Are we then to conclude that fixity (or statics) (of species) has now been abandoned (proved hopeless)? If so, then in what sense is this meant? That is, is it meant in a purely naturalistic sense? In a geological sense? In a taxonomic sense? In a philosophical or theological sense? Perhaps many on this list would raise their voices if fixity in a theological sense were challenged.
Is the suggestion rather still to prove the point that Darwin argued 150 years ago that suggesting 'mutation of species' (the mutation question) was like confessing a murder?
Does no one out there defend fixity or statics anymore? Are 'they' simply 'primitive'?
G.A.
"D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
Ted,
I think you're right, but you have to remember that fixity accompanied
spontaneous generation for a couple millennia at least. There were
barnacle geese in Europe, mice from rags and grain, frogs from river mud
every spring, etc.
Dave
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:51:46 -0400 "Ted Davis"
writes:
> I do have the strong impression that the fixity of species predates
> Linnaeus by millenia. Aristotle and Plato both maintained it, and if not always unquestioned it was the standard assumption up to around the mid-18th century. Linnaeus himself questioned it, incidentally, in a few instances of apparent hybridization in plants.
Ted
---------------------------------
The best gets better. See why everyone is raving about the All-new Yahoo! Mail.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 10 16:22:01 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 10 2006 - 16:22:01 EDT