> I say that the "severity of the debate" is a major factor,
> but not the
> only one.
The "severity of the debate" is only a "testosterone and
entertainment" issue.
> The *content* of the debate itself is very important.
The content of the debate is the only thing that is
important.
> Basically the Dawkins side says that from from their
> specialties (Biology, Genetics)
> evolution could only have happened by Neo-Darwinian, tiny
> step-by-step,
> increments over long periods of time.
If we are talking about "long" in a biological sense, rather
than a geological sense, the proponents of punctuated
equilibria say this also. Both sides agree that, when
evolution occurs, it is in genetically small steps, i.e.
throughout the whole process, offspring are not markedly
different genetically from their parents.
> But the Gould camp say that from their specialty
> (Palaeontology) that the fossil record does not support
> that hypothesis.
Not so. What the PE side is claiming is that, because the
fossil record does not often show slow gradual change, other
things are happening as well as evolution, often instead of
evolution. Things like "habitat tracking", extinction, and
stasis. Niles Eldridge describes the "habitat tracking"
phenomena well.
"If imagination is central to the scientific enterprise, so
too, is common sense. Darwin had succeeded so well in
overthrowing Whewell's dictum that "species have a real
existence in nature, and a connection between them does not
exist" that he managed to replace a worldview of static
discontinuity with an expectation of flux. Species grade
imperceptibly fom one to another as the geological ages roll
and environments inevitably change.
To the question, "What happens to species when environments
change?", the standard post-Darwinian answer became, "They
evolve." Species become transforned to meet the new
conditions - provided, of course, they are well stocked with
the necessary genetic variation on which natural selection
may act to effect suitable evolutionary change. Failing
that, the fate is extinction.
Here we have imagination colliding vith common sense - and,
worse, with empirical reality. Given the benefit of some 130
years of post-Darwinian scrutiny of the natural world, it
has become abundantly clear that by far the most common
response of species to environmental change is that they
move - they change their locus of existence. In the face of
environmental change, organisms within each and every
species seek familiar living conditions - habitats that are
"recognisable" to them based on the adaptations already in
place.
This is "habitat tracking," the constant search for suitable
habitat going on continually, generation after generation,
within every species on the face of the earth. One hundred
and twenty thousand years ago, lions and hippos roamed in
what is now London's Trafalgar Square - graphic testament to
much warmer climes in the period that separated the third
and fourth massive continental glaciation events of the
Pleistocene Ice Age.
On a much smaller scale, as the earth's climate has warmed
steadily over the past century, biologists have charted
subtle but persistent range changes as species adjust their
locales accordingly. The Virginia opossum has been moving
steadily northwards in the United States, as has the
traditionally even more warmth-loving armadillo. Birds and
insects have also been on the move, as have aquatic species.
Plants, too: the staunch fixity of a tree is no barrier to
migration, as seeds are dispersed and germinate wherever
suitable habitat is encountered."
(Niles Eldridge, "Reinventing Darwin", 1995, Wiedenfeld and
Nicolson, pp. 64-65)
The question is, how does "habitat tracking" appear to a
paleontologist. If he is just looking in a single area, the
movement of a population in or out will look no different to
"sudden appearance" or "extinction" respectively. It is only
by fossil hunting over huge geographical expanses (often not
possible) that a paleontologist can find a pattern of
"habitat tracking".
> This is a festering sore within Darwinism that has been
> going on since Darwin's day, and shows no signs of ever
> being resolved.
Not a "festering sore", but a lively, entertaining and
educational debate.
Here are some examples of "festering sores". The mutual
enmity among fundamentalist proponents of Christianity,
Judaism and Islam. The enmity between fundamentalist Roman
Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants. The mud-slinging
between traditionalist Christians and modernist Christians.
Not lively. Not entertaining or educational. Just bitter,
twisted and destructive.
> There always have been and it seems always will be, two
> Darwinist camps
> (the theoreticians vs the empiricists) locked in a civil
> war which
> neither side can win.
