Talk:Punctuated equilibrium/Archive 1

message: I have removed the following section:
:==Simulations==
:Recently, computer simulations have provided some insight into how punctuated evolution may work: The equilibrium periods show a gradual accumulation of neutral mutations, and the jump occurs when some beneficial combination of them reaches a certain threshold percentage. 
While certainly interesting, the phenomenon demonstrated seems akin to saltation, not punctuated equilibrium.  If this isn't so, then a better explanation is needed, as well as references.--Johnstone 02:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on simulations

message: The article, at the time of my writing, says: "Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with quantum evolution, saltationism, catastrophism, and with the phenomenon of mass extinction, and is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism."
It might be noteworthy to add that Mayr in his book "The Growth of Biological Thought : Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance" (1982), notes that he believes Gould & Eldredge theory is more accurately described as saltationism than his own, which he considers different. While he might have changed his views, it is hard to forget this comment. --Thomi 02:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read Mayr more carfuly (which I had to do many times) he actually considers it both gradual and saltational—all in in the same breath! First as a gradual account, when it properly employs his mode of peripatric and allopatric speciation. And then in the saltational mode, which Mayr (wrongly) interpreted from a poor reading of Gould's Natural History essay "The Return of Hopeful Monsters." For his proof Mayr quotes Gould as saying "Macroevolution proceeds by the rare success of these hopeful monsters, not by an accumulation of small changes within populations." But if you look at the essay it is as clear as day that Gould was articulating Goldschmidt's views, not his own. Furthermore this paper was never related—directly or indirectly—to punctuated equlibrium, but rather, as an attempt to open theoretical space to the idea, long disposed, that "small changes early in embryology accumulate through growth to yield profound differences among adults." Gould did play with a moderate form of saltationism, but not in the essay Mayr quotes. This is to be found in the 1980 paper listed in the bibliography. But as before, it had nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium. Best, Miguel Chavez 18:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And you're right, he has since changed his views. Best, Miguel Chavez 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ernst Mayr's understanding of punctuated equilibrium. 

message: hi guys!
i added a bit about evidence, this stuff is well proven and it would be a shame if it did not reflect on the article
besides from the mechainsm i mentioned there are anothers (at least one that i dont remember right now)
bye!
(sorry for my poor english)
:I think that the bit you added, is not quite about PE, i.e., stasis and periods of quicker evolution, but rather about genetic and developmental mechanisms for quick evolution, which are not part of PE per se, even though they can be. But are not more PE than phyletic gradualism or punctuated gradualism, never the less. --Extremophile 00:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  addes stuff about evidence 

message: I think that the mentioned opposition of Dawkins is problematic area. I do not think that he has a problem with punctuated equilibrium, but more with the way it used to be divulged:
*What needs to be said now, loud and clear, is the truth: that the theory of punctuated equilibrium lies firmly within the neo-Darwinian synthesis. It always did. It will take time to undo the damage wrought by overblown rhetoric, but it will be undone. [251]"
*... it is all too easy to confuse gradualism (the belief, held by modern punctuationists as well as Darwin, that there are no sudden leaps between one generation and the next) with 'constant evolutionary speedism' (opposed by punctuationists and allegedly, though not actually, held by Darwin). They are not the same thing at all. [242-243]
From the "Blind Watchmaker" book
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Books/blind.shtml
--Extremophile 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dawkins quotes that might be added 

message: Please do not impose a particular view of punctuated equilibrium on this article when the newer scientific literature supports alternatives.  Wikipedia articles are supposed to have an NPOV.--StN 02:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with you changing the section header, but I'm not sure what you mean with the above. There are all sorts of alternatives to Punctuated Equilibrium, it is only one amongst numerous macroevolutionary theories. On the other hand, the only 'particular view' that really matters is that of E+G, as put forward in their original paper with subsequent papers by them clarifying and expanding their original intent, and perhaps that of their supporters who add evidence or further clarification within the avowed framework of PE. I'm not sure if one can have an alternative view of a particular scientific theory; one either believes that it's true or that it is not. A better word for 'an alternative view' would be 'a new theory', i.e. Einstein had an alternative view of the workings of gravity to Newton. Badgerpatrol 03:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Alternative interpretations," in this context, is meant to indicate that "PE is a form of gradualism" is not the only way of understanding how the pattern discerned by E+G arose.  There are other possibilities, as I have indicated in the additions.  So this is not an alternative to PE, but an alternative to the assumption that everything in evolution has to be gradualistic, even when it doesn't look that way.--StN 03:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative interpretations 

message: How is this theory really a science? It's really hard to accept it as science, if this is what science is all about:
   1. Make observations.
   2. Form a testable, unifying hypothesis to explain these observations.
   3. Deduce predictions from the hypothesis.
   4. Search for confirmations of the predictions;
      if the predictions are contradicted by empirical observation, go back to step (2).
TalkOrigins.
It seems like it's a poor exuse to fill in the gaps for unexplained theory of transitional steps of macroevolution. This is pure hypocrisy due to the fact that most deniers of creation, trying to poke fun of ID (intelligent design), say that ID theory is based on a belief in this so called God of Gaps (who is a supernatural being). Well, punctuated equilibrium theory is one strong claim, however without any evidence to back it up? (or to be more scientific, why don't we observe this happen today), so we can predict it as having occured in the past? And please don't use such statements as "it must have happened, therefore it did".Lyotchyk 10:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punctuated Equilibrium - God of gaps? 

message: I'm not an expert but I think that species substitution has much to do with TE, like being almost half of it, doesn't it? But the article doesn't even mentions it. --Extremophile 00:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  species substitution 

message: So What?
Theres plenty of other people with no relivant qualifications who argue against somthing, for all sorts or irrlivant reasons.
The wording is just terrible "has even" "non-biologists" you will find people who oppose everything in every field.
--Biebersbro (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of punctuated equilibrium has even appeared from non-biologists.

