Punctuated Equilibrium

[dabomb448]

Thank you.

[circusOFprecision]

One thing is certain, gradualism is false. Punctuated Equilibrium is an interesting concept that implies the idea that the internal environments of living organisms are constantly striving for balance with the external environment. The difficulty is in the genetic mechanisms that allow this to systematically occur. It seems to me that the adaptation of Darwin is true, but the basis is not in random mutations, but calculated genetic mechanisms, hence huge leaps, not tiny steps.

[thewordofgod2010]

Dogs do not demonstrate evolution. Dog show us that we can isolate and eliminate EXISTING traits. You can breed a dog into a wolf but you cannot reverse the process because dogs only have a subset of the information needed for a wolf. This is Mendel's peas for goodness sake, the elimination of traits to gain a certain function. Dog's DID NOT evolve from wolves, it's more like Punctuated Decline. This is well understood and very basic in genetics.

[faelismaegnus]

You need to explain HOW and IF IT IS POSSIBLE for events like the Cambrian EXPLOSION (sudden species radiation) happened. What is your mechanism? Mutation rates for beneficial mutations (the kind that natural selection could possibly work on) are not compatible with the Cambrian explosion. Darwin predicted vast numbers of transitionals to account for the current diversity of life. But they simply do not exist.

[Retrieverman1]

Dogs are at least 15,000 years old, but they are a good example to point to punctuated equilibrium for a very simple reason: All of those hundreds of fancy dog breeds that took over the Western dog fancy appeared from various generic dogs within the past 150 years.

And then the Belyaev experiment with foxes showed that a wild dog could develop domesticated features within just a few years: Another example that points to punctuated equilibrium.

[Richy15251]

I liked the 'Pluto' analogy in reference to Creationists disregard to the self-correcting mechanism of science

[Richy15251]

I liked the 'Pluto' analogy in reference to Creationists disregard to the self-correcting mechanism of science

[zzytrewq]

This video is only suitable for rational people.

Creationists are advised to turn off now and go read the bible lest the reality of evolution make them doubt the bullshit they have been told to believe.

[mot5600]

ixnay the intro.

[TidyYourRoomUp]

I had never heard of this before today, I was in town having an argument with some creationists (I live in England), and one of the guys told me to look it up.  He told me that Gould had discovered fossils suddenly appearing and disappearing, and showing no signs of evolution in between. Well what a surprise!!! Punctuated equilibrium is a theory that supports evolution! Incredible how creationists have to lie to make their ideas sound sane.

[KilVall]

I'm glad you have discovered punctuated equilibria: it's the most sensible hypothesis in many long, long years. Gould is my hero.

[TidyYourRoomUp]

He was very cool :p

They should put more books like his on the school syllabus.

[KilVall]

I totally agree. I learned more from 'The Structure of Evolutionary Theory' and his other books than a college course teaches. And for all the debate and strife, nothing has resolved the issue of science vs. religion like 'Rocks of Ages'.

[leshark]

i cudnt understand wat u wer saying... maybe its my headphones...

[JackBlair2]

So what are the latest developments and breakthroughs in the theory of punctuated equilibrium?

[KilVall]

Mr Gould is dead (God rest his soul), but his hypothesis is gaining more acceptance, even at least in observation of fossils. As Gould pointed out, no one studied stasis until his hypothesis gained recognition, because he thought it to be useless evidence of nothing happening. Its biggest triumph so far is being accepted into some major text-books. I can't tell whether you were making a snide remark, but if not, thanks for asking!

[JackBlair2]

It's hardly "gaining more acceptance." It's something the scientific community would rather not talk about.

Miller-Urey was accepted into textbooks. Dog breeding and the peppered moths are still invoked as "evidence" of evolution.

As you can see, a lot of jacked-up info gets into textbooks.

[KilVall]

The only reason that it is perceived as covered up is because its biggest supporter is dead and its biggest opposition one of the most prominent figures in all of evolution (unfortunately). And I hardly think that Miller's discoveries are 'jacked-up', as you put it. Dog breeding and peppered moths are evidence of adaptation, natural selection, and artificial selection, something those who do not 'believe in' evolution accept. Of course, all evidence of macroevolution is immediately discarded.

[AcanLord]

The miller-urey experiments and the peppered moths are not "jacked up" the Miller-urey experiments are in textbooks because they they produced results, Not only that but it lead to countless other experiments and research which lead to modern Abiogenesis research. A science that makes Real discoveries. The Peppered moths were simply a demonstration of how natural selection operates. How does any of this qualify as Jacked up?

