From: Jim Ledbury (jim.ledbury@dsl.pipex.com)
Date: Sat Oct 16 2004 - 05:24:42 BST
Hi Scott,
Scott Roberts wrote:
>Mark, Jim,
>
>
>
<snip>
>[Scott:] That's my point. There is no scientific way to tell. So why call
>evolution "solely by chance and natural selection" scientific? Why isn't it
>called dogma?
>
>
Because Darwin made a few 'predictions' which turned out to be correct.
It's not much different to a mathematician predicting that something
should be provable as opposed to asserting that something is provable:
given A & B we should find C - as Darwin did with soft-bodied fossils
and cetacean precursors. Dogma is saying that I 'know' in A and B, I
will reject any evidence that not C. Okay, this is somewhat
teleological - Darwin knew the end point, theorised the mechanism and
interpolated. I agree that this is far from proving that evolution is
"solely by chance and natural selection". But I think you are
underestimating the possibilities allowed by chance and natural
selection. At best evolution is highly myopic: given the problems of
giving birth to a larged brained animal through a small birth canal I
can think of very few reasons to believe that there is some form of
evolutionary design other than that which is survivable in the short
term and which meets certain hormone driven aesthetics. The problem
occurs with the mutations to be sure. Almost all are detrimental. But
given evolutionary myopia, even some form of neo-Lamarkism would not be
far off random in the long run. However it is generally thought (amonst
evolutionary biologists) that the progressive mutations are minor and
there is a large degree of interplay with them and other genes that
express themselves ultimately through recombination (which natural
selection acts on in fairly predictable ways). So you don't get the
problems of how a random mutation gives rise to an eye or ear, rather
each bit does happen piecemeal and that each advance is subject to a
'sanity check'. Due to the paucity of the fossil record, this often
seems like an assertion. AFAIC this assertion means "it might as well
be random". Personally I think that we still understand too little of
the genetic mechanism (we're still obsessed with coding DNA and are only
just coming to terms with the DNA that controls gene expression) and
that we continually underestimate the intelligence of cells to make any
serious predictions of any mechanism other than mutation through
transcription errors or environmental factors (which are plentiful in
evolutionary terms). However, even if macroscopic evolution does rely
on some form of neo-Lamarkism (for which there is no evidence other than
wishful thinking) through cellular feedback into the genome by
mechanisms other than sexual selection, as I said it would be
essentially random.
I will however agree that some neodarwinists are incredibly dogmatic.
Dawkins springs to mind. I remember reading a few years ago in New
Scientist of some observation and modelling about characteristics of the
'health' of an ecosystem (sorry details elude me) and Dawkins railing
that this was impossible because there is no way for the characteristics
of an ecosystem to be genetically transmitted. Although his punctilious
approach may well stop some sloppy science, I feel he is missing
something in appreciating collective behaviour on this particular point.
Regards,
Jim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 16 2004 - 05:25:17 BST