From: Cliff Lundberg <cliff@noe.com>
>Richard Wein wrote:
>
>>>For purposes of this discussion, could ultra-Darwinists be characterized
>>>simply as pure gradualists, as Darwin himself was?
>>
>>Firstly, I'd like to drop the use of the term "ultra-Darwinians", which I
>>consider to be a highly misleading one. Instead I'll refer to the people
>>concerned as orthodox neo-Darwinians (as opposed to the punctuated
>>equilibrists).
>
>The existence of periods of stasis was surely accepted by Darwin.
>The question concerns the nature of evolution between periods of stasis.
>Was this evolution so rapid that Darwin's idea of evolution through the
>accumulation of "insensible" variations is not acceptable? Or did this
>evolution-whatever its speed--indeed occur through a series of very
>small steps?
Before proceeding, I'd like to clarify which question you're referring to.
I've suggested that Gould and Eldredge are using the term
"ultra-Darwinians", to refer to those neo-Darwinians who are not
punctuationists. Thus, to me, the question at issue is the PE question. I'll
assume that that's the question you're referring to. Please correct me
if I'm wrong.
In that case, the question does *not* concern the nature of evolution
between periods of stasis. Both views (PE and orthodox) hold that, within
periods of change, evolution proceeds through a series of small steps. Gould
and Eldredge are not saltationists, although they may sometimes have given
that impression.
There does however seem to be some confusion caused by Gould and Eldredge's
use of the word "gradualist", another word they use to characterize those
who do not share their views. But what do they actually mean by this word?
- They cannot mean those who believe that evolution proceeds in a series of
small steps, because then they themselves would be gradualists.
- If they mean those who believe that evolution proceeds at a uniform
speed, then they are wrong to describe those who hold the orthodox view as
gradualists. As you say above, Darwin himself accepted the existence of
periods of stasis.
- So it seems they must be using "gradualist" to mean anyone who thinks the
periods of stasis are shorter than they do, or who attributes less
importance to them. This seems to me like a very unhelpful use of the
word.
>PE theorists have been not at all explicit about this, so I wouldn't say
>that PE represents a view opposite to Darwinism.
I agree. I'm not saying that PE is a non-Darwinian view. I'm saying that
it's a non-orthodox view, i.e. it's a relatively new view (only about 30
years old!) held by a minority of Darwinians.
Perhaps "orthodox" and "non-orthodox" are not the best terms to use. I'm
open to other suggestions. But I don't like the terms "ultra-Darwinian" and
"gradualist", which I think are used by Gould and Eldredge in a highly
misleading way.
Richard Wein (Tich)
See my web pages for various games at http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~tich/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 11:09:28 EST