Wendee Holtcamp wrote in part:
> Gould did not dispute Darwinian evolution! Nobody can dispute natural
> selection, which is the mechanism of evolution that Darwin came up with.
> What has been questioned by Gould and others is the extent to which natural
> selection has provided the ONLY means for differentiation of the species (ie
> evolution) compared to random genetic drift or other stochastic events. Such
> events can not provide any evolution in themselves, they can only limit the
> gene pool and affect the direction of future evolution by narrowing down the
> possible gene pool that natural selection has to "work on."
>
> Natural selection is the only theory I have heard of that for a plausible
> mechanism behind evolution.
>
> If any one has any other info I'd be interested in hearing.
In my copy of Origin of Species, natural selection was only one part
of Darwin's
thesis. The other part was that changes ("descent with modification")
took place
gradually over long periods of time. (It is this that introduces the notion of
"randomness" in evolution). It was that assumption that caused Darwin to get
into discussions of the fossil record and it was that assumption with which
Gould disagreed. If he were 100% in line with Darwin's thinking, then Dawkins
would not have been so upset with him (IMO).
I am not expert in this field as you are, but that that was the substance of an
article that I read in a recent publication after Gould's death. There is nice
discussion on this on http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PUNCTUEQ.html It is just a web
site but I chose it because it conforms to what other things I have read about
Gould and "punctuated equilibrium".
It may not fit your biological theories but it certainly makes sense to me. (My
background is as a physicist with substantial experience in man-made
and natural
feedback processes.) Basically, I can easily believe Gould's contention that
random changes tend (in many situations) to be wiped out by natural selection
and it is the change in the environment that causes an evolutionary change to
be favored -- not billions of years of a "random walk".
If there is an elegant way in which God can cause a given outcome it could well
be something as basic as this: Man is not an accident; he is a natural and
inevitable result of the environmental conditions on this planet as they
developed with time. The environment and physical laws overrule the randomness,
just as physical laws overpower randomness in other scientific fields.
Walt
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 05 2002 - 22:08:41 EDT