Punctuated Equilibrium

[dabomb448]

Look at modern whales. It is partly "freaky" in a way. You will find a completely useless and non-functioning pelvis. These are called vestigial structures and show proof of an organism's ancestral past. This tiny pelvis shows the evolution of whales, how they transitioned from land-living hooved mesonychids, over time developed into living in water and on land, and finally not needing their legs for life fully underwater. So whatis the pelvis for? There's an example of a "freaky" whale for you.

[BlankPicketSign]

This video is lies

[lostismyconstent]

Please read peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject before making an argument on this point.

[JoeDSileo1988]

Human Civilization + Wolves = Dogs

Congratulations! You have just been introduced to a punctuated event.

Certain chemicals have multiple purposes, so it stands to reason that one direct change results in other indirect changes. See "Domesticated Silver Fox" for more about that.

[MorganMarvinson]

Randy will undoubtedly be faulted for citing an example of a fish giving birth to a reptile, but in general terms he is correct. There are long periods of stasis in the record that show little to no change in form, with punctuated periods of 10 million years or so marked by radical change that cannot be accounted for by Darwin's gradualism. It is for this reason that many evolutionists are looking for another mechanism besides RM and NS. As Mindbites points out, transitional fossils are rare.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@MorganMarvinson

"transitional fossils are rare."

Actually, we find them all over the place.

[Sweepingreaper4]

This guy is a bit off and that is putting it nicely.

[FiverBeyond]

It is sad to see Stephen J. Gould's hard work so deliberately and dishonestly misrepresented. He has specifically talked about how transitional forms are obvious at the higher levels, and has specifically said that Creationists show no understanding of what his hypothesis means.

[flyingscience]

Creationist children are leaving in droves because they know how to google and contrast claims . Stuby wings , 1/4th /1/2/ and 3/4 and have been found.He is PWNED.

[gregrutz]

@flyingscience Half a wing is called a dinosaur arm with feathers.

[jityr2]

This dude's a lawyer. He hardly knows what he's talking about. Creationists usually refuse to admit that it's quite normal for there to be gaps in the fossil record because a great great majority of organisms don't fossilize. He oughta keep his day job.

[natedogfresh]

Beautiful explanation on this theory!!!! you helped me so much for my biology class U ROCK! I subscribed and rated 5 stars! thanks

[KilVall]

This man commits a common fallacy (so common, in fact, that I was stunned to discover its commonality). I avoid the term 'transitional forms' because it causes so often the confusion that, somehow, transitional forms are not fully formed. WE could be transitional, and we are just as stable and singular as archaeopteryx was (which only had any promise of giving rise to birds through our hind-sight). It's and easy mistake, so I avoid the term.

[mhoytus]

"Kinds" "fully formed"...what would you expect? A fully grown, not fully formed, somethings? What would you predict such a creature to look like? What is a "kind"? Its not a taxonomic rank. Is it a forever undefined, moveable goalpost?

[Chuichupachichi]

Stephen Gould recognized and openly admitted that evolutionary theory is in no way supported by fossils. As a result, he developed "punctuated equilibrium" to be the explanation of why the required fossils, are lacking. While at the same time, keeping evolution on the artificial life support system of constant revisiting. One wonders how long before they realize. That the only creature which has constantly, radically, morphed into many different forms, is their theory!

[Chuichupachichi]

Glad I found your videos, just subscribed. Hope your still producing. I'm sure you have recognized how spoiled the evoists have been. In that they're allowed to have two opposing theories and both are given credibility. Even so, the morphological changes postulated by evo theory, still remain without real evidence. It's incredible how they claim that those opposing evo, are the unscientific one's. Great is the self deception & compromise, when people predetermine what they want the truth to be.

