<< It seems to me that there is evidence
consistent with evolution, yet there are troubling holes in the data that
one would like to see filled. It remains very possible that these holes
will not be filled to the satisfaction of the model--but this remains to be
shown.>>
Wow, I agree with this wholeheartedly!
How can this be?
I think because I now understand your distinction. You say:
<<Note that up to this point, I have only been speaking on a theoretical
level.>>
And I tend to agree with you on this, too. In the realm of pure theory, one
might make a case for natural selection. But I always jump immediately back to
the hard world of data AND common understanding. Thus, you write:
<< Essentially, the model says that a
primordial ear would arise from random mutations, as you have claimed. This
initial mutation and expression of the phenotype occurs in the absence of
any selective pressure. Then, if this phenotype allows the organism that
has it to reproduce more effectively than an organism without the primordial
ear--this is when selection acts to fix the gene in the population.>>
This is where I have always protested that the theory holds to a hopeful
"reproduce more effectively" gap filler, even though we have nothing to
support that. I also stated this, I'm sure you'll recall, as the "imagined
selective advantage" riff. In THEORY, one can say this always leads natural
selection to do its magic. But in FACT, it is difficult if not impossible to
believe, for me at least, that such mutations as a primordial ear or leg or
lung would ever have the lasting effect on population that is necessary for
the theory to meet the reality.
Perhaps past differences can be traced to my failure to make the distinction
you made in your post.
Jim