Bertvan@aol.com writes
in message <7a.57fc7d3.265824b8@aol.com>:
I don't think we're even close to being on the same
page.
"... I greatly admire Darwin's contributions and agree with most
of his theoretical analysis and I am a Darwinist ... One of
Darwin's major insights is the recognition that all organisms
are related by common ancestry. Today direct evidence for common
ancestry - genetic, chemical, and otherwise - is overwhelming.
Populations of organisms grow and reproduce at rates that are
not sustainable in the real world, and therefore many more die
or fail to reproduce than actually complete their life histories.
The fact that all the organisms that are born or hatched or
budded off do not and cannot possibly survive is natural selection.
Observable inherited variation appears in all organisms that
are hatched, born, budded off, or produced by division, and some
variants do outgrow and outreproduce others. These are the tenets
of Darwinian evolution and natural selection. All thinking
scientists are in complete agreement with these basic ideas,
since they're supported by vast amounts of evidence."
-- Lynn Margulis
(slightly out of context, see below)
> >Tedd: A quote from Margulis
> > ... Scientific meetings on these subjects often generate great
> > disagreements. These disagreements have been misrepresented
> > to the public by creationists as evidence that the theory of
> > evolution is in doubt. On the contrary, they are evidence that
> > what is going on is the pursuit of science and not the shoring
> > up of dogma."
>
> Link from Tedd:
> http://falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~jjmohn/endosymbiosis.htm: Throughout
> her writings, Margulis contends that symbiosis is a major driving
> force behind evolution. In her opinion, cooperation, interaction,
> and mutual dependence among life forms allowed for life's eventual
> global dominance. As a result, Darwin's notion of evolution as
> the "survival of the fittest," a continual competition among
> individuals and species, is incomplete. According to Margulis
> and Sagan (1986), "Life did not take over the globe by combat,
> but by networking." Rather than focus solely on the elimination
> of competitors, Margulis' view of evolution downplays competition
> itself on the basis of symbiotic relationships.
How is this incompatible with mutation and natural selection?
Aren't symbiotic relationships selected for?
> Hi Tedd:
> Thank you for the article on the endosymbiotic evolution of the
> cell. Although I was familiar with some of it, the article was
> great. I've also heard that Margulis believes some form of
> consciousness is a characteristic of all life. (Never found a
> direct quote.) It appears even Margulis feels obligated to
> occasionally pay lip service to the "battle against creationists".
Why is it "lip service"? Do you believe Margulis is not being
honest or straightforward about her beliefs with the remark I
posted?
> However it is not "evolution" that most skeptics question. It
> is Darwinism - "random mutation and natural selection as an
> explanation of macro evolution."
But exactly how does Margulis question this? Here's another
quote of hers, the first part that I've seen used by
creationists:
"I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these [evolutionary]
changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.
There's no doubt, of course, that they exist, but the major source
of evolutionary novelty is the acquisition of symbionts - the whole
thing then edited by natural selection. It is never just the
accumulation of mutations."
Science Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, p. 379
> If biologists are really as bothered by ID as these debates
> would indicate, the issue could be easily defused. The quickest
> way to assure the public biologists are not "shoring up of dogma"
> would be to admit how much is not known. A group of prominent
> biologists might issue a public statement such as:
>
> "We have no idea how most of the diversity of life occurred,
> and while many biologists believe it was the result of "random
> mutation and natural selection" (Darwinism), others believe
> mutations are rarely random and natural selection never 'designed'
> anything."
Which prominent biologist believes mutations are rarely random
and natural selection never designed anything?
> However, if biologists admitted ignorance, no one's beliefs,
> including ID, OEC or even YEC, could be declared definitely
> untrue. This would apparently be intolerable to those strident
> Darwin-defenders who appear more concerned with fighting religion
> than in science. So we are treated to equivocal statements
> such as "Margulis believes Darwin's notion of evolution as
> the 'survival of the fittest', a continual competition among
> individuals and species, is incomplete."
There is nothing equivocal about that statement. Why are you
reading between the lines?
Take a look at
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/quote_margulis2.html
and then read http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/n-Ch.7.html
and I think you'll find that Michael Behe, Stephen Jones and
others have not given the correct impression of Margulis' views
with their selected, out-of-context quotations.
Here's the full quote of the one I cited at the beginning
of this message.
"Although I greatly admire Darwin's contributions and agree with
most of his theoretical analysis and I am a Darwinist, I am not
a neo-Darwinist."
http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/n-Ch.7.html
("Gaia Is A Tough Bitch", Lynn Margulis, 1995?)
This article makes it clear that Margulis has no problem
with mutation and natural selection, but that it is wrong
to simply stop there as if all is now explained. Mutation +
natural selection needs symbotic relationships, she argues.
That's why she's so hard on neo-Darwinism.
"I contend that symbiogenesis .. is the major evolutionary
innovator in all lineages of larger nonbacterial organisms."
> Many facts of history are in dispute, yet the historians don't
> take to the courts to ensure only one version is taught.
> Historians are content to live with a diversity of views. Even
> histories of religions manage to accommodate different versions.
> Debate over the history of the Holocaust evokes great emotion,
> but so far no one has tried to have the minority view legally
> declared "not history".
Believe me, it would become necessary if, for example, a
significant attempt was made to teach Holocaust revisionism in
the schools. I'd vote to keep it out, wouldn't you?
YEC is about as refuted as the theory that the Holocaust never
occurred and teaching it in schools requires teaching children
falsehoods.
ID, however, as a theory of biology suffers from a lack of
coherency, in my opinion, and it will never be taught in schools
until Behe & Demski and others actually discover something to
teach. I mean, in Mike Gene's words, a "suspicion of design"
is not something you can really build a school curriculum
around.
> Such an attempt would probably stir up support for a now-unpopular
> view. Even belief in YEC could do to no harm to biology if it
> were politely tolerated.
Belief in YEC is usually politely tolerated. Now, if you mean
something much stronger than "belief" -- like publishing books
promoting it or attempting to use the courts to get it taught --
that sort of thing is an obstruction to biology, to science.
> If anything causes loss of respect for science, it will be the
> ridiculous attempt to marginalize dissent by labeling everyone
> a "creationist" who is skeptical of "random mutation and natural
> selection", or who entertains the possibility teleology, or who
> suggests the universe might be the result of a rational design.
Let's cut through the vagueness: the significant force of the
label "creationism" is really "non-science", and the people who
define what science is are also those who demonstrate the
correctness of their definition by using it to cure diseases,
reduce hunger, and generally improve the human condition.
Science is what works. Until ID works, or can even be shown to
plausibly lead to something that works, I can't find much fault
with scientists for dismissing it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 22 2000 - 18:41:21 EDT