[...]
>
>Gould concludes with a call for pluralism:
>
>"In summary, Darwin cut to the heart of nature by insisting so
>forcefully that "natural selection has been the main, but not the
>exclusive means of modification"--and that hard-line adaptationism
>could only represent a simplistic caricature and distortion of his
>theory. We live in a world of enormous complexity in organic design
>and diversity--a world where some features of organisms evolved by an
>algorithmic form of natural selection, some by an equally algorithmic
>theory of unselected neutrality, some by the vagaries of history's
>contingency, and some as byproducts of other processes. Why should
>such a complex and various world yield to one narrowly construed
>cause? Let us have a cast of cranes, some more important and
>general, others for particular things--but all subject to scientific
>understanding, and all working together in a comprehensible way."
>
>Which only goes to confirm ReMine's point that "Evolutionary
>theory is a smorgasbord":
>
>"The central illusion of evolution lies in making a wide array of
>contradictory mechanisms look like a seamless whole. There is no
>single evolutionary mechanism-there are countless. Evolutionary
>theory is a smorgasbord: a vast buffet of disjointed and conflicting
>mechanisms waiting to be chosen by the theorist. For any given
>question, the theorist invokes only those mechanisms that look most
>satisfying. Yet, the next question elicits a different response,
>with other mechanisms invoked and neglected. Evolutionary theory has
>no coherent structure. It is amorphous. It is malleable and can
>readily adjust to disparate patterns of data. Evolution accommodates
>data like fog accommodates landscape. In fact evolutionary theory
>fails to clearly predict anything about life that is actually
>true....evolution is not science." (ReMine W.J., "The Biotic
>Message", 1993, p24)
>
If you don't mind, I would like to ask you a couple of questions.
(1) Why is it unreasonable to suppose that a complex phenomena may
involve many different mechanisms? Or, as Gould put it:
"Why should such a complex and various world yield to one narrowly
construed cause?"
(2) Why is it unreasonable that some mechanisms might be active
in some situations and not in others?
(3) Why is it unreasonable to describe a particular case only in
terms of the mechanisms appropriate to that case?
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"If cucumbers had anti-gravity,
sunsets would be more interesting"
-- Wesley Elsberry