> 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).
>
²Ü> 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.
I was genuinely puzzled about what you are trying to say and what your
objection is until I read John Rylander's post about it.
What I am saying is that Dawkins posits the existence and action of two
mechanical processes -- mutation and natural selection -- as what,
following the first appearance of life (known as abiogenesis, although I
don't recall Dawkins using that term in The Blind Watchmaker), account for
all the diversity of biological species, varieties, and structures (taking
into account Rylander's further restriction on this term "all"). In other
words, Dawkins posits no more than those two mechanisms, and furthermore
he claims that those two mechanisms, operating in whatever fashion they
operate and with whatever restrictions and specifications need to be put
on their operation, account for all "organized complexity" in the
biological order.
What you are trying to do, so far as I understand you, is to say that
Dawkins holds that there are further restrictions on how NS can operate.
Fine. What he is not saying is that there exists any mechanism beyond
mutation and natural selection, operating in whatever way they operate,
that function to bring about "organized complexity" in biological
organisms.
I take it that anti-evolutionists claim that there *is* something beyond
or in addition to mutation and natural selection that accounts for the
appearance of the diversity of biological organisms and structures. For
creationists this additional "something" is the action of a (supernatural)
creator.
I am not saying that Dawkins says that mutation and natural selection
operate at the same time. One way of putting this, as I understand it,
could be to say that, according to evolutionists, mutation introduces
variety, and natural selection (understood in whatever further refined way
it may be) chooses (so to speak -- but it's a "blind watchmaker" form of
choice, not a choice by a conscious agent) which of those novelties
(introduced by mutation) to keep and perpetuate.
Lloyd Eby