|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
" Punctuated equilibrium is a refinement to evolutionary theory. " IMHO it's a desperate attempt to salvage an untenable theory. But I'm just one of those creationist yokels. Anyways, this sentence is definitely not a dispassionate neutral assertion. Not all evolutionists believe in PE. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
On the Cornets
I added a bit about the cornets. I swear that is no lie, it was in an issue of New Scientist. (Yes, of the 3 entries on talk pages I have made, 2 of htem have mentioned New Scientist.) Sir Elderberry 02:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- This passage makes no sense to me:
- "Eldredge possesses a chart of the development of cornets compared with that for trilobites. The differences between them are meant to highlight the failures of Intelligent Design by comparing a system that is definitely designed, with a system that, according to scientific consensus, is not."
- Which of these "systems" (neither comets nor trilobites qualify) was supposedly designed? And who was the designer? Have I missed something here?
Needs a POV check
The article as it stands is directly lifted from the biography on his own web site  and elsewhere , . Though I don't doubt the factual content, the article could perhaps stand a bit of NPOV adjustment.
I'm also concerned about the question of copyright, since the material is duplicated directly from other sources. --TenOfAllTrades 21:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- 'Directly'? 'Lifted'? My good man, what are you saying? However, thank you for the URL to Eldredge's own web site. I could find no reference anywhere to his DoB, but you supplied a suitable source of information! :)
- I've shined it up a bit, explained some stuff in simpler terms, and removed the reference to Eldredge's eternal battle with the Creationists, as it's not very interesting. Toodle-ooh. sugarfish 23:56, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Further shining. :) Parts still bear a strong resenblance to the "official" biography, but it's getting better. I broke things up into sections that (hopefully) make sense and will encourage further fleshing out. I'm a bit torn about including his entire biblography; I wonder if it might have more punch if only the seminal works were included (or at least highlighted). Oh well—if nobody complains, then it can stay. --TenOfAllTrades 00:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Apparently, "Eldredge is a critic of ... the notion that evolutionary theory can be held accountable to patterns of historical data." Does anyone know what this means? I did a Google search and couldn't find anything.
It did occur to me that it might mean "the notion that evolutionary theory can explain patterns of historical data". But then again, he obviously thinks it can explain it to some extent since he has looked to the past to refine the evolutionary theory and come up with punctuated equilibrium. Is it referring to written history? i.e. the last few thousand years. It is arguable that by that point society is so complex that evolution doesn't tell us much... but now I'm just making stuff up. Does anyone know what the sentence in the article is actually talking about? The phrase has been there since the first version of the article.
Hee hee! Yes, you have the gist of what was intended (I'm sure). Yes, I wrote this, and it seems vaguely familiar. Eldredge is known for pointing to repeated patterns in the "history of life" to refine how evolution is thought to work. This is not akin to Dawkins' Selfish Gene, but more about ecology and environmental factors as an influence on evolution. So it's all about external factors influencing internal ones.
Please, feel free to rewrite. I see how it could be confusing.