is extremely imperfect and
>>> this fact will to a large extent explain why we
>>> do not find interminable varieties, connecting
>>> together all the extinct and existing forms of life
>>> by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views
>>> on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject
>>> my whole theory.'
>
>
> > For another, he's attacking a
>> strawman, something assumed neither by Darwin nor by population
>> geneticists or other evolutionary biologists, i.e. "phyletic gradualism".
>
> What, then do you make of the words, "by the finest graduated steps"?
> You don't say. Another unexplained put-down.

I'm trying to excuse your ignorance of this subject after many years of
claiming some knowledge of the field. But PE is not a theory of
saltation, as you seem to think. It in fact involves evolution by finely
graduated steps, just at different rates at different times, as opposed
to the Gouldian strawman of a constant rate. The original Phacops rana
example is just such a series of fine steps. Have you even read Eldredge
and Gould 1972?

> If Kerr-Mudd returns to this thread, what are the odds that
> he will NOT reply to you, but to me with the claim that he dislikes
> this kind of talk?

I see no reason to speculate.

>>> "Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most
>>> paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show
>>> so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and
>>> methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential
>>> validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots).
>>> I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks."
>>> [END OF QUOTE]
>>>
>>> "never" is a tad harsh, but the horse superfamily Equioidea is one of
>>> a mere handful of exceptions.
>
>> Is it? Is the fossil record of horses so continuous as to show gradual
>> transitions from one species to the next?
>
> The one from early Merychippus species to Dinohippus is said
> to be like that, in:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
> Excerpt:

> 3. A line of "true equines" in which the side toes sometimes began to
> decrease in size. In this flurry of evolution, Merychippus primus
> gave rise to two later merychippines called M. sejunctus and M.
> isonesus, who had a mixture of "primitive" (Parahippus-like),
> hipparion, and equine features. They, in turn, gave rise to M.
> intermontanus, which begat M. stylodontus and M. carrizoensis. These
> last two looked quite "horsey" and gave rise to a set of larger
> three-toed and one-toed horses known as the "true equines" (see
> below). Crystal clear, right?
Yes, but not the sort of thing demanded by "phyletic gradualism".
Remember, PE was intended to explain the observed lack of gradual
transition between species. Here you have a series of species, which is
not what Gould and Eldredge mean by "gradualism".

> >Gould here is again presenting
>> a strawman fossil record.
>
> Your subsequent comments do not support this latest put-down. Were you shooting from the hip,
> without consulting his article? You do have a copy of _The Panda's Thumb_, don't you?

You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the controversy here. It
would take a very long time to correct you, especially when you assume
that I'm the one who doesn't understand.

>> Darwin was right: the fossil record is
>> fragmentary both in space and in time.
>
> No kidding, Sherlock.
>
> Gould confirmed that in the above linked article, and said
> that PE made the details conform better to the existing evidence.

The problem here is that the fragmentary fossil record is itself an
explanation for the lack of smooth transitions, especially if periods of
change are episodic and relatively brief. No need for a special mechanism.

>> There are few if any continuous
>> records over thousands or millions of years.
>
> You are confirming Gould's words,

Yet neither you nor Gould seems to understand that those words argue
against a need for PE to explain the data.

> [repeated from above]
>>> I wish in no way to impugn the potential
>>> validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots).
>>> I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks."
>
>> And if we agree, with
>> Darwin,
>
> And with Gould,

Yes, but not with Gould's strawman version of Darwin. That's my point.

>> that evolution is episodic, periods of change being
>> comparatively rapid and few compared with periods of no change, then the
>> fragments we have are indeed unlikely to show those periods.
>
> And Gould and his less well-known coauthor, Niles Eldredge, have an explanation that
> further elucidates that unlikeliness.

It's an unnecessary explanation, as it adds nothing. We could discuss
the problems of PE as a theory of evolution, but I have doubts that you
are equipped.

