From: Cliff Lundberg <cliff@noe.com>
>someone:
>>>Well, since I was referring to a different point from you, that was not
the
>>>poll question I had in mind. I wanted to know whether most professional
>>>biologists in your university would agree that those who are
characterized
>>>by Gould and Eldredge as "ultra-Darwinians" are "a very narrow set of
>>>neo-Darwinists".
>
>BDH:
>>Yes, I realized this :), sorry for not being clearer. One reason for my
>writing
>>the poll question as above was to make it clear we were talking of
different
>>things.
>
>For purposes of this discussion, could ultra-Darwinists be characterized
>simply as pure gradualists, as Darwin himself was?
Firstly, I'd like to drop the use of the term "ultra-Darwinians", which I
consider to be a highly misleading one. Instead I'll refer to the people
concerned as orthodox neo-Darwinians (as opposed to the punctuated
equilibrists).
The answer to your question is no. The punctuated equilibrists are
gradualists too -- they believe in evolution by small changes, not
saltation. And neither the orthodox neo-Darwinians nor Darwin himself
believe(d) that evolution proceeds at a constant speed.
The differences between the two camps cannot be summed up so simply, and
concern more than just the jumpiness of evolution. As far as I can see the
differences are a matter of emphasis, not of principle; but Gould et al seem
to be trying to make out that the differences are more fundamental than they
really are.
Richard Wein (Tich)
See my web pages for various games at http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~tich/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 14 2000 - 20:36:50 EST