Religions > Atheism > Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
01 Apr 2004 11:47:31 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex |
(Lilith) wrote in message news:<75200cbc.0403220129.601cccf6@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0403211957.32de5a36@posting.google.com>...
Darlington, C.D. 1939. _The Evolution of Genetic
[snip quote]
David, I imagine you are posting this with the intended purpose of
somehow throwing doubt on evolutionary theory, if I'm to assume your
purpose based on past actions.
Darlington's objections arise from an incomplete molecular biological
picture in 1939, coupled with a demand for a gradualist-Darwinian
picture for the evolution of meiosis.
Do you, or do you not, think that meiosis and sexual reproduction
arose in a gradual, step-by-tiny-step manner?
Darlington is objecting to gradualism when it comes to meiosis, not
realizing that crossing-over (for instance) is a natural consequence
of DNA hybridization. They didn't even know the structure of DNA until
1953, for goodness sakes.
When are you going to stop digging up old, moldy references and try to
actually concentrate on current knowledge? Darlington's objections are
born out of (necessary for the time) ignorance.
Yours, however, has no excuse.
I like the history of science, and will not [L]"stop digging up
old, moldy references" anytime soon.
Wilson, Edmund B. 1915. "Some Aspects of Progress in
Modern Zoology" _Annual Report of the Smithsonian
Institution, 1915_, 395-408. This article is described as an
"address of the president of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Philadelphia, Dec. 28, 1914," and
Wilson also was with Columbia University. On 406-408, the
concluding paragraphs of the article:
At the present day there is no longer the smallest doubt
of the great outstanding fact that few complex structural
adaptations-- it would probably be correct to say none
such-- have come into existence at a single stroke; they
have moved forward step by step to the attainment of
their full degree of perfection. What has dominated the
direction and final outcome of such advancing lines?
We can not yet answer this question with any degree of
assurance; but, procrastinate as we may, it must in the
end squarely be faced. We have seen one theory after
another forced back within narrower lines or crumbling
away before the adverse fire of criticism. I will not
pause to recount the heavy losses that must be placed to
the account of sexual selection, of neo-Lamarckism, of
orthogenesis. Some naturalists no doubt would assign a
prominent place in this list of casualties to natural
selection, but probably there are none who would hold
that it has been destroyed utterly. The crux lies in the
degree of its efficacy. Stated as an irreducible
minimum, the survival of the fit is an evident fact.
Individuals that are unfitted to live or to reproduce leave
few or no descendants-- so much, at least, must be
admitted by all. But does this colorless and trite
conclusion end the matter or adequately place before us
the significance of the facts? Just here lies the whole
issue. Does destruction of the unfit accomplish no other
result than to maintain the status quo, or has it
conditioned the direction of progress? Accepting the
second of these alternatives, Darwin went so far as to
assign to it a leading role among the conditions to which
the living world owes its existing configuration. Since
his time the aspect of the problem has widely changed.
We must rule out of the question the origin of neutral or
useless traits. We must not confuse the evolution of
adaptations with the origin of species. We must bear in
mind the fact that Darwin often failed to distinguish
between non-heritable fluctuations and hereditary
mutations of small degree. We are now aware that
many apparently new variations may be no more than
recombination products of preexisting elements. We
should no doubt make a larger allowance for the role of
single "lucky accidents" in evolution than did many of
the earlier evolutionists. And yet, as far as the essence
of the principle is concerned, I am bound to make
confession of my doubts whether any existing
discussion of this problem affords more food for
reflection, even to-day, than that contained in the sixth
and seventh chapters of the "Origin of Species" and
elsewhere in the works of Darwin.
Undeniably there is a large measure of truth in the
contention that natural selection still belongs rather to
the philosophy than to the science of biology. In spite
of many important experimental and critical studies on
the subject Darwin's conception still remains to-day in
the main what it was in his own time, a theory, a logical
construction, based, it is true, on a multitude of facts, yet
still awaiting adequate experimental test. Simple though
the principle is, its actual effect in nature is determined
by conditions that are too intricate and operate through
periods too great to be duplicated in the experimental
laboratory. Hence it is that even after more than 50
years of Darwinism the time has not yet come for a true
estimate of Darwin's proposed solution of the great
problem.