message: Just cleaning up and archiving here. *swings his feather duster around gaudily*
By the way, the depth of understanding that this article assumes varies, but worse off, the average knowledge on the subject assumed is too deep itself. There are plenty of people out there who want to know what Punctuated Equilibrium is who haven't taken ecology courses, or took their last one a few decades ago. Most people don't know what sympatric, allopatric, and destabilising selection (forget if that's what you call it) are. And they don't want to have to read through 80 links to be "qualified" to read this article, so the solution isn't to put up more links.
This article needs to be put in plain English, boys.
Anyone here who knows the basics of ecology: break down some of the scary words into layman's English. Easy up the language. If you think this current bookish version is too educative to dumb down, move parts of it to the ecology wikibook before you dumb the article. But it does need to be dumbed down in some places (specifically the first three sections.. it seems to get a little easier after that).
Don't forget, your audience is a bunch of people who barely understand what evolution is. You don't need to cater to the ignorant (you don't need to re-explain evolution here), but at least allow them to eat at the table with you (make it so they can follow along).
-Monk of the highest order 06:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on whether people consider this an encyclopaedia for grown ups, or a Jack and Jill site for ill-educated creationists.
=== Acquiescence? ===
Under "Punctuated Equilibrium's History," is "acquiescence" the correct word or should it be "acceptance" or something else? 
Monado 11:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving. Also, the article is too wordy.

message: Under "Punctuated Equilibrium's History," is "acquiescence" the correct word or should it be "acceptance" or something else? 
Monado 11:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acquiescence? 

message: I think that this section is somewhat misleading, or at least incomplete. Despite of the Darwin quote stressing the importance of the large areas, and demining somewhat the importance of isolation, "darwinism" as it is known didn't stop with Darwin (which barely knew mendelian genetics, and probably (my guess) haven't taken it into consideration at all), and with the modern synthesis (by 1930, about 40 years before PE), the aggregation of populational genetics with neodarwinism, the importance of peripheral isolates is at least implied, but was even stressed by some, such as Sewall Wright with his shifting balance theory of evolution, and Ernst Mayr emphasized the importance of allopatric speciation, isolation implied.
But also, the quotation in that context constrasts somewhat artificially Darwin's views with PE and its precursors. Much of what he is saying in the quotes, could be recontextualized and seen as an example of how he anticipated not only peripheral isolation as important for species formation, and also the species substitution (and species selection) of PE, to which, I think, isolation is also a hinderance. --Extremophile 06:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  relation to darwinism 

message: Researchers from the National Institutes of Health used data from the Influenza Genome Sequencing Project and concluded that during the ten-year period examined most of the time the hemagglutinin gene in H3N2 showed no significant excess of mutations in the antigenic regions while an increasing variety of strains accumulated. This resulted in one of the variants eventually achieving higher fitness, becoming dominant, and in a brief interval of rapid Darwinian evolution rapidly sweeping through the human population and eliminatimg most other variants. Science Daily article New Study Has Important Implications For Flu Surveillance published  October 27, 2006
WAS 4.250 22:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI addition to [[Influenzavirus A]]

message: I believe if the material below were incorporated in the article it would make it less biased.
First, I found the following quote: "Although uncertainty exists about just how recently the pairs of species diverged and about the relation between range and population size, Anderson and Evenson's data does not support Eldredge and Gould's claim that speciating populations are very small." —*Mark Ridley, "Evolution and Gaps in the Fossil Record," in Nature 286(5772):444-445 (1980). *Anderson and *Evenson did a 1978 study on geographic ranges of North American species which are supposed to have diverged recently.]    
I also found this material criticizing punctuated equilibrium: "But why do proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory insist so much on the concept of restricted populations? The reason is clear: Their aim is provide an explanation for the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. 
However, scientific experiments and observations carried out in recent years have revealed that being in a restricted population is not an advantage from the genetic point of view, but rather a disadvantage. Far from developing in such a way as to give rise to new species, small populations give rise to serious genetic defects. The reason for this is that in restricted populations individuals must continually mate within a narrow genetic pool. For this reason, normally heterozygous individuals become increasingly homozygous. This means that defective genes which are normally recessive become dominant, with the result that genetic defects and sickness increase within the population.178
In order to examine this matter, a 35-year study of a small, inbred population of chickens was carried out. It was found that the individual chickens became progressively weaker from the genetic point of view over time. Their egg production fell from 100 to 80 percent of individuals, and their fertility declined from 93 to 74 percent. But when chickens from other regions were added to the population, this trend toward genetic weakening was halted and even reversed. With the infusion of new genes from outside the restricted group, eventually the indicators of the health of the population returned to normal.179"   ken 11:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed tag. Just because your creationist POV doesn't fit the article does not mean the article has a problem. POV trolling is the problem. Vsmith 15:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are Nature and Science forbidden journals to allude to.  Because that is what was alluded to here.  Putting back POV tag.  ken 17:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You didn't cite Nature and Science. You cited second hand creationists who cite Nature and Science. We've been over this before. They aren't WP:RS and that isn't acceptable. And once again the sources are way out of date. In this case at 26 and 28 years out old they are even more out of date than the ones you wanted to put on the Dawkins page. Now stop, this is getting to be disruptive. JoshuaZ 18:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disruptive to what?  Disruptive to your desire to have biased articles that are propaganda pieces for the evolutionary position?  Articles should be NPOV.  ken 18:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding the issue of small population - this illustrates the problem with quote mining quote miners.  To begin with, the article was about prairie chickens, not chickens.  It appears that the author of "darwinism refuted" doesn't realise that there's a difference between the two.  If you actually look at the article, Illinois populations declined from "possibly several million prairie chickens statewide in the mid-19th century" to 2000 birds in 179 populations, to 46 birds in two populations in 1994.  So this isn't an article about small populations, it's an article about precipitously declining populations.  And that makes a huge difference.  Large populations can tolerate fairly large genetic loads.  However, when individuals are moved from large populations to small populations, you now have a much higher probability of deleterious alleles coming together (see inbreeding depression).  This isn't the case in populations which were small to begin with (or which declined gradually).  In cases like that, the genetic load is lower to begin with, so they are more tolerant of inbreeding.  Taking one of the most extreme examples (millions to dozens in a century) and trying to generalise it to small populations in general is dishonest.  Which, again, leads back to the issue of why you should not quote second hand sources.  Guettarda 13:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding the Ridley reference - I don't see how Ridley's statement, from a quarter century ago, which says that Anderson and Evenson's data did not support punctuated equilibrium somehow makes this article non-neutral. The intro to the article contrasts PE with gradualism, and even a cursory glance down the article shows a criticism by Dawkins.  So what about the article is non-neutral?  Eldridge and Gould proposed to idea to explain trilobites.  Anderson and Evenson, according to your source, looked at species which diverged recently.  While I don't have a context for what Ridely said, I suppose given that there was still a fairly polarised debate regarding PE back in 1980, it may have been worth pointing out.  But, to the best of my knowledge, no one is saying that PE applies in all cases, but rather than it may apply in some cases.  Anyway, I still don't understand what any of this has to do with NPOV.  Guettarda 13:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased article - More Criticism of Punctuated equilibria position needed

