RE: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)

From: Jonathan B. Marder (jonathan.marder@newmail.net)
Date: Sun Sep 07 2003 - 11:25:05 BST

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)"

    Hi Scott, Andy, Dave M. and all,

    SCOTT said:
     I don't know of a single case where one species has been
    observed to come into existence due solely to random genetic mutation and
    natural selection. In fact, I doubt that one could ever determine that: the
    doubter could always say, how do you know there were no other factors
    involved?

    JONATHAN replies:
    Clearly, Scott seems to be under a misconception as to how species "come
    into existence".
    The idea that species definitions are inherent in nature though, is
    completely wrong. What constitutes a species, and when a "new" species
    should be recognised is a decision taken by consensus of the biological
    research community. The biological literature is full of this. I just did a
    search for the keyword "new species" in the PubMed database, and came up
    with over 4000 hits, 177 of them papers published this year (2003).
    The fact that genetic mutation and selection occur is indisputable - both
    have been observed and documented.
    IMNSHO, this provides a perfectly adequate basis for understanding how
    biological diversity arises.

    DAVID M.
    No evolution without Darwin this is just bad information,
    check your history of science, e.g. A.R.Wallace. There have also been many
    other evolutionary theorists. See Peter Bowler's book on the history of
    evolution. Darwin is only a few
    chapters. Sure Darwin is almost the only game in town now, and this is
    causing a great stagnation in thinking.

    JONATHAN replies:
    According to Occam's razor, Darwin's model is the winning paradigm - this is
    the model that biologists have accepted by consensus, and I know of no
    simpler or more persuasive explanation. Rather than "causing a great
    stagnation in thinking", the opposite is true - there has been a tremendous
    flowering in biology since Darwin, that was boosted enormously by Watson and
    Crick's discovery of a hereditary mechanism. Without the double helix (or
    something similar), Darwin may well have ended up in the scientific dustbin,
    but without Darwin, Watson and Crick would have been a mere blip on the
    landscape of structural chemistry.

    Jonathan

    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 : Sun Sep 07 2003 - 11:25:58 BST