At 12:27 PM 6/19/97 EDT, you wrote:
>Steve Clark writes:
>
><< It seems to me that there is evidence
>consistent with evolution, yet there are troubling holes in the data that
>one would like to see filled. It remains very possible that these holes
>will not be filled to the satisfaction of the model--but this remains to be
>shown.>>
>
>Wow, I agree with this wholeheartedly!
>
>How can this be?
>
>I think because I now understand your distinction. You say:
>
><<Note that up to this point, I have only been speaking on a theoretical
>level.>>
>
>And I tend to agree with you on this, too. In the realm of pure theory, one
>might make a case for natural selection. But I always jump immediately
back to
>the hard world of data AND common understanding. Thus, you write:
>
><< Essentially, the model says that a
>primordial ear would arise from random mutations, as you have claimed. This
>initial mutation and expression of the phenotype occurs in the absence of
>any selective pressure. Then, if this phenotype allows the organism that
>has it to reproduce more effectively than an organism without the primordial
>ear--this is when selection acts to fix the gene in the population.>>
>
>This is where I have always protested that the theory holds to a hopeful
>"reproduce more effectively" gap filler, even though we have nothing to
>support that. I also stated this, I'm sure you'll recall, as the "imagined
>selective advantage" riff. In THEORY, one can say this always leads natural
>selection to do its magic. But in FACT, it is difficult if not impossible to
>believe, for me at least, that such mutations as a primordial ear or leg or
>lung would ever have the lasting effect on population that is necessary for
>the theory to meet the reality.
>
>Perhaps past differences can be traced to my failure to make the distinction
>you made in your post.
>
>Jim
>