message: I think the following article clarifies matters further:  Punctuated equilibrium: come of age? by Dr Don Batten 136.183.146.158 00:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you stop spamming AiG links?  I'm failing to see how a "Creationist Agricultural Scientist" can be taken seriously in any meaningful scientific context. *Spark* 02:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the article was quite informative and would give some needed balance to the Wikipedia article.  136.183.146.158 03:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Ken, you're wrong.  The article is basically balanced as it is, and input from someone who has no business commenting in a scientific article is not warranted. *Spark* 03:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The following critique of the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis should be incorporated in the article 

message: Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 02:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: ===Punctuated equilibrium===
:result:No consensus (leaning toward keep) 3-3
Warned by me 5 weeks ago regarding lack of inline citations. Delist. LuciferMorgan 02:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I'm sorry, but I don't understand what the problem with the article is...  / Fred-Chess 09:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Conversion to Cite.php would be a lot of work, especially as Harvard referencing is a perfectly acceptable form of inline referencing on Wikipedia.  I've put a proposal up on the associated wikiproject to change the method of citation from plain Harvard to Harvard with templates, as seen in Charles Darwin.  But without consensus on this change from the wikiproject, I am reluctant to do so myself, as I've previously had very little to do with this article. -Malkinann 23:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hold on a minute, "Awaiting consensus"? Many GA reviews end with no consensus at all, and this looks like a 3 to 2 vote. Homestarmy 20:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I count 3-3. - Malkinann 08:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It is better than the average article.  Two years ago, it was checked by the Nature journal and found to be a pretty good article, with no glaring omissions.  Isn't there no such thing as a perfect article, anyway?  -Malkinann 07:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, I'll give it a go. :) -Malkinann 04:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been bold and changed the footnotes to Harvard citation.-Malkinann 06:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result of the GAR 

message: :result:No consensus (leaning toward keep) 3-3
Warned by me 5 weeks ago regarding lack of inline citations. Delist. LuciferMorgan 02:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I'm sorry, but I don't understand what the problem with the article is...  / Fred-Chess 09:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Conversion to Cite.php would be a lot of work, especially as Harvard referencing is a perfectly acceptable form of inline referencing on Wikipedia.  I've put a proposal up on the associated wikiproject to change the method of citation from plain Harvard to Harvard with templates, as seen in Charles Darwin.  But without consensus on this change from the wikiproject, I am reluctant to do so myself, as I've previously had very little to do with this article. -Malkinann 23:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hold on a minute, "Awaiting consensus"? Many GA reviews end with no consensus at all, and this looks like a 3 to 2 vote. Homestarmy 20:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I count 3-3. - Malkinann 08:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It is better than the average article.  Two years ago, it was checked by the Nature journal and found to be a pretty good article, with no glaring omissions.  Isn't there no such thing as a perfect article, anyway?  -Malkinann 07:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, I'll give it a go. :) -Malkinann 04:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been bold and changed the footnotes to Harvard citation.-Malkinann 06:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Punctuated equilibrium]]

message: I don't want to sound like I'm stupid or something but could someone clear it up for me... if like a bird hatched from a lizard egg or something and flew off happily ever after, what would it mate with to, erm, make more birds? Thanks!! hope I didn't sound entirely naive or anything LOL 24.231.209.204 23:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia talk pages are not the place to ask questions about the subjects of their associated articles. That being said, the process you described is called saltation, and it doesn't actually happen. Every offspring is the same species as its parent, and they turn into different species slowly over many generations. Consider reading the TalkOrigins article "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology" before writing about the subject, and please don't use Wikipedia talk pages for this purpose. -- Schaefer (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a quick question!!