But there is still another word to be said. Too often in
the past the facile formulas of natural selection have
been made use of to carry us lightly over the surface of
unsuspected depths that would richly have repaid
serious exploration. In a healthy reaction from this
purblind course we have made it the mode to minimize
Darwin's theory, and no doubt a great service has been
rendered to our study of this problem by the critical and
sceptical spirit of modern experimental science. But
there is a homely German saying that impresses upon us
the need of caution as we empty out the bath lest we
pour out the child too. This suggests that we should
take heed lest we underestimate the one really simple
and intelligible explanation of organic adaptations,
inadequate though it now may seem, that has thus far
been placed in our hands. And in some minds-- if I
include my own among them let it be set down to that
indiscretion at which I have hinted-- the impression
grows that our preoccupation with the problem as it
appears at short focus may in some measure have
dimmed our vision of larger outlines that must be
viewed at longer range; that we may have emphasized
minor difficulties at the cost of a larger truth. To such
minds it will seem that the principle of natural selection,
while it may not provide a master key to all the riddles
of evolution, still looms up as one of the great
contributions of modern science to our understanding of
nature.
I have taken but a passing glance at a vast and many
sided subject. I have tried to suggest that the tide of
speculation in our science has far receded; that
experimental methods have taken their rightful place of
importance; that we have attained to a truer perspective
of past and present in our study of the problems of
animal life. The destructive phase through which we
have passed has thoroughly cleared the ground for the
new constructive era on which we now have entered.
All the signs of the times indicate that this era will long
endure. And this is of good augury for a future of
productive effort, guided by the methods of
physico-chemical science, impatient of merely a priori
constructions, of academic discussions, of hypotheses
that can not be brought to the test of experimental
verification. The work ahead will make exacting
technical demands upon us. The pioneer days of
zoology are past. The naturalist of the future must be
thoroughly trained in the methods and results of
chemistry and physics. He must prepare himself for a
life of intensive research, of high specialization; but in
the future, even more than in the past, he will wander in
vain amid the dry sands of special detail if the larger
problems and general aims of his science be not held
steadfastly in view. For these are the outstanding
beacon lights of progress; and while science viewed at
close range seems always to grow more complex, a
wider vision shows that her signal discoveries are often
singularly simple. This, perhaps, may help us to keep
alive the spirit of the pioneers who led the advances of a
simpler age, and it is full of hope for the future.
For Further Reading
"impatient of merely a priori constructions, of academic
discussions, of hypotheses that can not be brought to the test
of experimental verification"
1981 Francis Crick: "plausibility is not enough," is "usually
contaminated with our unstated prejudices"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312241905.3fa22296%40posting.google.com
"operate through periods too great to be duplicated in the
experimental laboratory"
historical background to rise and fall of modern synthesis;
1936 A. Franklin Shull
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
| User: "Chris Krolczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex |
02 Apr 2004 07:10:48 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404012157.387ae93e@posting.google.com>...
I like the history of science, and will not [L]"stop digging up
old, moldy references" anytime soon.
Especially the more self-serving ones, right?
-Chris Krolczyk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex |
02 Apr 2004 08:06:48 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote:
I like the history of science, and will not [L]"stop digging up
old, moldy references" anytime soon.
If you were using them to enlighten on the *history* of science, that
would be fine. To use them to imply something about the *current* state
of science is a very different matter.
Wilson, Edmund B. 1915. "Some Aspects of Progress in
Modern Zoology"
While what he had to say is of *historical* interest, it has been
totally superseded in the ensuing century as far as *science* is
concerned.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex |
02 Apr 2004 12:02:52 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 05:47:31 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
I like the history of science, and will not [L]"stop digging up
old, moldy references" anytime soon.
You like the history of science because you have a pathetic desire to prop
up your world view, and because you know damn well the huge majority of
scientists in the last several decades have no argument with evolutionary
theory, your only choice is to dig at texts so moronically out of date that
only someone fundementally delusional or dishonest would cite them in
anything but a purely historical context.
It also explains why you are a coward who runs away from threads like a
frightened child.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
| Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Joy of sex education
McCain: Same-Sex Marriage Ban Un-Republican (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent?)
|
|
|
