From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Wed Aug 13 2003 - 23:43:34 EDT
Sometimes there is so much information, that I loose track of the answer. My
question is a simple one:
Excluding catastrophic events, is natural selection responsible for all
evolutionary outcomes? This is not a trivial question in that it is _the_
critical bone of contention with many Christians (who feel that this is too
cruel to be the way that God would accomplish His goals). To me your answer
seems to say yes and no at the same time. Can you do a "natural selection
for dummies" that would directly address that specific question?
If the answer is that natural selection is indeed -NOT- the end all of all
end alls in evolution, then why is presented as such to the non-specialist
(like me)? Do any scientists ever dispute Dawkins on technical grounds?
Stupidly,
Walt
Keith Miller wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 13, 2003, at 10:18 AM, Walter Hicks wrote:
>
> > I agree that all of these (and ones offered by Terry) affect
> > evolution, but I don't see most of them as alternatives to natural
> > selection. For the most part they introduce variation and then natural
> > selection filters out the ones that are not useful for survival.
> > Catastrophic changes are an exception and certainly would represent a
> > non-"Darwinian" effect.
>
> Firstly, the issue is not an either/or choice between natural selection
> and something else. The question is what is the relative importance of
> different processes under different circumstances and at different
> heirarchical scales. Natural selection is always operative -
> although its impact may be masked by other processes.
>
> Genetic drift and the founder effect are examples where new mutations
> can be fixed in a population (usually small) without the filtering
> effect of natural selection. These processes may be especially
> significant during speciation. Sexual selection is likely another
> important driver of evolutionary change.
>
> Another example at a larger scale is species selection. In this case
> lineages that have higher speciation rates would displace closely
> related lineages with low rates of speciation. The ultimate success of
> lineages in this case would not be controlled by natural selection
> which operates at the level of the individual.
>
> Major extinction events likely had very important impacts on the
> direction of evolution on a large scale. Such effects would be
> independent of natural selection.
>
> Keith
>
> Keith B. Miller
> Research Assistant Professor
> Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
> Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
> 785-532-2250
> http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Aug 13 2003 - 23:52:21 EDT