Re: "Punctual Equilibrium", or "evolutionary stuff"

["John R. Ernst" <ernst@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Charles,

Thanks for your post, reproduced below.  There is
only one part about which I'd like to know more.

Who are these people who hold telelogical views
relative to the coming revolution (smile)?  I often
hear the postition denounced but I have never
heard anyone defend it.   Let me say that I, too,
am against it and am in search of the oppostion.


John




On Sat, 13 Jan 1996 "Charles K. MacKay" <ckmackay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:



>Thanks for the report. The Seattle Times reporter got it wrong. It's
>"punctuated" equilibrium, not "punctual" equilibrium. As any
>paleontologist, economist, or chaos theorist will tell you, equilibrium
>is rarely "punctual."
>
>Gould has a ton of books out -- mostly compilations of his monthly
>columns from "Natural History" -- all well worth reading on their own
>merits. He is also the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation "genius"
>award.
>
>My own take on his extra-professional thoughts is that his view of
>history, derived from his research, makes Marxism about the only broader
>philosophy he *** could *** consistently hold, and he would be
>unsympathetic only to the teleological,
>"the-revolution-must-come-someday" bent in Marx's thought.
>
>Regards,
>
>Charlie
>
>
>
>MD575151@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>
>>  This just in.....
>>
>>       I just thought that I would share this article with all of you.  I

>read
>> this in the Jan. 12 issue of the Seattle Times.
>>
>>      This article is about the evolutionary theories of Stephen Gould, a

>> Harvard peleontologist.
>>
>>      His thesis: "In 1972 Gould and collegue Miles Ildridge started a
>> paleontological revolution by arguing evolution occurs not gradually,
but in
>> spurts in response to environmental change, a theory called 'punctual
>> equilibrium.'"
>>
>>      This does not have much to do with it, but it is interesting.  "In
his
>> book 'The Mismeasure of Man,' he showed how 19th-century racial
predjudices
>> led to the misinterpretation of skull evidence of racial intelligence,
>> anticipating today's debate over 'The Bell Curve.'"
>>
>>      O.K.  Here is is evolutionary contribution.  "The first is that
earth
>is
>> indeeed history, not destiny: a story ruled by chance...that, if run
over
>> again, would probably result in some other species dominating the
planet."
>>  Stephen argues that evolution is just "dumb luck", not "survival of the

>> fittest, implying that humans are the "fittest".
>>
>>      "The second is that evolution does not risult in progress--that it
did
>> not march from primitive bacreria to complex, triumphant us."  He also
says
>> that humans are not the dominant speceis, bacteria has been here for
longer
>> than any other living organism, and because the only "purpose of life"
is to
>> survive, bacteria best fit this purpose--survival of the fittest.  On a
>> personal note, my dad told me when I was young (younger) that animals
have
>> claws, teeth, fur etc., but humans have brains, brains and
conscienceness
>are
>> our "gift".  Whatever.  It seems to me that an organism lacking
>> conscienceness is far better suited for survival than anything that is
>> capable of imagining "morals".  Then again, it also seems that an
organism
>> lacking life, like a rock, is far, far, far, better suited for
"survival"
>> than anything capable of "reproducing".
>>
>>      "Gould argues that our own breif tenure on earth is the result of
dumb
>> luck, not fitness, worth, or Divine Plan."  That's pretty strait
forward.
>>
>>      This also has nothing to do with paleontology, but because this is
a
>> Marxism list...."Press him on the religious and political implications
of
>> that or his own beleifes -- is he a Marxist, or an atheist? -- and he
tends
>> to skate away, argueing that such falls outside of the province of
science."
>>  The Times reports that Mr. Goulds father was a Marxist, how taboo.
>>
>>      If any of you have anything to add, please do so.  This is the
first
>> time that I have ever read of Gould's work, so if anyone has anything to

>add,
>> please do so.  I have always excepted Darwinism and the idea of
"survival of
>> the fittest" with blind faith, I never had any reason to question it.
>>
>> Hope you enjoyed my report,
>>                                      Mike Dean
>>                                      Hs066@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> P.S. This is totaly of the subject, but does the Communist Party, USA,
elect
>> their chairpeople, or are they "chosen".  I am not trying to discredit
the
>> party, I would like to somehow help the cause, but want to find out
about
>the
>> CP before I commit myself.
>>
>>      --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------