Gould and Macroevolution

[Garrette]

As far as I gather, roborrama, yes. But we have now reached the limits of my knowledge regarding this.

 

[Roboramma]

Sphenisc, just to continue. I went back and looked at your link after that last post, in case I'd missed something. Reading it I see Gould saying, basically, "Goldschmitt may have been right, we don't know that he wasn't, let's not throw out his ideas which may be valid, until we can say one way or the other." but it doesn't say that he agrees that he was right. Also, it doesn't say that this is what he was saying with Punctuated Equilibrium.

I willing to be shown that I'm wrong - I really don't know that much about Gould - but I think you may be reading too much into that webpage. On the other hand, I tried following the link at the bottom of that page concerning Gould, but it wouldn't open, so I may have missed something there.

 

[sphenisc]

So basically, you won't see this evolution in the fossil record because it's happening on such a small scale that there are very few intermediates and they would be very unlikley to fossilize. But after this new form spreads out, and proliferates, it becomes very common and much more likely to fossilize. Thus you see it's appearance in the fossil record as sudden.

Sorry sphenisc to have disregarded your last post, but, well, this is what I thought Gould was saying before. Can you give me a reason to change my opinion?

I've provided direct quotations and links as evidence.
Garrette's provided his 'layman's understanding of Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis', without links or quotes.

I, naturally enough, consider my evidence stronger on this basis.

The other point is that Gould may have changed his mind. I'm simply attempting to show that Gould disgreed at some time.

OP:

You stated that the accumulation of micro changes causes macro evolution. Gould disagrees.

If you interpret that as meaning Gould always disgreed, then that's more than I'd care to prove.

 

[Roboramma]

I've provided direct quotations and links as evidence.
Garrette's provided his 'layman's understanding of Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis', without links or quotes.

I, naturally enough, consider my evidence stronger on this basis.

Of course, but I don't think the quotes you've given show what you think they do. For instance, you quoted Gould saying:
"macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated, and that major structural transitions can occur rapidly without a smooth series of intermediate stages."

Which seems to support your point very well.

But you miss the few words before that: "I wish to defend Goldschmidt's postulate that macroevolution..."
I know you don't think the first words make any difference. But I do. Reading it, I see his defense of Goldshmidt as defending the possibility that he's right. He's saying, don't degrade Goldschmidt, don't dismiss him out of hand. That's my reading of it, anyway. I may be wrong, I'd need to read more Gould to know for sure.
He said, "Goldschmidt said this, and I wish to defend his statement". That's very different from him saying it himself.

Basically, I'm saying that there is a big difference between saying that we should look into the possibilities of other mechanisms of macroevolution, and suggesting that we know that those mechanisms actually do exist.

 

[sphenisc]

Of course, but I don't think the quotes you've given show what you think they do. For instance, you quoted Gould saying:
"macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated, and that major structural transitions can occur rapidly without a smooth series of intermediate stages."

Which seems to support your point very well.

But you miss the few words before that: "I wish to defend Goldschmidt's postulate that macroevolution..."
I know you don't think the first words make any difference. But I do. Reading it, I see his defense of Goldshmidt as defending the possibility that he's right. He's saying, don't degrade Goldschmidt, don't dismiss him out of hand. That's my reading of it, anyway. I may be wrong, I'd need to read more Gould to know for sure.
He said, "Goldschmidt said this, and I wish to defend his statement". That's very different from him saying it himself.

Basically, I'm saying that there is a big difference between saying that we should look into the possibilities of other mechanisms of macroevolution, and suggesting that we know that those mechanisms actually do exist.

I really can't see any evidence in his article for the distinction you draw. Gould makes the case for Goldschmidt's postulate in his words, he provides Frazzetta's evidence which post-dates Goldschmidt. Most of the rest of the arguments he presents are his own, rather than a repetition of Goldschmidt's (from memory of reading Goldschmidt, I don't have it to hand).

He states "In my own, strongly biased opinion, the problem of reconciling evident discontinuity in macroevolution with Darwinism is largely solved by the observation that small changes early in embryology accumulate through growth to yield profound differences among adults."

{My bold}

There is simply nothing in the article to suggest that "Goldschmidt said this, and I wish to defend his statement" is very different from him saying it himself. People generaly defend other people's statements because they agree with them, (except in the case of lawyers, where they're paid to).
I see no reason to read anything other that agreement between Gould and Goldschmidt in this case (except in the single item of interpretation that he mentions.)

But either way it doesn't make any difference to the argument; either way, by making a case for the opposite, Gould is disagreeing with the OP statement " the accumulation of micro changes causes macro evolution."