RM>To the group:
RM>On June 9 I asked if this quotation from Niles Eldredge in an
RM>article by Roberrt Augros reflected the true state of affairs
RM>concerning natural selection:
[Partial quote expunged]
RM>Weley Elseberry responded:
Whoever this "Weley Elseberry" is, he's on the ball. ;-)
WE><The first paragraph of Origin of Species indicates that the reporter,
WE>at least, needs a refresher course. Note the word used there:
WE>"coadaptation". Not "adaptation". Claiming that a raw, spite-only
WE>competition represents the whole of Darwin's argument for natural
WE>selection is a *gross* misrepresentation.
WE>Also, the ecologists mentioned said that competition between species
WE>was more rare than one might expect, but the reporter extended that
WE>statement to "species and individuals", which doesn't jibe with
WE>the various studies cited by Pianka in "Evolutionary Ecology".>
RM>But what about my question? Is Eldredge's claim correct?
Eldredge's claim? I didn't see a claim by Eldredge.
[RM quoting Augros]
RM>"Another central mechanism in Darwin's explanation is
RM>undermined by modern ecological studies. Ecologists Simberloff,
RM>Kormondy, Messenger, Ricklefs, and Colinvaux, basing their
RM>conclusions on hundreds of field studies, declare that in
RM>nature competition between species is rare to nonexistent.
RM>[Niles] Eldredge points to the many 'ecologists skeptical of
RM>the very concept of the competition between species...who claim
RM>they simply cannot see any evidence for such raw battling going
RM>on nowadays in nature.' But if universal competition between
RM>species and between individuals is not factual, then Darwin's
RM>argument for natural selection fails. Ecological studies have
RM>also documented that species regulate their population size
RM>without recourse to disaster, predation, and disease as Darwin
RM>postulated."
[End quote]
What Eldredge may or may not be claiming cannot be recovered
from this text snippet. *Augros'* claims can be seen. As
pointed out before, Augros appears to be playing fast and loose
with the text.
If either Augros or Eldredge claims that competition *never*
happens between species, they are wrong. If they claim that
competition *rarely* happens, the point is arguable. If they
claim that natural selection does not exist because of negative
evidence, they are wrong. If they claim that Darwin's
presentation of natural selection has been invalidated, they
are wrong. Darwin stated that natural selection would only
operate intermittently, at long intervals.
This sentence...
RM>But if universal competition between
RM>species and between individuals is not factual, then Darwin's
RM>argument for natural selection fails.
...falls cleanly into the 90% bin of Sturgeon's Law.
Hope that helps.
Wesley