Re: How can the evolutionary progress from slime to humans be linear?

Thanks, Jim! Just a few comments...

> I'm not sure what gap you're talking about

The "gap" of 90 million years between therapsids and mammals (almost
twice the average).

> KT boundary? 65 mya?

Not that it has any relevancy to my question, but the "gap" is much
closer to the Permian mass extinction (I have read that more than 90%
of all species were wiped out by this event), some 270 MYA, "shortly"
after the therapsids had entered the scene, and close to 100 MYR or so
before the first mammal arrived.

> a concept called punctuated equilibrium

I am rather well familiar with both PE and with "gradualism." The
problem I have with Stephen Gould's reasoning is that I can't find
references to where he proposes an explanation for what eventually
triggers a "burst of favorable mutations" after long periods of stasis
(if you have such a reference, please share!)

> Take a class in paleontology

I have studied paleontology textbooks, and countless paleontology
oriented websites (isn't Google great?). Nowhere have I found anything
even resembling the graph that I had Excel make for me, based on the
"age numbers" that appear most correct. Please give me a reference, if
you know of one!

> One [] misconception about evolution is that it describes a random process

Now, this is news to me! What exactly is the non-random mechanism that
you mention? How can germ line DNA replication errors or germ line DNA
damaged by cosmic rays be described as anything but random? As far as
I know (which doesn't mean a whole lot), these are the only two
mechanisms that produce mutations. I'd love to learn more about
additional mechanisms accomplishing genome refinements!

> emergence of purposeful phenomena

Is this not a tad problematic? If waves pound rocks into sand, does
this make the sand-making mechanism purposeful? To introduce "purpose"
in the process smacks of "divine intervention" (well, to me, anyway),
something that I cannot come to terms with...

> read any of Richard Dawkins books

Have read them all. And I thoroughly dislike his position, which to me
implies that he alone knows what's going on, and that nobody else does.
I also think that his recurring and vitriolic attacks on Stephen Gould
were completely uncalled for, which left me with a sour taste no matter
how good his rhetoric is. Way to often does he express statements that
imply that the gene pool is "making plans," that it has a mysterious
life of its own, "inventing" new (and useful) genes.

> the more you realize how little you know

Amen to that! Although some never seem to realize this: even big shot
scientists have been known to step into the proverbial pile by stating
that "we now know all physics there is to know, with only a few loose
ends left to tie up." Yeah, right!

Uno


.

Relevant Pages
Loading