message: I will start by saying that I am a supporter of the Modern evolutionary synthesis and an opponent of Intelligent design. However, I believe that the theory of punctuated equilibrium is deeply flawed. Daniel Dennet (well-known as a supporter of Darwinian evolution and atheism) gives a harsh criticique of punctuated equilibrium in Chapter 10 of Darwin's Dangerous Idea. I was surprised that there is no discussion of the controversy in this Wikipedia article. See Dennett's book for further references.--Pdturney 00:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Daniel Dennet's criticism amounts to "what's the big deal?" I imagine it would be difficult to incorporate this "argument" into the body of the article. Miguel Chavez 06:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your summary of Dennet is accurate but simplistic. "What's the big deal?" is a valid question. And it's a question that Gould was unable to answer. --Pdturney 02:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. But there is a curious aspect of evolution called tempo. For those who study evolution, they are very curious as to how the tempo of evolution behaves. Does it behave uniformly, or on multiple levels? Is it slow, or fast, and is it gradual or sporadic? Paleontologists who study this phenomenon have wondered about the tempo of change even before Darwin published his Origin of Species, and for them--and really for anyone who has an honest curiosity about the nature of evolution--they wonder about such things. Eldredge and Gould proposed a novel answer to this problem (by combining several theories, and applying new statistical techniques to the empiric's of paleontology). They challenged their colleagues to look at their data in a completely inverted way. So for some, this idea might be worthy of some attention. But if you don't care about such things, and all you care about is adaptation, I can see why you might throw your hands up and say "what's the big deal?" Miguel Chavez 07:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Dennet and Dawkins would agree that the issue of tempo is interesting, but argue that Eldredge and Gould do not shed light on the issue; rather, they confuse the issue. --Pdturney 14:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding your latter statement, Dawkins has said just the opposite in The Extended Phenotype (p. 101), and Dennet (I'm not quite sure what particular statement you're referring to) is not remotely qualified to offer an opinion one way or another. He simply has no grasp of the paleontological literature. Best, Miguel Chavez 15:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "What needs to be said now, loud and clear, is the truth: that the theory of punctuated equilibrium lies firmly within the neo-Darwinian synthesis. It always did. It will take time to undo the damage wrought by the overblown rhetoric, but it will be undone." (Dawkins 1986)--Pdturney 21:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I agree with Dawkins, but so does Gould. The problem arises when people like Dennet run their mouth and haven't a clue to what they're talking about. When Gould says punctuated equilibrium challenges neo-Darwinism, he means its commitment to gradualistic modes of change. Even Dawkins admits that stasis was unexpected (p. 243). If this article has a problem, and it has many, it stems from a lack of disscussion of the "species as individuals" hypothesis, variable speciation rates, and its implication for a hierarchical theory of selection, etc. If I were you, I would read Gould's original papers, as many as you can, read some of the major reviews (Mayr, Ruse, etc.) and then, and only then, make up your mind. I too started with Dennet and had to work my way out. Best, Miguel Chavez 01:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read several of Gould's books (Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Ever Since Darwin, The Panda's Thumb, Wonderful Life, Full House, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory) and several reviews of Gould (Dawkins, Dennet, Papineau, Tooby and Cosmides, Wright, Ruse, Alcock). I agree completely with Dennet's conclusions about Gould in Darwin's Dangerous Idea. It's clear that you and I are not going to agree on Gould, but I think we can agree that this article needs to discuss the controversy in more detail. --Pdturney 15:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gould's books are a great start, but I meant his original technical papers. And by reviews, I meant both sides of the controversy, and those written by professionals who know what they're talking about. For example, a list of competent critics would include names like Maynard Smith, Stebbins, Gingerich, and Ridley; not Dennet. Best, Miguel Chavez 04:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Lastly, I agree with you on the need to expand on the controversies section, but I don't have the time right now to go through the literature and write up summaries. If you wish I can help you incorporate some of the arguments into the article, in fact, I would be more than happy to do this, but I need to know what criticisms you have in mind (short of Dennet's antipathy). Best, Miguel Chavez 15:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: On your advice I incorporated a detailed summary of Dawkins' critique, as expressed in his Blind Watchmaker. There will be more will come as time permits me. Miguel Chavez 02:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good summary! --Pdturney 12:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Miguel Chavez 17:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: After having gone back and reread Dennett, I now regret my remarks (with regards to Dan's section on punctuated equilibrium). His analysis is actually quite reasonable, and it is obvious to me that he has taken his time to read the original papers carefully. My apologies, I was brash and unfair. But I think you overestimate Dennett's arguments here. He actually holds a very moderate opinion on the whole issue of Punc Eq. It is far less extreme than the rest of Dennett's book. Best, Miguel Chavez 05:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I noticed that too. I took parts of some paragraphs in the Controversy section that belonged in the Misconceptions section and placed them there, keeping other parts of the paragraph in the Controversy section. --76.93.130.28 (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Whoever you are, you copied and pasted this from a creationist web site and inserted it into the article at least six times without any discussion in the talk page, only to have it reverted every time because you're misrepresenting the sources and drawing your own conclusions about the material (WP:OR,WP:SYN).  One paper cited is [ Templeton et al. 2001], which you claim shows that habitat fragmentation leads to extinction.  The actual abstract says "... population genetic theory and experiments predict that most fragmentation events caused by human activities will facilitate not speciation, but local extinction. Founder events have played an important role in the macroevolution of certain groups, but only when ecological opportunities are expanding rather than contracting. The general impact of human activities on genetic diversity disrupts or diminishes the capacity for adaptation, speciation, and macroevolutionary change." (emphasis mine). The other paper cited, Higgins and Lynch 2000, is almost entirely irrelevant to the claims made for it.  That paper says that a metapopulation composed of multiple small, poorly connected populations is subject to a high mutational load, and at risk of extinction; the authors' point is that such metapopulations are as vulnerable as single small populations.  As with the other paper, there's no claim that this means that all small populations must necessarily go extinct, nor that punctuated equilibrium "doesn't work".  Agathman (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: This article lacks a proper and coherent outline. I've cleaned it up a little, but I was thinking of something along the lines of:
*Introduction
*Brief History
*Mechanisms
*Tempo and Mode Before 1972
:*Pre-Darwin
:*Charles Darwin
:*1859-1930s
:*Neo-Darwinian Synthesis
*Summary of 1972 Paper
*Reception
:*Summary
::*Positive Reception
:::*Detailed list of supporters (possibly in an endnote)
::*Critical Responses
:::*Richard Dawkins	
:::*John Maynard Smith
:::*Francisco Ayala
:::*Daniel Dennett
:::*Philip Gingerich 
:::*Detailed list of detractors (possibly in an endnote)
:::*The Tri-fold history
::*Popular Press
::*Creationists
*Alternative Support
:*Neo-saltationism
:*Complexity theory
:*Species as individuals
::*Michael Ghiselin and David Hull
::*Gould and hierarchy
Any suggestions would be more than welcome. This list, if implemented, will demand much more work from contributors. Best, Miguel Chavez 03:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outlining

