From: Cliff Lundberg <cliff@cab.com>
>Richard Wein wrote:
>
>>This definition of Darwinism implies gradualism, in the sense that large
>>increases in complexity cannot occur in a single generation. However, it's
>>important to note that we're talking here about genotypic complexity,
>>because most random variation occurs at the genotypic level, and a small
>>change in the genotype can result in a big increase in phenotypic
>>complexity. For example, an organism may have a complex gene which is
>>unexpressed and a simple mutation may "switch on" this gene. Also (Cliff
>>please note), the merging of two organisms by symbiosis (as is thought to
>>have occurred in the evolution of the eukaryotic cell) is not a violation
of
>>gradualism, because it does not involve the creation of new complexity,
but
>>simply the combination of existing complexity from two organisms into one.
>
>Snce Darwin wrote before genetics existed, I would think it pretty clear
>that he was thinking mostly about morphology when he spoke of slight
>changes. I don't see why it's so "important to note that we're talking
>here about genotypic complexity", when that is not what Darwin had
>in mind, that's just what you have in mind.
I said quite clearly that I was *not* using Darwinism to mean Darwin's
understanding of the process of evolution. Since no-one (if they know what
they're talking about) understands evolution in that way any more, it would
be pointless to use Darwinism in that sense except for historical accounts.
But the term Darwinism is still used widely in contemporary references, so,
to be meaningful, it must mean something else. I have suggested a reasonable
meaning for it, and it's the one that I intend to use. At least I've defined
what I mean by it, which is more than can be said of most people who use the
term.
Perhaps it would be better to avoid the term altogether. But none of the
alternatives seem to be any clearer.
>Is the point that gradualism is saved if only we focus on the 'real core'
of
>things, the genetic level? How do you quantify and compare genotypic
>complexity? You don't seem to want to judge by the morphological effects,
>you seem to want to come full circle and judge genetic mutations by their
>base-pair morphology, their most meaningless aspect. It's like talking
>about ink and fonts when the topic is literature.
If you don't like my definition of gradualism, that's OK--don't use it.
But the version of gradualism that you like to argue against is not one that
anyone wants to "save". It's a straw man.
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 27 2000 - 05:13:10 EDT