[Chuichupachichi]

AAAAA

[cnmmedic218]

Only a tiny tiny proportion of things that die become fossils, we can only be expected to find some of it and thus the fossil record will never be "complete". (By the way it is bad english to say "very complete") I don't know if we have billions of fossils but it is misleading to say we do not have transitional creatures including ones with vestigual (which is what I assume you mean by "little nubby") wings and limbs.

[Chuichupachichi]

"By the way it is bad english to say "very complete")

This is no big deal and I'm not really being an uptight stickler about it. Since I make plenty of grammatical errors myself. But I couldn't help it, since it's too tempting to not say,

By the way, it is "incorrect grammar" to say "bad English", when explaining to someone that it is "incorrect grammar", to say "very complete".

Sorry! couldn't help it.

[GhostPaw24]

What about the legs of a snake that have become so small they only make up for 1% leg, 99% smooth body? And fyi... your 'merely adaption' argument you presented is in fact the key of evolution along with natural and selective reproduction. If you wish to disprove evolution so much, try proving creation for once... god molded some sand and said abra-cabra and bamn! Adam? that's just silly. I'd like to see you prove that.

[reflect7]

OK, I checked out many of these articles, especially on Talk Origins. I'm confused by the hide-the-ball logic in these articles.

[boogeyman1967]

@reflect7 on Dec. 21, 2012, we are scheduled for another Punctuated Equilibrium event..

[reflect7]

If evolution from one kind to another requires numerous, successive, slight variations, then I should see many more creatures in kind-to-kind transition in the fossil record than creatures in final form.

[Aanthanur]

@reflect7 you mean like it is the case in reality?

[reflect7]

The articles point to evidence of changes within kinds in the fossil record and says that's enough evidence to establish kind-to-kind evolution. Further, it says that I shouldn't expect to see "finely-detailed sequences of fossils" -- gaps are OK if we see a fossil with a "mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism."

[reflect7]

I'm not asking for "every direct ancestor tied to every direct descendant," but I need more than one specimen of ancient mollusk and another specimen of ancient clam, both of which are fully-formed, reproducing creatures, to establish evidence of a kind-to-kind progression to a more recent freshwater oyster.

[reflect7]

A fossil of a small horse with one kind of hoof and a fossil of a larger horse with another type of hoof does not establish proof for any notion of macro-evolution -- this is merely adaptation within the horse kind.

[reflect7]

Just because the hippo and the whale share some similar bone structures does not establish that an ancient hippo transitioned into an ancient whale. I only have ancient "hippo" fossils and ancient "whale" fossils. Where are the weird, half-nubbed, half-finned, freaky, half hippo, half whale creatures? There should be millions of years of those in the fossil record.

[AdenineMonkey]

If you're interested in the answer, read the wikipedia article on 'Evolution of Cetaceans' or watch these Youtube videos:

watch?v=Ek9rnpZz4pk

watch?v=O_IKPSavQ4Y&feature=re­lated

or watch?v=8cn0kf8mhS4&feature=re­lated (if you're short on time)

No scientist expects to find an animal with half fins, or stubby wings as an intermediate between land mammals and whales or between reptiles and birds. All species are "fully formed".

[AdenineMonkey]

Let's take reptiles to birds as an example. We've found theropod dinosaurs with short, downy feathers, which probably make for good insulation. Several generations down the line, these feathers have lengthened on the arms and legs, possibly functioning to attract mates (like a peacock). This animal's paws were good for climbing. When jumping from one tree to the next, it's descendants might have found that these feathers gave them a little extra resistance so they could jump a few yards further.

[AdenineMonkey]

The next generation might actually have longer feathers and fingers, allowing it to glide a little. Finally muscle structure evolved that allowed for actual powered flight and the wings loose their climbing limb function.

So we start with a fully-formed arm, get a fully formed arm with fully-formed mate attractor, then a fully formed air-time increaser. Then we find an animal with a fully-formed gliding wing and finally a fully-formed flying wing.

watch?v=IFKnY_YCu2s and other parts

[reflect7]

Shouldn't we see multiple fossil sequences (of course, not complete) showing, for example, hippo-like creatures with 100% leg/0% fin... 90% leg/10% fin... 50% leg/50% fin... 10% leg/90% fin... 0% leg/100% fin, etc? Then, finally, a complete whale-like creature.