message: Most of you who edit this article and such probably already knew what it was so it might be hard to tell. But to someone like me who has no clue what it's about and is just reading it to understand a term from Science class the introduction is very confusing. A lot of terms in that intro that I don't understand, maybe links to an article that explains what they mean would help while a few of the sentences aren't that clear. Just some suggestions. Thanks! Deflagro  C/T 01:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Deflagro is onto something. The first sentence of the intro is not the right lead for the section. I don't trust my own editiorial powers in this subject area, but I may take a run at it. This should be viewed as a threat because I might botch it. DCDuring 03:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I hope I've made a small improvement, the lede could be further improved. Verisimilus T 10:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I hope to have addressed this point. Verisimilus T 17:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Would anyone object to the insertion of a paragraph on gersick punctuated equilibrium model of group development into the social theory section. Its explained pretty well on http://www.misrc.umn.edu/workshops/2006/spring/alan.pdf if anyone want to have a look. So let me know, an addition to this article or a seperate article?
Oops, I didn't see this note when I added the paragraph under "applications to social theory".  See if you like it.  Based on the PDF maybe a bit more detail might be good but I wanted to stay away from a in-depth discussion because I thought that the article should be accessible enough for people to grasp the general biological idea and some of the applications outside of biology/evolution.  Jsarmi 15:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold!  Go ahead and get stuck in! You can edit where you like and let the bureaucrats worry about the best place to put it later.  Verisimilus T 18:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gersicks

message: The comments with the diagram at the top of the article has the tag "verification needed."   The tag raises the question "Doesn't genetic change count?"  
Of course genetic change counts -- I suppose there could be only little morphological change without genetic change. But, didn't the idea for Punctuated Equilibrium come from looking at the fossil record?  It is notoriously hard to obtain genetic information from a fossil.  
Also, the ideas for taxonomy, the relationships of species, the "tree of life" predate our ability to analyze genetics. SlowJog (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the question I was trying to raise was whether punctuated equilibrium was a consequence of long periods of underlying genetic change, expressed in a sudden burst of morphological variation - as the image caption implies - or whether both genes and mophology undergo a rapid change at once, as I understand the hypothesis to suggest. The hypothesis can be (and I think has been) tested in recent groups for which DNA is available, although the details desert me. Verisimilus T 11:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't interpret the diagram & caption to imply anything -- one way or another -- about the underlying genetics.  I simply see the intent of the diagram's creator to illustrate in a simple manner the difference between phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. SlowJog (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It would be interesting if someone were to add more information about the underlying genetics in the article, though. SlowJog (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on diagram description 

message: Punctuated equilibrium is referred to in the lead as a hypothesis, and elsewhere as a theory. Which is it? Theory has very specific requirements. Has punctuated equilibrium met those requirements (and can we have a citation for that) or are we just using the word casually? I've seen it listed as a theory, hypothesis, observation, etc. WDavis1911 (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that PE has been tested and the literature widely refers to it as a "theory" I think theory is the most suitable term. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Punctuated equilibrium is not a theory. How could it possibly be one? It is a hypothesis (see Futuyma. Evolutionary biology, p. 137.) If gradualism is referred to as a hypothesis in Wikipedia, then so should punctuated equilibrium. mezzaninelounge (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory or hypothesis 

message: Isn't really necessary.  I'm no paleontologist or biologist, but punctuated equilibrium is the same essential idea, except that hopeful monsters is now a term used by creationists in the hope that people hearing it will think it's stupid without knowing anything about it. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even close. Different mechanisms, different rate of change, different agency, and the latter says nothing of stasis. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate page for [[hopeful monsters]]

message: One argument I've seen against punctuated equilibrium is that it overlooks changes which occur which are not preserved in the fossil record, but are preserved in the genetic code. Basically, things which aren't preserved in the fossil record occur as well (things like behaviorial changes, changes in soft organs which aren't preserved, ect), and as such Gould underestimates the true continuity of evolution. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, that should be included as well. However Gould has addressed that argument many times. His response is that there is no reason to think that sibling species evolve any differently than morphological species, therefore you can deduce the former by examining the latter. Therefore if morphological species evolve by fits and starts, sibling species should as well. In the case of molecular evolution, Gould has always allowed for its continual presence through geological time. He and other punctuationists fully accept the tenets of gradual molecular evolution, especially with regard to neutral evolution. But as Gould points out, punctuated equilibrium is not about molecular changes, it is about the emergence and deployment of species through time. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing argument 

message: I'm not the person to do it well, but this article cites Dawkins far too much to be fair to PE. The evaluation given here, both in marginalizing the differences between PE and Neo-Darwinism and in marginalizing the value of PE in general, are adjudged faulty in Sterelny's book (which is generally overly-generous to Dawkins and itself overly attempting to play down the differences or the problems each theory sets for the other). There is nothing like this from Gould's side on the Phyletic gradualism page. Also, giving the scathing back and forth in the New York Review of Book letters, it seems extremely disingenuous to suggest so strongly that PE is squarely within even the Modern evolutionary synthesis given its emphases (if not its mechanism or timelines). Finally, some discussion of the many important results or at least strains of thought justifying the viewpoint against the type of Neo-Darwinism held by most MES adherents is in order given all the criticism. At least some mention of genetic disparity, the problems of extrapolationism, the Cambrian explosion, and the more recent supportive evidence in Burgess Shale, Chengjiang, and Sirius Passet.
67.166.176.181 (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though in a different way. Neo-Darwinism (or rather, Dawkins et. al.) does not represent Darwinism as a whole (I think of it as the New Age counterpart to science or... like pop rock music... I guess... but that's a bit of bias from me), I'd still like to see criticisms that aren't "Richard Dawkins says *enter text here.*" It's bland really and it makes me wonder what OTHER people think, seeing as I see his name on very science article I read on Wikipedia... which is odd because I thought he was just a popular evolutionary biologist. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much Dawkins/Neo-Darwinism 