On 10/20/23 9:10 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:10:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 10/18/23 7:07 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:43:59 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
>>>> I'm not sure you understand what PE is supposed to be either. You seem to be
>>>> adding a lot of extra baggage to it.
>>>
>>> But you won't tell us what allegedly makes me "seem" that way, eh?
>
>
>> You snipped out the entire explanation, I assume inadvertently.
>
> No, it was because you made no effort to explain it, and only a sketchy attempt
> to explain your first sentence.

You really shouldn't snip explanations, no matter how inadequate, and
then complain that there was no explanation. Do you really not see the
problem here?

>> Let me
>> restore it for you:
>> What you seem to be describing above doesn't require PE, just ordinary
>> within-species processes.
>
> It's not a question of "requiring," but only a question of whether
> PE is a better explanation than the one you give:

That's what "requiring" means.

>> You seem to be talking about release from
>> selection
>
> Certainly a reduction, with exploding sources of nourishment,
> with or without speciation in the sources.
>
>
>> and the "empty barrel" idea of recovery from mass extinction.
>> Anyone can do this, not just small breakaway groups (peripheral
>> isolates).
>
> The issue is whether breakaway isolates is a better explanation
> for such a massive radiation. It certainly seems to work better
> in times of reduced radiation.

Not sure why you think so. What's your evidence that peripheral isolates
are important in speciation, as a general rule? If you want to know
something about speciation, I recommend the book Speciation, by Jerry
Coyne and H. Allen Orr. It's a few years old, but it's accessible to an
educated reader, and you should be able to find it at any good library.

> And note, I'm not adding baggage to PE. I am adding PE to
> "empty barrell" recovery. You may call this excess baggage,
> but you need to make a separate case for that.

It's excess baggage because it contributes nothing to the story.
Ordinary allopatric speciation (as well as evolution within populations
without attendant speciation) is adequate.

Incidentally, the greatest weakness of PE is its claim that speciation
and evolutionary change are necessarily coincident.

>> Anything that divides populations, potentially resulting in
>> speciation, is good enough. Nor is there any need or reason for
>> increased mutation rates.
>
> I was pressed for time, as usual, and was abrupt.
> What I meant was increased rates of survival
> of novel mutations due to increased ability to process exploding
> food sources. These sources would have not helped
> them earlier, when they were at a disadvantage
> against the ones using the plentiful pre-catastrophe food sources.

Now I'm not sure what you're trying to say. You seem to be talking about
natural selection favoring certain adaptations in an altered
environment. But this also requires no new theory of evolution. But at
least we've agreed that mutation rate is not a serious variable here.

>> What you may be groping toward is the idea of interspecific competition
>> as an evolutionary force.
>
> So far from groping, I was talking about one of my favorite topics:
> mega-competition between big clades. I did it wrt competition between
> between pterosaurs and birds, on the thread "Triassic Mega-Evolution."
> Sight Reader then provided a very promising possibility of
> rynchocephalians v. squamates on Oct. 4.

You are inventing new terms that just disguise what you're actually
talking about: interspecific competition. Any competition isn't between
clades but between individual species. How does adding "mega-" to
various words clarify anything? I also point out that inferring such
competition from the fossil record is dubious at best.

> This was before you started posting on this thread.
>
>
> After this, you went off on a tangent ["derailing the thread" is
> the way you put it if I do it] on population genetics:
>
>
>> But competition that acts on selectable
>> variation within species is just standard population genetics, one
>> species acting as part of another's environment.
>
> "another's" gives the game away. Each species of pterosaur was
> competing with many species of birds, and vice versa.
> There were lots of other potential cases in the Triassic.

You have no way of knowing this, and at any rate it's not relevant to
the point. As long as there's selectable variation within the species,
it's just ordinary population genetics. As long as there isn't, it's
species selection, a term you may not be familiar with.

(Note: there is much argument in the literature over what counts as
species selection; some would not agree that this is and would call it
"species sorting" instead. I don't see the point.)

>> Competition for which
>> there is no within-species selectable variation, however, can result in
>> differential extinction, or species selection, and that's not standard
>> population genetics.
>
> So, why bring population genetics into the picture at all?

Because there are two cases, and you had not differentiated them. Still
haven't.