Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 18:26:21 +0000
From: lisa rogers <lrogers-AT-burgoyne.com>
Subject: evolutionary controversy


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


p.s. Maybe this connects to discusion of science more generally.  lr


Terry wrote:
Dawkins was defining his position (yes pigs might fly if the 
adaptation was necessary for their survival) against that of
another English evolutionary biologist whose name I forget whose
position was that pigs are structurally constrained (over
meaningful time periods!) from flying.  

Lisa replies: But were they talking about the same time period? 
If they are not even talking about the same thing, they are not
even talking to each other.

Terry:
The anti-adaptationists, (Eldridge refers to himself, Gould and
others as "naturalists") contend that they have a different and
more insightful view of the dynamics of natural selection than 
that of what Eldridge refers to as Ultra-Darwinists, prominently
including Dawkins and the majority of scientists in the field.  
[snip]
Their basic position (frequently repeated in this discussion by
Lisa) is that they are not any sort of "ist" or "ian" but the
representatives simply of evolutionary theory  all the basic
principles of which are agreed.

Lisa:  I never claimed it is all agreed.  I do think that some
evols have not simply ignored G+E.  But G+E partisans are either
unaware of the response or seem to think its never good enough. 
Anyway, they can probably always find some objectionable
statements to point out.  Big deal, indeed.

Terry:  Ultras contend that punctuated equilibrium can be 
assimilated as an observation of different rates of evolutionary
change.  No big deal, No change in worldview needed.  Gould and
Eldredge however contend that this insight fundamentally alters
the pattern and dynamics of evolutionary change. 

Lisa:  I'd ask how and upon what basis, but this is not exactly
an evol. theory list.

So there's controversy and disagreement within a field of
science, like everywhere else, what's new?  Is it too much that
while some crusaders are struggling against the extremes of
adaptationism that they could also try to avoid other extremes as
well?


Rahul, or anyone, what is a recent example of bad "adaptationism"
that Gould and his ilk are using lately?  Or are we stuck with
Dawkins' pigs?  I'm curious about just what the anti-
adaptationists are attacking.

[Nothing from the 70's, 90's preferred, and absolutely nothing
>from E.O. Wilson counts.]

Cheers,
Lisa



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---