Showing posts with label stephen jay gould. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stephen jay gould. Show all posts

Friday, January 4, 2008

The Irish Elk (neither totally Irish nor an Elk)...

Of all the extinct mammals I knew of as a child, Megaloceros was the most memorable. I remember turning the pages of a glossy picture book and seeing, for the first time, the huge antlers and strong body of the animal. I was in awe. When I visited the AMNH over my winter vacation I saw my first Megaloceros skeleton and I was no less impressed.

What's even more impressive is the amount of involvement Megaloceros has had in evolutionary debate.

Picture from http://www.arcticwebsite.com/

Megaloceros, or the "Irish Elk," was first described in 1697 by Thomas Molyneux, who,
being a man of his time, believed that it was extant. Eventually, the Irish Elk was used by Georges Cuvier to demonstrate that extinction did in fact occur.

Megaloceros was also used as an example in the theory of orthogenesis. Proponents of orthogenesis, according to Stephen Jay Gould, "claimed that evolution proceeded in straight lines that natural selection could not regulate. Certain trends, once started, could not be stopped even if they led to extinction." The antlers of the Irish Elk seemed to validate the theory. The animal evolved from smaller deer featuring small antlers and eventually, its antlers became so over sized that the deer could no longer function. Orthogenesis attributed the extinction of Megaloceros to the bulk of its head ornament. Unfortunately, modern creationists use the Irish Elk as an argument against natural selection.

The size of Megaloceros's antlers, according to Gould, can be attributed to allometry or proportional growth. He rejects the idea that the antlers outgrew their purpose. Gould says, "I believe that the supposed problem of "unwieldy" or "cumbersome" antlers is an illusion rooted in a notion now abandoned by students of animal behavior."

Gould proposed that the antlers were used for display. Their size was actually an advantage: larger antlers conveyed higher status and dominance. The increasing size of the antlers alternately caused an increase in the body size of the deer and, as Gould expresses below, also explains the morphology of the antlers.

As devices for display among males, the enormous antlers of the Irish Elk finally make sense as structures adaptive in themselves. Moreover, as R.Coope of Birmingham University pointed out to me, the detailed morphology of the antlers can be explained, for the first time, in this context. Deer with broad-palmed antlers tend to show the full width of their antlers in display. The modern fallow deer (considered by many as the Irish Elk's nearest living relative) must rotate its head from side to side in order to show its palm. This would have created great problems for the giant deer, since the torque produced by swinging the ninety-pound antlers would have been immense. But the antlers of the Irish Elk were arranged to display the palm fully when the animal looked straight ahead. Both the unusual configuration and the enormous size of the antlers can be explained by postulating that they were used for display rather than for combat.
I, for one, am thoroughly impressed with Gould's writing and thinking. His essays are packed with information and easy to read, though not dumbed down at all. My immediate reaction to his writing is to think warmly of him and somewhat idolize him. I understand that some people disagree with much of Gould's thinking and that many actively oppose him. I'd love to know more about it. What do you think of Gould? Why?

REFERENCES
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1977. Ever Since Darwin: Reflections on Natural History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Ltd.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Back to Basics #1 - Punctuated Equilibrium

Today, in a desperate attempt to find a hint of paleontological research at OPU, I typed "paleontology" into the search field on the university's home page. Though there wasn't much in the way of dinosaur research, I was surprised to find a few interesting articles on evolution, which is something I don't know much about, but should.

My favorite article was "Opus 200" by Stephen Jay Gould, published in Natural History, August 1991, 100 (8):12-18. You can read the paper here.

I was SO impressed with the article. I don't know what the current opinion of punctuated equilibrium is, but it's a fascinating concept. Gould's article has done something that Julia over at The Ethical Palaeontologist has done; it has turned science into something less superhuman and more accessible while maintaining its complexity. When I decided to go back to school, I was overwhelmed by the amount of information that presented itself to me. I was even more overwhelmed by the nature of the information; it was in a different language and in order to read a paragraph in a journal, I had to use a dictionary. I felt hopelessly stupid and incapable. After reading this article and some of Julia's posts, I feel capable of grasping the "impossibly" complex concepts of paleontology.

Punctuated equilibrium suggests an alternative to the gradual evolution of species. It suggests that speciation occurs rapidly (but only in a geological time frame) and reaches a point of stasis in which a species remains stable and fairly unchanged. The rapid speciation occurs as a result of small populations becoming isolated from larger populations. The small population undergoes change much more rapidly than a small population, speeding up the process (Gould, 1991).

What fascinates me about punctuated equilibrium (p.e.) is that it attempts to explain the "gaps" in the fossil record. If speciation occurred as the p.e. model suggests, then the "gaps" are not gaps at all, but evidence of equilibrium and rapid change (Gould, 1991).

I also like the history of Gould's theory. It fascinates me that his theory was used by Creationists to disprove the theory of evolution...that they could conclude from his argument that no intermediary specimens existed and therefore evolution was a lie. Gould refutes this well, saying "punctuated equilibrium...is a different theory of intermediacy for evolutionary trends—pushing a ball up an inclined plane for gradualism, climbing a staircase for punctuated equilibrium" (Gould, 1991). Either way, the ball is heading up the hill...

This, of course, just confirms my belief that creationists are experts at using rhetoric to argue science, rather than science itself.

I'm going to continue searching for articles, but meanwhile, I'd like to know what you all think about punctuated equilibrium.

References:
Stephen Jay Gould, "Opus 200," Natural History 100 (August 1991): 12-18.