[boobijean]

And mate, look at the Vicariance era. Up until then there hadn't been continental drift. Migration would have been more than possible, the Vicariance era was not too long ago.

[boobijean]

After every major extinction there was a phenomenal increase in the number of species on Earth. Of course, within the following 50 my it would be reduced to a more sustainable level. But, the point is, is that fossil records prove that these rapid events did occur and did lead to mass speciation. So, the real question is, do you want to believe in a computerized molecular clock theorizing evolution as a gradual process, or do you want to believe fossil evidence, which you can SEE?

[FliteKing]

So,let me get this right... an increase in Cheetah speed is based on mutation(s)?

Is there any proof a Cheetah 100,000 years ago could not run as fast as a Cheetah today?

Faulty science --- we don't know the speed of the Cheetah 100,000 years ago.

Also, domestic dogs arose through mutations and not selective breeding?

Mere speculation.

Darwin's finches can show profound beak changes in as little as 2 generations. This is ADAPTATION, not mutation.

[Impaler1815]

The cheetah thing is just an example, the history of the evolution of the cheetah is irrelevant to the process I was talking about.

Many mutations have occured during the history of selective breeding.

Adaptation, microevolution, evolution, call it whatever you want, it doesn't change the fact that they're all different scales of the same process.

[magick205]

"So,let me get this right... an increase in Cheetah speed is based on mutation(s)?" Correct, and the increased speed of their prey animals. And this can be deduced by close examination of the muscle insertion points and sizes of same on the fossils from both north america, asia, and africa. It's a common forensic technique.

[Cnidarious]

"Darwin's finches can show profound beak changes in as little as 2 generations. This is ADAPTATION, not mutation. " Adaptation is built out of mutation.

[pupitMastr]

Yet another problem: What do novel migration habits have to do with the "punctuated" origination of new species (to the world, not just an area)? And I'm guessing a very small % of all species actually participated in some sort of ice-bridge-crossing or continent-collision-hopping, anyway. To me this argument seems irrelevant to the general idea of punctuated equilibrium. Very few species affected by it, and doesn't say anything about quick evoluation, anyway.

[Impaler1815]

Yes I don't think it would have been incredibly common, and most of the gaps in the fossil record can be explained without it, but it's an idea that should be considered when required.

Thankyou for your criticsm. I freely admit this video is flawed, and may one day remake it now that I have almost a year of extra knowledge.

[pupitMastr]

Thank you for your honest responses, Impaler

[pupitMastr]

Another problem I have: What does the mammal-dinosaur ex. have to do with punctuated equilibrium? It suggests why large mammals weren't likely to survive during the dino era, but says absolutely nothing about why the different mammal species appeared suddenly, by "punctuated equilibrium". I'm not attacking here, I'm just honestly not convinced by this argument...feel free to try to explain, I'm not watching this with intentionally deaf ears

[pupitMastr]

Having difficult seeing the logic here: "Some mutations only useful when previous evol. steps have been accomplished". The ex. used is mutations that occurred for single-celled organisms that were useless until multi-cell life. "all of a sudden all of these mutations had a use". why does this support punctuated equilibrium at all? these mutations still had to redevelop from scratch, since they were eliminated "hundreds of times" during the single-cell world. they weren't waiting for a use

[Impaler1815]

I made this video a while ago, when my knowledge of Gould's synthesis for punctuated equilibrium was lacking. Goulds synthesis was on the speed of traits taking over a population. The ideas in this video are more about the changes in selective pressure. I admit this video is flawed in this respect. Though that point doesn't support the original PE, it is a contributing factor for why those features had not evolved before the Cambrian.

[pupitMastr]

I'm trying to be as open as possible to PE, which when I first heard of sounded initially like a desperate attempt to keep the theory of evolution afloat. This video did nothing for me. 75% of it was just common stereotypes of "creationists", making them look as stupid as possible. I can't stand when people who claim to be "scientific" are obviously just people who hate religion and are motivated completely by this hatred. I will continue my honest search for the truth of PE, though

[Impaler1815]

"I'm trying to be as open as possible to PE, which when I first heard of sounded initially like a desperate attempt to keep the theory of evolution afloat."

There is nothing wrong with updating a theory to match evidence, it's what science is all about. All scientific theories that have been around for a while have been, and will continue to be, revised.

[pupitMastr]

I definitely understand that. But to me this seems like a little more than a slight revision. The entire premise of evolution seemed based upon the fact that it had billions of years to work. But then the evidence became apparent and just did not add up, hence the thought of PE.

[Impaler1815]

When Darwin first wrote Origin of Species it was believed that the universe was close to a couple of hundred million years old. The premise of evolution never relied on billions of years.