message: I just reverted an edit quoting "Dr Fazale Rana, executive vice president of research at RTB" and citing two PNAS abstracts.  The editor claims that punctuated equilibrium "doesn't work".  One abstract cited was [ Templeton et al. 2001], which was misquoted as saying "habitat fragmentation doesn’t drive speciation; rather it leads to extinction."  The actual abstract says "... population genetic theory and experiments predict that most fragmentation events caused by human activities will facilitate not speciation, but local extinction. Founder events have played an important role in the macroevolution of certain groups, but only when ecological opportunities are expanding rather than contracting. The general impact of human activities on genetic diversity disrupts or diminishes the capacity for adaptation, speciation, and macroevolutionary change." The other paper cited, Higgins and Lynch 2000, is almost entirely irrelevant to the claims made for it.  That paper says that a metapopulation composed of multiple small, poorly connected populations is subject to a high mutational load, and at risk of extinction; the authors' point is that such metapopulations are as vulnerable as single small populations.  As with the other paper, there's no claim that this means that all small populations must necessarily go extinct, nor that punctuated equilibrium "doesn't work".  Agathman (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And now the material was put back in without discussion on this talk page.  I removed it again.  Agathman (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  And now it's back again.  I'm not going to get involved in an edit war here.  Maybe someone else would like to take a look at the passage in question.  Agathman (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed and blocked anon for edit warring. Vsmith (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The temporary block expired, and the same material was promptly added from the same IP again.  Agathman (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted passage critiquing punctuated equilibrium 

message: I understand what the image is trying to say. However, strictly speaking, the branches would represent changes, thus the representation of the squarish graph versus a smooth, gradual one does not accurately depict what is going on. The gradual representation should look the same as the punctuated one with the exception that it has more branching over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.168.1.99 (talk • contribs) 
:Branching represents "speciation," not morphological change. Change is represented by lateral movement across the hoizontal plane. Moreover a key aspect of punctuated equilibrium is that evolution is generally limmited to key moments of speciation, so if the figure has a flaw, it is that the gradual representation should have less branching, as it is often associated with anagenesis. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Would it be appropriate to include Greg Bear's sci fi book Darwin's Radio as a work of fiction which uses Punctuated Equilibrium as one of the plot points?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.79.49 (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading 

