Re: Punctured Equilibrium views Darwinian gene flows and causation to be o
[#permalink]
30 May 2025, 04:27
The passage discusses Punctuated Equilibrium, a theory in evolutionary biology that critiques traditional Darwinian gradualism. Key points:
1. Critique of Darwinian gradualism: Punctuated Equilibrium argues that Darwinian views of gene flows and causation are overly $\qquad$ (Blank i) or simplistic.
- Darwinian gradualism suggests slow, continuous changes.
- Punctuated Equilibrium proposes that evolution occurs in rapid bursts followed by long periods of stability.
2. Mechanism: Any comparative advantage (a trait that improves fitness) would be re-absorbed and averaged out in a population before becoming visible. This gradation is too $\qquad$ (Blank ii) for Darwin and his contemporaries to observe.
Analyzing Blank (i)
We need a word describing how Punctuated Equilibrium views Darwinian gene flows and causation. The tone is critical ("overly $\qquad$ or simplistic").
Options:
- A. manipulative: Implies intentional control or deception. Doesn't fit the scientific critique.
- B. ambitious: Suggests Darwinian views are overly ambitious. Not the right critique.
- C. meticulous: Means very detailed or precise.
- Fits well: Punctuated Equilibrium critiques Darwinian views as overly focused on tiny, gradual changes (meticulous) instead of rapid bursts.
Best choice: C. meticulous.
Analyzing Blank (ii)
The gradation (gradual change) is too $\qquad$ for Darwin to observe. This implies the changes are hard to detect or measure.
Options:
- D. underhanded: Suggests deceit. Doesn't fit.
- E. elusive: Means hard to catch or observe.
- Fits perfectly: Gradual changes are too subtle/slow to observe.
- F. cantankerous: Means bad-tempered. Irrelevant.
Best choice: E. elusive.
Verifying the Pair
- (i) "meticulous": Darwinian views are overly focused on tiny, gradual changes.
- (ii) "elusive": These tiny changes are too hard to observe in real time.
This aligns with Punctuated Equilibrium's critique that gradualism is too focused on unobservably slow processes.
Why Not Other Options?
- Manipulative/underhanded/cantankerous: Don't fit the scientific critique.
- Ambitious: Doesn't match the idea of overly detailed or unobservable changes.
Final Answer
Blank (i): C. meticulous
Blank (ii): E. elusive
Correct Pair: C, E