>
> Does it matter what Dawkins thinks? Maybe so, maybe not,
Dawkins matters a great deal because he writes the gospel tracts for
evolution, especially *The Blind Watchmaker.* (I mean "gospel tract" in
the sense that I consider A.J.Ayer's *Language, Truth, and Logic* to be
the gospel tract for logical positivism.)
> but I object
> to Dawkins being used as an example of a stance that Dawkins does not
> take.
>
> Natural selection is dependent upon existing variation. Ultimately,
> that variation comes from mutation (broadly defined). Talk of unions
> and intersections just is not relevant to the discussion, and probably
> will confuse any biologists mightily. Genetic drift could be
> considered to be an analogous concept to natural selection with
> respect to mutation. Mutation describes events at the individual
> level; both NS and genetic drift describe changes at the population
> level. Saying that "mutation and NS taken together explain all
> evolution" just doesn't make sense. I'd argue that you need the
> population-level concept of genetic drift as well as NS to even come
> close to explaining a simple majority of evolutionary phenomena.
When I said, originally in mystatement #6, that evolution = Mutation +
Natural selection, I thought that I wasy saying almost the same thing as
yopu say in that paragraph. I also took ( and still take) Dawkins to be
saying that too.
> Gene flow is not the same thing as horizontal transfer. Horizontal
> transfer refers to a mutational process that moves genetic material
> across taxa. Gene flow is the within-species but inter-populational
> exchange of genetic material. Horizontal transfer is, AFAIK, very
> rare, being accomplished by such mechanisms as viral transcription.
> Gene flow is exceedingly common, and is seen as a nearly completely
> effective obstacle to speciational processes.
>
> A clear set of statements of what is known about evolutionary biology
> can be found early in Douglas Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology". I
> don't have my copy with me, so I can't repeat his list, but I
> recommend it highly.
Noted.
> PS: I think that the original "What is evolution?" list gets off
> on the wrong foot. Evolution need not reference 6000 year stuff
> at all.
I don't agree. If one holds to the 6000 year view (or any form of
young-earthism) -- a view clearly refuted by easily-observable geological
and palentological evidence -- then one cannot even begin to discuss
evolution because one cannot admit the minimum required for discussion: a
commitment to observable evidence. Also, if the young-earth view were
true, there wouldn't be enough time for natural selection to operate in
any but the most rudimentary way.
> Item #1 for evolution in my book would be:
>
> 1. Organisms inherit traits from their ancestors.
>
> A couple of additional pieces to get going would be...
>
> 2. Traits are inherited via particulate mechanisms.
>
> 3. Variation occurs in traits within populations of organisms.
But this gets us only to my #2 -- to the statement that change
occurs in biological populations. Any observant person will admit the
truth of that claim.
The central question is *HOW* or *BY WHAT MECHANISM* (or, if you don't
like the materialist assumption in that formulation, *BY WHAT MEANS*) this
change occurs. Evolution offers an answer to *that* question too, and the
argument between evolutionists and creationists has to do with that
question and the correct answer(s) to it.
Lloyd Eby