message: Choosing to classify a scientific idea as either a hypothesis or theory can be somewhat subjective, and may depend on how scientists understand  the two terms. Generally philosophers and historians of science have identified two principal properties of a scientific theory. First, that it is a general explanation which incorporates other hypotheses to explain a series of broad observations. Second, that it has withstood critical testing and scrutiny, and thereby functions as a plausible explanation by professionals in the scientific community.AHD. 2005. American Heritage Science Dictionary. New York: Houghton Mifflin, p. 313. By such a definition punctuated equilibrium surely meets the minimum requirement for a scientific theory. 
While practitioners in the fields of paleontology and evolutionary biology use both terms to describe the model of evolution proposed by Eldredge and Gould, the term most often used in the professional literature today is the word "theory."
Notable evolutionists who favor the word theory include Ernst Mayr,Mayr, E. 1998. This is Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 71. who was among the greatest evolutionists of the 20th century. And although Mayr began as a critic of punctuated equilibrium, he became a strong devotee as time went on.Mayr, E. 1992. "Speciational Evolution or Punctuated Equilibria." In Albert Somit and Steven Peterson's The Dynamics of Evolution. New York: Cornell University Press, pp. 24-25, 27, 29-30, 32, 36. The eminent evolutionist John Maynard Smith disagreed with Gould about the tempo of evolution, but he nevertheless saw fit to describe PE as a theory,Maynard Smith, J. 1983. "The Genetics of Stasis and Punctuation." Annual Review of Genetics 7 (Dec.): 11-13. which if true was saying something very significant about the character of evolutionary change. Richard Dawkins—perhaps the best known evolutionist today—devoted an entire chapter to PE in his book The Blind Watchmaker, and while critical, designates PE with the word "theory," in this bookDawkins, R. 1986. Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, pp. 229, 236, 244, 250-251, 287. and others.Dawkins, R. 1982. Extended Phenotype. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 102.Dawkins, R. 2004. A Devil's Chaplain. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 199, 212.Dawkins, R. 2005. The Ancestor's Tale. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 499. Philosopher of biology, and outspoken critic of Gould, Michael Ruse also describes PE not only as a theoryRuse, M. 2008. Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 55, 212, 215, 220, 595, 614.Ruse, M. 2000. The Evolution Wars. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, p. 323. but a genuine scientific paradigm.Ruse, M. 1992. "Is the theory of punctuated equilibria a new paradigm?" In Albert Somit and Steven Peterson's The Dynamics of Evolution. New York: Cornell University Press, 1992, pp. 139.Ruse, M. 1989. The Darwinian Paradigm. London: Psychology Press, pp. 94, 116-118, 121-123, 125-126, 130, 135, 138-139, 140, 143-144. Mark Ridley, another critic of Gould and former student of Richard Dawkins, wrote a definitive textbook on evolution titled Evolution. Throughout the text Ridley also prefers to use the word theory.Ridley, Mark 2004. Evolution. Third edition. New York: Blackwell, pp. 599-601. Other prominent scientists include George C. Williams,Williams, G. C. 1992. Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 125. G. Ledyard Stebbins,Stebbins, G. L. and F. Ayala. 1985. "The evolution of darwinism." Scientific American 253 (July): 72-89. Michael T. Ghiselin,Ghiselin, M. 1997. Metaphysics and the Origin of Species. New York: SUNY Press, p. 268. Francisco J. Ayala,Ayala, F. J. 2005. "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory: on Stephen Jay Gould's Monumental Masterpiece." Theology and Science 3 (1): 97, 100-101, 104, 106-108. Richard Lewontin,Lewontin, R. C. It Ain't Necessarily So. New York: NYRB, p. 60. Richard Levins,Lewontin, R. and Richard Levins. C. 2009. "Stephen Jay Gould: What Does it Mean to be a Radical?" Stephen Jay Gould. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 200. Steven Rose,Rose, S. 1999. "Evolutionary psychology–biology impoverished" Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 24 (4): 175-178. Sean B. Carroll,Carroll, S. B. 2008. "Evo-devo and an expanding evolutionary synthesis." Cell 134 (July 11): 25. Steven Pinker,Pinker, S. 1995. "Natural language and natural selection." The Adapted Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 458. Norman D. Newell,Newell, N. 1999. "This view of Stephen Jay Gould." Natural History 108 (Nov.): 54. Jerry Coyne,Coyne, J. and B. Charlesworth. 1997. "On punctuated equilibria." Science 276 (5311): 337-341. Brian Charlesworth,Charlesworth, B., R. Lande, M. Slatkin. 1982. "A Neo-Darwinian commentary on macroevolution." Evolution 36 (3): 474-5 478 480 490, 493. William Provine,Provine, W. B. 1989. Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 286, 494. John Turner,Turner, J. 1984. "Why we need evolution by jerks." New Scientist 101 (Feb. 19): 35. Stuart Kauffman,Kauffman, S. 1993. The Origins of Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 19. paleoanthropologists such as C. Loring Brace,Brace, C.L. "Punctuationism, cladistics and the legacy of Medieval Neoplatonism." Human Evolution 3 (3): 121-139. Richard Leakey,Leakey, R. 1996. The Sixth Extinction. New York: Anchor Books, p. 226. Tim White,White, T. 2009. "Ladders, Bushes, Punctuations, and Clades." Paleobiological Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 137. Ian Tattersall,Tattersall, I. 1999. Becoming Human. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 94. and historians of science Peter J. Bowler,Bowler, P. J. 1983. Evolution: The History of An Idea. Berkeley: University of California Press, p. 336. Frank Sulloway,Sulloway, F. 1987. "The metaphor and the rock." New York Review of Books 34 (May 28): 39-40. Michael Shermer,Shermer, M. "This view of science." Social Studies of Science 32 (4): 497, 511. and Frank Rhodes.Rhodes, F. 1983. "Gradualism, punctuated equilibrium and the Origin of Species" Nature 305: 269-272. Then of course there are the numerous writings of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.Gould, S. J. 1980. "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology 6 (1): 125.Gould, S. J. 1981. "Evolution as fact and theory." Discover 2 (May): 34-37.Gould, S. J. 1982. "The meaning of punctuated equilibrium and its role in validating a hierarchical approach to macroevolution." In R. Milkman, ed., Perspectives on Evolution. Sunderland MA: Sinauer Associates, p. 88.Gould, S. J. 1982. "Punctuated equilibrium—a different way of seeing." New Scientist 94 (April): 137-139.Gould. 1985 "The paradox of the first tier." Paleobiology 11 (1): 4-6, 10.Gould 1986, "Punctuated equilibrium at the third stage." Systematic Zoology 35 (1): 143.Gould, S. J. 1992. "Punctuated equilibrium in fact and theory." In Albert Somit and Steven Peterson The Dynamics of Evolution. New York: Cornel University Press, pp. 56-57.Gould, S. J. 1993. "Punctuated equilibrium comes of age." Nature 366 (6452): 223-227.Gould, S. J. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 37, 39, 49, 55, 563, 606-7, 652, 714, 755, 765-6, 768, 772, 774-5, 777, 791, 794, 796, 807-8, 822, 824-5, 839-41, 851, 854, etc., etc.Eldredge, N. 1986. "Progress in evolution?" New Scientist 151 (June): 54-55.Eldredge, N. 1992. "Punctuated equilibria, rates of change, large scale entities." In Albert Somit and Steven Peterson The Dynamics of Evolution. New York: Cornel University Press, p. 104.
