>Let me try one more time to make the point.
>
>You have every right to criticize a textbook for poorly worded questions.
>But if you want that criticism to be taken serously, you must demonstrate
>that you wish to rise above the book's shortcomings that you cite. So, how
>do you, in your own commentary, deal with the two concerns I had?
I have no criticism at all. I believe the statement is essentially correct.
I am in fact delighted with it.
>
>>1. You made no distinction between: 1) the net effect of "evolution" as an
>>ensemble of diverse processes and events, and 2) the outcome of individual
>>events within an evolutionary context.
Help me out here. How am I supposed to do that? If the individual events
within the evolutionary context are, to quote the author of the text "[do]
not move toward a more perfect state nor even toward greater complexity",
then how can one maintain that the enterprise does?
>>
>>2. You seemed also to treat "evolutionary theory" as if it were some
>single
>>monolithic statement that could be subjected to simple little questions
>>like, "So just what does evolutionary theory recognize that evolution
>does, anyway?"
With no disrespect for your opinion, my "simple little question" is to the
heart of the issue.
Art
http://biology.swau.edu