PE was hypothesised and accepted not because the evidence "didn't add up", but because it explained the evidence better. Before PE the gaps in the fossil record were explained by the rarity of fossilisation. Gould added PE to the theory, including a valid mechanism, and hence created a stronger theory.

[cagefite007]

PE is undoubtably backed by the fossil record. Especially since the fossil discoveries of soft bodied, single celled, simple creatures right before the cambrian. But what it lacks is a proper reason for why changes occur so "rapid." Probability doesn't agree with it. Something must be latent, but then again that makes no "evolutionary sense."

[andydeee]

Very helpful, thanks!

[omegakurt20]

there would be no creationist in the future.

[ilikeninjacats]

punctuated equilibrium is a desperate attempt at keeping evolution alive because of the lack of fossil evidence that Darwin said would exist. He said to throw away evolution if the fossils did not show, yet you keep it and the theorys continue to become more and more obsurd.

[bootsielon]

First, learn to spell. Second, just because Darwin said "scrap it" it does not mean we should. Just because someone uses Darwinian theories it does not mean Darwin is worshiped like a god or an ideologue, this is not a religion, you moron. You keep what is good and you scrap what is not, it is not taken as creationist gospel. Punctuated equilibrium is consistent with game theory and with the way technology works except of course, without the need of man hand since evolution is a natural process

[antonyneal]

go sit in your room and remain willfully ignorent... Im skeptical that u even fully understand the concept of punctuated equalibrium.

[ilikeninjacats]

I understand it, that's why I don't believe it.

[sweatytoothmadman]

Actually Darwin came up with something similar to Punctuated Equilibrium it's just Gould focused on peripheral population, but then again you knew that since you "understand" it so well.

[ilikeninjacats]

Actually, I didn't know that. I don't read about darwins work other than evolution.

[Cnidarious]

"I understand it, that's why I don't believe it. "

Quite the opposite really.

[evolutionary101]

I hate this guys voice.

[proudjester]

It is interesting. I believe PE happens to a point, but I'm more for the gradual changes point of view.

Talked to Jay Gould from the University of West Florida, he said S. Gould (he had met him) got a bit of flak from the scientific community for PE.

[Doazic]

There are a ton of books dissing PE. I personally hate the snot out of PE.

[CaptainX210]

I don't think it's very fair that most evolutionists lump christians together as idoits or misguided. Many christians don't entirely agree with Kent Hovind. A lot of us actually approach science as science and don't try to make it fit religion though I do believe it has only made my belief stronger.

[Gringoman911]

Kent Hovind is a fraudsters sitting in jail right now.

[DeadMindWorking]

So nice to have someone to add to the ranks of scientifically literate atheists(that's not to much of assumption, is it?) debunking creationist claims

[Thunderf00t]

an extremely competent video, GJ dude!

[CommanderFox89]

Awsome video! The cool kids sure do know how to puctuate Equilibrium!

[msginca]

Fantastic video ... Thank You! for making these!

[Paxmax]

Nice analogy. Good vid, will watch more!

[PlaceBoInternational]

I don't know, man. The crazy stuff you were talking about may even point some people to Christianity! Just an idea.

[charla272]

what???????? what a crock of crap c'mon my understanding of PE is it happens that fast it leaves no transitions

[Impaler1815]

Then your understanding is wrong.

[vegrin]

Steven J. Gould, one of the founders of the idea of PE, never said that there were no transitions, only that the transition was so "quick" that the chances of any transitional forms leaving traces in the fossil record were minute. It is good old darwinism, just re- packaged in a new term, to separate it from the idea of slow incremental continuous change. Which even Darwin himself discounted. The argument is over the mechanisms that drive PE.

[SJP3793]

Very interesting. Science is interesting. Some Christians are idiots for denying science.

[bartlebyonline]

I was watching this video to learn about puntuated equilibrium. I am fine with the fact that the speaker wishes to dispell myths about P.E. but the overall mood of the video seems rather insecure in that the speaker cannot make his point without blasting cretionalists and makin a point of exclaiming that "rational" thinking is a quality reserved for only those that share his idea.

[RoadRrunner]

Agree with the point of the hijacking of Gould and Eldridge work by creationist. Gould at the end suggested he was only revising Darwin theory but it is far more than that. From my point of view it would be good to see more of that discussion, Gould's revision of macroevolution.

[HKragh]

You are cool, and you get far from the attention you deserve. You are very clear in your presentation.

Subscribed...

[Impaler1815]

Thanks. It's good to have some appreciation.

[Crunchbite37]

very iiinteresting...