The Darwinian mechanism (natural selection) plays an important
role in PE, but there are other mechanisms as well. Actually,
even Darwinian Fundamentalists admit to there being many
potential mechanisms. When it comes to explaining anything
of importance (i.e. apparent design), however, natural selection
reigns supreme.
Anyway, it would be nice to have a simple and elegant mechanism
that could account for everything, however, nature does not
always cooperate with our wishes :).
EGM:==
>(2) I would not. Your question, however, makes me think that you
>think I was criticizing Gould, and I guess I was, but I was also
>criticizing Dawkins.
Yes yes, I know. This is really the heart of my "complaint"
against you and others (i.e. Johnson). Playing one side against
the other, apparently thinking that if these two sides kill
each other off then creationism will be declared winner.
But it doesn't work that way. What will actually happen
(my prediction!) is that both sides will be strengthened
by the debate.
[...]
EGM:==
>
>Things are getting weirder. The morphological derived taxa is not
>fitting well with the molecular derived taxa.
This is interesting. Do you have a reference?
[...]
EGM:==
>
>To me the preacher was right.
>
>Eccl. 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also
>set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has
>done from beginning to end.
>
>We shall as human beings, nevertheless, continue our search, and may
>our hearts in that search found the one who put in them eternity.
>
This is a wonderful thought. It reminds of one of my favorite
quotes of famous dead guys:
If I have been allured into brashness by the wonderful beauty
of thy works, or if I have loved my own glory among men, while
advancing in work destined for thy glory, gently and mercifully
pardon me: and finally, deign graciously to cause that these
demonstrations may lead to thy glory and to the salvation of
souls, and nowhere be an obstacle to that. Amen.
-- Johannes Kepler
Kepler is another example of one who made great contributions
to science without having a clue about the mechanisms responsible
for his observations. As an example of his tremendous foresight,
he predicted that the moon was responsible for the tides. His
friend, Galileo, thought he had lost his mind ;-).
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"It is not certain that all is uncertain,
to the glory of skepticism." -- Pascal