I don't know whether anyone has thought of this... (1 Viewer)

[TQuadded]

Since Punctuated Equilibrium focuses on 'what' happens in evolution and Natural Selection focuses on 'how' it happens, why can't we combine them?

I have been thinking for a while about this and I'm not sure whether or not somebody has ever proposed it, but here is my explanation:

- The lack of change or stasis is accounted by the lack of change in the environment. As they are perfectly suited to the environment, no further evolution is required.

- The environment is only suddenly drastically subjected to change through abrupt eruption of volcanoes and impacts of asteroids, noticed in the extinction events. This in turn causes the sudden changes in the species.

- The survivors reproduce due to already being suited to the environment.

- There is much more evidence for Natural Selection as humans begin to populate the world. This leads to rapid changes in the environment, and hence a much faster rate of change than before. (EDIT: But not that fast. It is gradual, however this is noticeably faster than the 'stasis' periods.)

- Therefore, the Punctuated Equilibrium, if anything, only supports the theory of Natural Selection.

 

[Mr_Kap]

Since Punctuated Equilibrium focuses on 'what' happens in evolution and Natural Selection focuses on 'how' it happens, why can't we combine them?

I have been thinking for a while about this and I'm not sure whether or not somebody has ever proposed it, but here is my explanation:

- The lack of change or stasis is accounted by the lack of change in the environment. As they are perfectly suited to the environment, therefore no further evolution is required.

- The environment is only suddenly drastically subjected to change through abrupt eruption of volcanoes and impacts of asteroids, noticed in the extinction events. This in turn causes the sudden changes in the species.

- The survivors reproduce and due to already being suited to the environment, they survive and reproduce.

- There are much more evidences for Natural Selection as humans begin to populate the world. This leads to rapid changes in the environment, and hence a much more constant rate of change than before.

- Therefore, the Punctuated Equilibrium, if anything, only supports the theory of Natural Selection.

But not DARWIN's THEORY of evolution via natural selection, because darwin said gradualism.

 

[TQuadded]

But not DARWIN's THEORY of evolution via natural selection, because darwin said gradualism.

I meant that it was noticeably faster than the evidence in which Punctuated Equilibrium derived from, not that species change everyday.

 

[Queenroot]

As of now biologists think both processes happen concurrently.

Please explain in more detail.
Are you trying to say that the periods of stasis have gotten smaller because of environmental changes that humans have made?

 

[TQuadded]

As of now biologists think both processes happen concurrently.

Please explain in more detail.
Are you trying to say that the periods of stasis have gotten smaller because of environmental changes that humans have made?

That was what I was thinking - both can be true.

And yes, that was what I was trying to get through. The periods of stasis are shorter today because of humans. When humans weren't present, there was a much longer stasis period because of the insignificant changes in the environment, which is what punctuated equilibrium was based off of.

 

[Queenroot]

That was what I was thinking - both can be true.

And yes, that was what I was trying to get through. The periods of stasis are shorter today because of humans. When humans weren't present, there was a much longer stasis period because of the insignificant changes in the environment, which is what punctuated equilibrium was based off of.

Although what you're saying is correct, humans have only been present for about 40,000 years on the earth and of that 40,000 years, only the past 300 or so years have humans made any environmental impact with the rise of the industrial revolution. So technically environmental change isn't significant enough yet to contribute to punctuated equilibrium, however maybe in the next few thousands of years it will be. You need something very extreme for punctuated equilibrium to occur. The last of this type was I think the megafauna in Australia.

I think what you are saying is that eventually stasis periods will shorten enough so that punctuated equilibrium will become one with gradualism - which is probably true.

As of now, both processes are fact and occur when there are conditions for them to do so. There is live evidence for gradualism occuring.