After the publication of Eldredge and Gould's 1972 paper, numerous paleontologists sought to investigate their claims, and have contributed greatly to the understanding of evolutionary tempo. Paleontologists who describe PE as a theory rather than hypothesis include David Raup,Raup, D. 1992. Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck? New York: W. W. Norton, p. 7. David Sepkoski,Sepkoski, D. 2009. "Radical or Conservative." The Paleobiological Revolution. Chicago: Chicago University Press, p. 303. Richard Fortey,Fortey, R. 2000. Trilobite!. New York: Knoff Press, p. 165. Peter Ward,Ward, P. 1998. The Call of Distant Mammoths. New York: Springer, p. 103. J. William Schopf,Schopf, J. W. 1999. Evolution!: Facts and Fallacies. New York: Academic Press, p. 45. Robert L. CarrollCarroll, R. 1997. Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. xii, 86, 89, 110, 145. Elisabeth Vrba,Lieberman, B. and E. S. Vrba 2005. "Stephen Jay Gould on Species Selection" Paleobiology 31 (2): 113-121. Donald Prothero,Prothero, D. 1992. "Punctuated equilibrium at twenty." Skeptic 1 (3): 38-47. Tim Flannery,Flannery, T. 2002. "A New Darwinism?" New York Review of Books 49 (May 23): 52-54. Douglas Erwin,Erwin, D. 2010. "Microevolution and macroevolution are not governed by the same processes." Contemporary Debates Philosophy Biology. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 182, 184.Erwin, D. and R. Anstey 1995. New Approaches to Speciation in the Fossil Record. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 3, 7, 14-18, 22, 24, 37, 39, 67. 77, 202-204. Warren D. Allmon,Allmon, W. D. 2009. "The Structure of Gould." Stephen Jay Gould. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 8, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20. Robert T. Bakker,Bakker, R. 1996. The Dinosaur Heresies. New York: Kensington Publishing, pp. 398, 401. John R. Horner,Horner, John. 1997. Dinosaur Lives. New York: Harper Collins, pp. 169-70, 175, 190. Michael McKinney,McKinney, M. and L. Drake. 2001. Biodiversity Dynamics. New York: Columbia University Press, p. 283, 430-431. Bruce Lieberman,Lieberman, B. 2000. Paleobiogeography. New York: Springer, p. 67. Mark McMenamin,McMenamin, M. 1998.The Garden of Ediacara. New York: Columbia University Press, p. 216. Patricia Princehouse,Princehouse, P. 2009. "Punctuated equilibria and speciation." Paleobiological Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 155. 159-160, 168, 171. David Fastovsky,Fastovsky, D. 2009. "Ideas in dinosaur paleontology." Paleobiological Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 243. John Huss,Huss, J. 2009. "The shape of evolution." Paleobiological Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 326, 339. Richard Bambach,Bambach, R. 2009. "From empirical paleoecology to evolutionary paleobiology." Paleobiological Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 398. Anthony Hallam,Hallam, A. 2009. "The problem of punctuational speciation and trends in the fossil record." Paleobiological Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 428 430. Arthur Boucot,Boucot, A. 2009. "Punctuated equilibrium versus community evolution.' Paleobiological Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 438. John Alroy,Alroy, J. 1998. "Equilibrium diversity dynamics in North American mammals." In Michael McKinney and James Drake. Biodiversity Dynamics. New York: Columbia University Press, p. 283. David Norman,Norman, David. 2005. Dinosaurs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 42. D. B. Lazarus,Lazarus, D. B. 2001. "Species Evolution." Paleobiology II. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 135. Richard Kerr,Kerr, R. 1996. "New mammal data challenge evolutionary pulse theory." Science 273 (5274): 431. and many, many others.Mettler, L., T. Gregg, and H. Schaffer. 1988. Population Genetics and Evolution. Englewood Cliffs , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, p. 304.Anderson, T., D. Schum, W. Twining. 2004. Darwinian Heresies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 37, 150.Aronson, R. and R. Plotnick. 1998. "Scale independent interpretations of macro evolutionary dynamics." In Michael McKinney and James Drake. Biodiversity Dynamics. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 430-1.Cachel, S. <ref>Courtillot, V. 1999. Evolutionary Catastrophes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 136, 152, 163.McShea, D. and R. Brandon. 2010. Biology's First Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 115.
To justify the preference for the designation "hypothesis" we our provided with Douglas Futuyma's seminal textbook Evolutionary Biology. While both Futuyma and his textbook are very well respected in the field of evolutionary biology, Futuyma's practice of dubbing punctuated equilibrium a hypothesis is: first, unrepresentative of most biologists; second, frequently inconsistent;Futuyma, D. 1986. Evolutionary Biology. New York: Sinauer Associates, p. 247. and third a reflection of Futuyma's conservative employment of the word theory. For example, in his book Science on Trial Futuyma goes as far as to say, "Every scientific claim is a hypothesis, however well supported it may be."Futuyma, D. 1983. Science on Trial. New York: Pantheon Books, p. 167. This point is further elaborated upon in the opening pages of his textbook Evolutionary Biology. There he states his  preference to restrict his use of the word "theory" to describe a "complex of statements" which are composed of a large "body of hypotheses" which "does not stand or fall on the basis of a single critical test."Futuyma, D. Evolutionary Biology, 3rd ed., Sinauer Associates, 1998, pp. 9-12. Futuyma thereby limits the word theory to such things as "atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of plate tectonics," but not others theories like allopatric speciation, the idea that hemoglobin carries oxygen in our blood, or the "hypothesis that smoking causes cancer." Futuyma also makes a distinction between the "pattern of punctuated equilibrium" and the "hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium." The pattern represents the empirics of the theory, and hypothesis represents the causal agency. Yet in other places he uses the word "theory" to identify the whole structure of punctuated equilibrium.Futuyma, D. 2002. "Stephen Jay Gould a la recherché du temps perdu." Science 296 (April): 662. With these facts in mind, Futuyma should hardly be considered the definitive word on the matter.
The words: tempo, mode, pattern, model, hypothesis, theory, thesis, idea, concept, and paradigm have all been used to describe punctuated equilibrium in the literature (and they are often used interchangeably).Dennet, D. 1996. Darwin's Dangerous Idea. New York: Simon and Schuster, pp. 282, 290-291.Levinton, J. S. 2001. Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 307, 311-312, 319, 338, 366, 502.Hoffman, Antoni. 1989. Arguments on Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 133. In fact Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge made it a point to use the more neutral word "picture" in their 1972 paper to avoid what they called a "tedious debate" about what to label their new idea.Eldredge, Niles, and S. J. Gould (1972). "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism." In T.J.M. Schopf, ed., Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper and Company, p. 84. However as they began to develop PE over the years you see a notable shift in their language. They switch to the word model,Eldredge, N., and S. J. Gould. 1977. "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered." Paleobiology 3: 115-151.<ref>Gould, S. J. 1980. "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology 6 (1): 125. and eventually move to the word theory. 
Lastly, just as an experiment I ran the phrases "hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium" and "theory of punctuated equilibrium" through Google's digitized book search engine. The phrase with the word theory returned 2,080 results, whereas hypothesis only returned 119. [As of 4/22/2015, the disparity has grown even more skewed, 13,8000:375.] The same pattern resulted using Google Scholar, with the word theory returning 1,010 results and the word hypothesis only returning 60.
Today it is obvious that the word theory dominates the professional literature with the highest relative frequency. As such it should be used in this article. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Hypothesis vs. Theory'''

message: The following more suitable template has been substituted for  by Jerzy•t 02:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Literature cited