Re: Piecemeal genetic differences as support for macroevolution, etc.

From: Richard Wein (rwein@lineone.net)
Date: Sat Aug 26 2000 - 05:00:13 EDT

  • Next message: Richard Wein: "Re: Piecemeal genetic differences as support for macroevolution, etc."

    From: Chris Cogan <ccogan@telepath.com>

    >Further, though I do not consider myself to be a Darwinist, except in a
    >very broad sense, certainly *my* views have been received with skepticism
    >by some on this list. You seem to regard Darwinism as the only form of
    >purely naturalistic evolutionary theory there is. Evolution as ongoing
    >naturalistic variation coupled with ongoing natural selection might be
    >broadly considered to be Darwinism, I suppose, but Darwin certainly had no
    >currently acceptable idea as to the genetic mechanisms involved because
    >genetics was still "dormant" (and did not get permanently established until
    >1900).

    Could you please clarify what you mean by Darwinism, and in what respect you
    disagree with it, as there seems to be a great deal of confusion about this
    term.

    I think that few people use the term to mean Darwin's understanding of the
    process of evolution, because we know now that Darwin got some things wrong,
    and, used in this sense, no-one is a Darwinist.

    For the record, I use Darwinism to mean the theory that evolution occurred
    by purely natural (non-intelligent) processes, and that the processes which
    are responsible for the evolution of complexity are random variation and
    natural selection.

    This definition of Darwinism implies gradualism, in the sense that large
    increases in complexity cannot occur in a single generation. However, it's
    important to note that we're talking here about genotypic complexity,
    because most random variation occurs at the genotypic level, and a small
    change in the genotype can result in a big increase in phenotypic
    complexity. For example, an organism may have a complex gene which is
    unexpressed and a simple mutation may "switch on" this gene. Also (Cliff
    please note), the merging of two organisms by symbiosis (as is thought to
    have occurred in the evolution of the eukaryotic cell) is not a violation of
    gradualism, because it does not involve the creation of new complexity, but
    simply the combination of existing complexity from two organisms into one.

    Richard Wein (Tich)



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 26 2000 - 05:46:09 EDT