For the alternative theorists:

Quote the article.

And I might just quote this: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/hum...FILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-TnL5HPStwNw-_-10:1&r=1

Note: June 2013

And just for the sake of it


Editorial Reviews
From the Publisher
"I strongly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in human evolutionary genetics or anthropological genetics. It would be an ideal choice for advanced undergraduates and graduate courses on this topic, and would also be a key reference for those active in such research." - Human Genomics

"This is an absolutely superb book! I have been recommending it enthusiastically to professional colleagues, graduate students, and even the occasional highly motivated undergraduate student, and the response has been overwhelmingly positive. Not only is the book unique in terms of topical coverage, but it is also extremely well executed. In fact, it is one of the best textbooks on any subject I have ever read. It belongs on the shelves of everyone interested in the genetic aspects of human evolution. There is also much of value in it for paleoanthropologists, historical linguistics, archaeologists, and human biologists (biological anthropologists), as well as for geneticists with various complementary specialties and interests." - American Journal of Human Genetics

"I strongly recommend Human Evolutionary Genetics as an undergraduate textbook. At the same time, I recommend this book to any readers with an interest in human evolution or human genetics." - Human Genetics

"In all honesty, there are few comparable textbooks on this subject, and this edition of Human Evolutionary Genetics really raises the bar. I wholeheartedly recommend this volume, and anticipate building a course around it in my own teaching." - The Quarterly Review of Biology

"This is a very valuable, stimulating and challenging book for students, who will benefit from having had a previous grounding in basic biology, chemistry and statistics. For teachers this will also be valuable as a comprehensive review for courses in several aspects of human evolutionary genetics and as a teach*ing aid."- Journal of Biological Education
American Journal of Human Genetics
"This is an absolutely superb book! ...Not only is the book unique in terms of topical coverage, but it is also extremely well executed. ...It is one of the best textbooks on any subject... It belongs on the shelves of everyone interested in the genetic aspects of human evolution. ...It should quickly become the book to consult for genetic information pertinent to the evolution of our species. To the authors... a hearty congratulations for a job well done!"
—76:0, 2005

See! Text books do have peer review.
 
rav posted a link to an article alleged to be the one from "science" somewhere else on the board, but it isn't sourced from jstor.

i copy/pasted a few quotes from the article i found that WAS sourced from jstor:
The absence of transitional forms be- tween established species has tradition- ally been explained as a fault of an im- perfect record, an argument first advanced by Charles Darwin. The accumulation of sediments and the entrapment and fossilization of animal bones is, at best, a capricious process: as a result, geologists are familiar with the difficulties of reconstructing past events. According to the traditional position, therefore, if sedimentation and fossilization did indeed encapsulate a complete record of prehistory, then it would reveal the postulated transitional organisms. But it isn't and it doesn't.
Click to expand...
"Certainly the record is poor," admitted Gould, "but the jerkiness you see is not the result of gaps, it is the consequence of the jerky mode of evolutionary change." To the evident frustration of many people at the meeting, a large proportion of the contributions were characterized more by description and assertion than by the presentation of data.
Click to expand...
In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said: "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from 884 what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate."
Click to expand...
 
Well, I could quote mine Human Evolutionary Genetics, but why don't you just download thee book somewhere and read it yourself.

If you were actually interested (which I doubt.)
 
Trippy said:
This should be compulsory reading...

10 Scientific Ideas That Scientists Wish You Would Stop Misusing
Click to expand...

Oh yeah!! Certainly should!

I'm sure Trippy does not mind me posting the first two points. In essence, it's sums up this thread in my opinion.

""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""
1. Proof:
Physicist Sean Carroll says:
I would say that "proof" is the most widely misunderstood concept in all of science. It has a technical definition (a logical demonstration that certain conclusions follow from certain assumptions) that is strongly at odds with how it is used in casual conversation, which is closer to simply "strong evidence for something." There is a mismatch between how scientists talk and what people hear because scientists tend to have the stronger definition in mind. And by that definition, science never proves anything! So when we are asked "What is your proof that we evolved from other species?" or "Can you really prove that climate change is caused by human activity?" we tend to hem and haw rather than simply saying "Of course we can." The fact that science never really proves anything, but simply creates more and more reliable and comprehensive theories of the world that nevertheless are always subject to update and improvement, is one of the key aspects of why science is so successful.

2. Theory:
Astrophysicist Dave Goldberg has a theory about the word theory:


Members of the general public (along with people with an ideological axe to grind) hear the word "theory" and equate it with "idea" or "supposition." We know better. Scientific theories are entire systems of testable ideas which are potentially refutable either by the evidence at hand or an experiment that somebody could perform. The best theories (in which I include special relativity, quantum mechanics, and evolution) have withstood a hundred years or more of challenges, either from people who want to prove themselves smarter than Einstein, or from people who don't like metaphysical challenges to their world view. Finally, theories are malleable, but not infinitely so. Theories can be found to be incomplete or wrong in some particular detail without the entire edifice being torn down. Evolution has, itself, adapted a lot over the years, but not so much that it wouldn't still be recognize it. The problem with the phrase "just a theory," is that it implies a real scientific theory is a small thing, and it isn't.
http://io9.com/10-scientific-ideas-that-scientists-wish-you-would-stop-1591309822
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
 
Just_a_theory.jpg
 
Exactly, Beer. I was thinking: t's only a theory that you'll be ripped to shreds by jumping in front of a speeding train.

leopold:

From your long-standing issues with punctuated equilibrium vs gradual accumulated change: take for example the cite you gave above:

The absence of transitional forms be- tween established species has tradition- ally been explained as a fault of an im- perfect record, an argument first advanced by Charles Darwin. The accumulation of sediments and the entrapment and fossilization of animal bones is, at best, a capricious process: as a result, geologists are familiar with the difficulties of reconstructing past events. According to the traditional position, therefore, if sedimentation and fossilization did indeed encapsulate a complete record of prehistory, then it would reveal the postulated transitional organisms. But it isn't and it doesn't.
Click to expand...

None of the evolutionary biologists were saying the gradual accumulated change doesn't happen. When they talk about punctuated equilibrium, they are saying that in addition to gradual accumulated change, there seem to have been periods of relative stasis (gradual accumulated change) followed by some large change in a short time. For example, consider the fusion of chromosome #2 which is evidently the fundamental shift that split Homo from the apes. This is no typical mutation, but one which carried a chromosomal anomaly on the order of Fragile X or any of the many known anomalies that are associated with debilitating illnesses. In this case, the anomaly was successful for producing human cognition. Was it gradual and accumulated? Yes. Was is punctuted? Sure looks like it was.
 
leopold said:
[
of course.
that's why the conclusion [gradual accumulated change] was " no it doesn't".
Click to expand...

You're either forgetting or ignoring Stephen Jay Gould's own illustrations in which he documents gradual accumulated change. I posted these for at least twice before for you--do you remember? They showed the gradual accumulated change among brachipods he was documenting. This is typical of most of the fossil record. The episodes of apparent punctuated equilibrium are few and far between these long running cases of gradualism. You are focusing only at the boundary of major phyletic change, which is not the main subject of evolution. Nor is the question of rates of change, which is highly subjective and relative.
 
Aqueous Id said:
You're either forgetting or ignoring Stephen Jay Gould's own illustrations in which he documents gradual accumulated change. I posted these for at least twice before for you--do you remember? They showed the gradual accumulated change among brachipods he was documenting. This is typical of most of the fossil record.
Click to expand...
a slow gradual change IS NOT typical of the fossil record aqueous, and this was pointed out in the article.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top