From: Chris Ho-Stuart <>
Newsgroups: nz.soc.religion,aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The old age of earth argument (was Women teaching in Church)
Date: 27 Apr 1999 02:10:29 GMT

Darren R Middleton <> wrote:
> G'day Chris,

Hi Darren.

> I said "Evolutionists predicated we would actually find the proof in
> fossils"
> What is "simply false" about that?
>
> Then I said "Punctuated equilibrium is a more recent attempt to explain
> the fact that there is no such proof."   So I assume you refer to this
> statement as "simply false".

Yes. It is the second statement which is unambiguously false.

> P.E is recent, and it is a model that sees the gaps not as a result of the
> "incompleteness of the record" but rather it sees them as expected
> according to the evolutionary mechanism put forward.
> So far I cannot see what I said that was "simply false".

It is false in the following particulars:

First, it is false because it states that the proof from fossils has
not been forthcoming.  The fossil record accumulated this century
has confirmed evolution to an exceptionally high degree. And in
science, the word "proof" is used of this kind of confirmation.

Second, it is false because punctuated equilibrium is not an attempt
to explain a lack of proof, but an attempt to explain the picture
which arises of evolutionary time lines as the proof mentioned
previously has accumulated.

> Denton quotes Gould's own words from his book  "The Panda's Thumb", where
> Gould himself says PE is bound to leave gaps between species. Denton then
> summarises by saying "While Eldridge & Gould's model is a perfectly
> reasonable explanation of the gaps of the species (and, in my view,
> correct) it is doubtful it can be extended to explain the larger
> systematic gaps. The gaps that separates species.."

Punctuated evolution does explain gaps in the record. However, the
gaps which it explains are not a lack of some expected proof of
evolution. They are gaps which become apparent only when sufficient
evidence has accumulated to show extended periods of relatively
little change alternating with relatively rapid change. The word
"jump" is more appropriate than "gap", I think; though gap is not
actually wrong.

If a fossil record is highly incomplete, then we have no idea
whether or not punctuated equilibrium applies. If we have a lot of
fossil evidence; then it may be possible to examine the evidence
and argue for or against punctuated equilibria in that lineage.

Denton's remarks are characteristically incompetent. What he means by
"gaps of the species" is anyone's guess. It looks like gaps within a
species. This is not addressed, let alone explained, by punctuated
equilibrium. Indeed, the detail of PE relies upon NOT having large
gaps within a species, because major change occurs in small isolated
populations which subsequently expand into the territorial range
(still) occupied by the "parent" species. Denton also confuses
the phenomenon of punctuated equilibrium and the explanation of
punctuated equilibrium. The latter remains a matter of debate, and
answers probably vary across lineages.

In brief, Denton is a perfectly horrible source for gaining any
understanding of PE.

> Denton continues in this way "The punctuational model of Eldridge & Gould
> has been widely publicized but, ironically, while the theory was
> **developed specifically to account for the absence of transitional
> varieties between species**, its major effect seems to have been to draw
> widespread attention to the gaps in the fossil record."   Which according
> to Gould is "the trade secret of palaeontology"
>
> M Denton, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" pg 193,94
>
> I believe this was my point above Chris.

This part of Denton's statement is correct. Punctuated equilibrium
is intended to explain an absence of transitional varieties between
species; and discussion of the theory has drawn attention to gaps in
the fossil record. It does not follow that punctuated evolution was
proposed to explain some lack of proof for evolution. You could say
it was proposed to explain a lack of proof for phyletic gradualism;
but this was never integral to evolution in any case.

> >The fossil record is secondary evidence which has indeed confirmed
> >the fact of evolutionary change. (And in science, we use the word
> >proof of this kind of confirmation.) The problem is that as more
> >and more evidence accumulated we were able to see more clearly
> >concerning not just the fact of change, but actual variation of
> >the RATES of change.
>
> Snip of a helpful lesson.
>
> >THAT is punctuated equilibrium, nonsense from scientific
> >creationists notwithstanding.
>
> I'm still not clear on why you chose to phrase you opening & concluding
> remarks as you did Chris. I can only conclude that your personal dislike
> of anyone who has the temerity to doubt macro evolution got the better of
> you. I don't mean to be rude, but I could have almost guaranteed you would
> post something of this nature with a few cheap shots thrown in.

You are not in the least rude; and I appreciate that enormously.

Let me hasten to assure you that I have no dislike of you or
Gordon Coleman in particular, who have taken up this subject on
occasion. You both stand out as exceptionally constructive and
valued contributors, and completely "likeable".

There is nothing in the least rude in anticipating that I am likely
to contribute when this subject appears; and I can confirm that I
will continue to do so in the future.

I am not sure what you call a "cheap shot". I have tried (and in
this case, I think I have succeeded) to avoid cheap shots at you
personally. My opening and closing are intended to affirm that I
do NOT blame you for the errors.

My comments about scientific creationists stand unmodified.  If they
come across as little cheap shots on the side then perhaps I should
be more definite; what I suspect you are calling cheap shots were
intended to be an essential part of the post getting at the root
source of the problem.

You view of punctuated equilibrium is common, but it is a
distortion, and it is a distortion fostered by people like Denton.
You are putting your trust in what is totally unworthy of your
trust. I will continue to point out misconceptions; and I will
also continue to point out that the misconceptions are a direct
consequence of nonsense put out by scientific creationists.

One other point. I do not say scientific creationists are putting
out nonsense by definition, because of their conclusions. I assert
that scientific creationist publications actually examined on a case
by case basis for their argument are demonstrated to be nonsense
because of the methods applied, and the level of comprehension
demonstrated of what they claim to refute.

Best wishes -- Chris