[reflect7]

How about reptiles to birds? 100% leg/0% wing... 90% leg/10% wing... 50% leg/50% wing... 10% leg/90% wing... 0% leg/100% wing, etc? This should also apply to the solid bone to hollow bone transitions... The cold-blooded to warm-blooded circulatory/respiratory system transitions, etc. Archaeopteryx and the other alleged "reptile to bird" fossils are merely fully-formed creatures with fully-formed systems.

[DerivedApe]

well ofcourse they are fully formed! How would half an organism survive? 10 % 50%...thats not how it works! to make bird wings you do not re-evolve the structure of the limb but adapt the structure from previous ancestors. There is good fossil record in dino to bird transition where we clearly see first non crossing radius and ulna, then the loss of outermost 2 digits,formation of semilunate carpal,fusion of the phalanges on the remaining digits and finally reduction of claws.

[JonathanMcLatchie]

If dinosaurs somehow 'evolved' wings they still would not fly. This is not to say that simultaneous changes cannot occur in the genome. However, clearly, disruptions of gene complexes are a necessary but not sufficient cause for the appearance of new irreducibly complex structures. The simultaneous appearance of several mutations, even if neutral or beneficial, is not necessarily evidence that any combination of them can produce a new irreducibly complex system.

[cathy356]

Impossible, birds bones are hollow and light-wieght, dinosaurs are very heavy like iron! Ludicrous! I suppose T-Rex became a hummingbird! Do you people know how stupid you sound? And how come the most famous museums in the world have none of the evidence on display? There should be millions and billions of evidence to show this! But there's not, so give it up! It's 150 years of failure to produce evidence of any kind of Darwinism. He even said it would be washed up if transitionals werent found.

[DerivedApe]

ah...pending aproval. How creationist of you. anyways. Although since respiratory system is mostly soft tissue it can be hard to track it'sevolution. However thanks to the advanced lungs of the birds we can see it in dinosaurs.

The lungs of the birds actually extend inside the bones. We can see the evolution of the respiratory system by mapping the extent of pneumatisation of the bones.

[reflect7]

Darwin himself said, "Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." He knew this was an issue and he trusted that future paleontologists would discover the evidence.

[reflect7]

After 130 years of paleontology, why did Gould, et al create the Punctuated Equilibrium concept as a mainstream addition to Neo-Darwinian theory if the fossil record supported kind-to-kind transition?

[sweatytoothmadman]

Gould didn't create Punctuated Equilibrium, Darwin came up with a similar theory within evolution but Gould put more evidence on peripheral populations. P.E. still acts under random mutation guided by natural selection and is very much a gradualistic form of evolution only it's a bit faster.

[Hirvassalo]

Yes. Darwinian gradualism and phyletic gradualism aren't the same. Indeed, the "Punk Eek" is just a FORM of Darwinian gradualism.

[KilVall]

That's not quite true. You're close, but not quite there. Read Gould's book (surprise! surprise!) 'Punctuated Equilibrium' for more information on this subject. There is a difference between gradual evolution and punctuated.

[joebot1]

What a load of crap. There are tones of transitional animals in the fossil record and to say other wise is a deliberate lie and an attempt to deceive!.

GO ON GOOGLE NOW AND CHECK FOR YOUR SELVES!.

[somecomputergeek]

This is not true by any means. There is a massive number of species found in the fossil record that can be seen as "transitional". For instance, there is an entire class of species known as "reptile-like mammals".

How can these not be transitional species?

[flashback1234]

only the snake! there are snakes with legs. I`ve have seen it on nationalgeographic. And that made me think of genesis. where God took away the legs of the snake so he always have the craw.