Unlike religion, the practice of science isn't a zero-sum
game. It isn't about warring and winning; its about
discovering and testing.
> It seems to me that both sides are right about each
> other's position and therefore both sides are wrong about
> their own.
You've been peddling this hopeful line for a long time now,
but the writings of Dawkins, Maynard Smith, Williams, Gould
and Eldridge don't support it. It appears to me that they
are both mostly right about their own positions, but lack a
deep but necessary understanding of the other side. I have
no major problems fitting gradualism with PE to form a
coherent picture. Sure, I've had to read a lot, discount a
lot of rhetoric, burn more than a few straw men, but I got
there. And the thought-provoking discussions I've had with
you have also helped. In one sense it was easy for me
because I have no vested interest in the outcome,and, as a
technologist rather than a scientist, no reputation in the
scientific community.
> Dawkins is right that naturalistic evolution can only
> happen by Neo-Darwinian mechanisms.
A bit simplistic, but essentially right.
> Gould is right that evolution did not in fact happen that
> way.
No. Gould agrees that evolution happens just this way. What
Gould and the PE's are saying is that other natural things
have also been happening to generate the pattern and
diversity of life that we see today. Evolution and
extinction are not the only ways for life to deal with
environmental change.
> So the obvious answer is that it was not *naturalistic*
> evolution, ie.
> it was naturalistic evolution with supernatural
> assistance. That is,
> it was progressive (mediate) creation!
Nice try, but an even more obvious answer is that it was/is
naturalistic processes, but not only evolution.
> I do not necessarily predict "the emminent demise of
> evolutionary theory". Indeed, I believe that "evolutionary
> theory" will continue, but in a weakened form. Because of
> the internal contradictions in "evolutionary theory", I
> predict that scientific naturalists will be be unable to
> maintain their near-monopoly in biology, and science in
> general, and will have to allow other voices (eg.
> Intelligent Design) to be heard.
If the proponents of Intelligent Design want to be heard,
then they need to have something interesting to say. As near
as I can tell, the defining statements of Intelligent
Design's position are something like:
God directly intervened in natural evolutionary processes,
because such a belief fits with our theology.
We believe that, if God intervenes in the human world, then
there's no reason why he wouldn't intervene in the natural
world as well, and we believe that he did.
We don't know where God specifically intervened, or what
processes were used.
We can't predict where or how God will intervene again.
There are some processes in evolution that we don't
understand naturalistically at the present time; until
someone else demonstrates otherwise, we accept these
processes as direct interventions of God.
Is this really something the scientific community should be
taking seriously? I don't think so. Where are the laws and
theories of ID, backed up by observation and experiment?
What tools do the ID community use in their investigations?
> I further predict that ID will continue to gain ground and
> in the early 21st century will become a viable alternative
> paradigm for science.
I see. ID is going to gain ground while, following a totally
uneventful entrance into the new millenium without the world
ending, Christianity continues its inexorable slide into
obscurity, firstly in the West, then in the East, and
finally in Africa.
> But I do not necessarily predict that ID will become
> dominant or even more popular than materialistic-
> naturalism.
I doubt that it will ever be even as popular as creation
"science". :-)
> Disagree. Dawkins is absolutely right. There is *no* other
> naturalistic
> alternative to the `blind watchmaker'. Even Gould admits
> this:
>
> "...may I state for the record that I (along with all
> other Darwinian
> pluralists) do not deny either the existence and central
> importance of
> adaptation, or the production of adaptation by natural
> selection. Yes,
> eyes are for seeing and feet are for moving. And, yes
> again, I know of
> no scientific mechanism other than natural selection with
> the proven
> power to build structures of such eminently workable
> design." (Gould
> S.J., "Darwinian Fundamentalism", New York Review of
> Books,
> June 12, 1997.
> http://www.nyb
> oks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?1997061234F
> @p3)
>
--RegardsDerek
-----------------------------------------------------| Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au || Melba ACT | derek.mclarnen@telstra.com.au || Australia | | -----------------------------------------------------