>On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
>> Lloyd Eby writes:
LE>Wrong. Dawkins holds this view.
WRE> ...Followed by a quote from Dawkins that shows that he did
WRE> *not* hold the view referenced.
WRE> <giggle>
WRE> Wesley
LE>Sorry, mac, but you'll have to do much better than that if
LE>you want to make a point.
Oh, the point is made all right. What requires more effort
is convincing you of its validity.
LE>I agree that it would have been quite amusing if I had done
LE>what you assert I did.
It was, and you did.
LE>I wrote:
LE> 6. 3 + 4 together (i.e., mutation + natural selection) can
LE> account for *all* changes in biological organisms (i.e., can
LE> account for all speciation and the coming into being of all
LE> biological differences and biological structures, after the
LE> first living cell appears).
Please note the parenthetic expression well. See how it says
"all biological differences". See how it says "all speciation".
Does the quote coming up support this? No. In fact, the
quote coming up establishes a restriction upon what NS can be
invoked to account for.
?> No evolutionists believe this.
LE>Wrong. Dawkins holds this view.
LE>Richard Dawkins, *The Blind Watchmaker* (Norton, 1986):
LE>"EVOLUTION basically consists of endless repetition of
LE>REPRODUCTION. In every generation, REPRODUCTION takes the genes
LE>that are supplied to it by the previous generation, and hands
LE>them on to the next generation but with minor random errors --
LE>mutations. [p.56] ... Mutation is random with respect to
LE>adaptive advantage, although it is non-random in all sorts of
LE>other respects. It is selection, and only selection, that
LE>direct evolution in directions that are non-random with respect
LE>to advantage. [p. 312] ... The theory of evolution by
LE>cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that
LE>is in principle *capable* of explaining the existence of
LE>organized complexity. [p. 316]" (Emphasis in Dawkins's text.)
Notice that Dawkins says that selection is what accounts for
non-random-with-respect-to-advantage evolution. Notice that Dawkins
does not claim that selection accounts for the remaining
random-with-respect-to-advantage part of evolution. QED.
LE>My #6 claims that mutation coupled with natural selection
LE>(tacitly understood as operating over many generations)
LE>accounts for the appearance and existence of all the beings and
LE>structures ("organized complexity" in Dawkins's terminology) in
LE>the biological realm. I think that any fair or reasonable
LE>reading of Dawkins will see him as saying that.
I disagree. First, your #6 claim is more specific than you
state here. Dawkins would have to advance natural selection
as the explanation for "all biological differences" and "all
speciation" for his quote to be supportive of your statement.
Not only does Dawkins not do that, what he does say establishes
a partition of evolutionary phenomena into non-random and random
with respect to advantage classes. Dawkins says that one class
can only be explained via NS. This is a far cry from Dawkins
stating that all instances in both classes can only be explained
via natural selection. I think that my reading of Dawkins is
fair, reasonable, and *informed*.
Pretty much the same criticism holds for the Darwin critique
as well. Darwin's claim about NS and adaptations does not
establish that Darwin felt that NS was the answer to all
biological differences.
Wesley