Date: Fri Sep 26 2003 - 12:47:36 EDT
You are correct. I almost included that in my original post. There was a
bit of name-calling about who was a believer in "Darwinism." Those who
emphasized the non-gradualistic mechanisms were harassed about their
beliefs, and they responded that they really did believe in "Darwinism"
because of they saw a role for selection in their scenarios.
Because of these messy definitions, it is important to examine what a person
means in using the word "Darwinism." Does "Defeating Darwinism" mean that
you defeat "evolution?" Of course not, but people who are trained in
twisting meanings take advantage of this confusion.
Jim Behnke email@example.com
Wilmore, KY 40390 859-858-3511 x 2232
From: Robert Schneider [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 11:55 AM
To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Darwinian and non-Darwinian (was Re: RFEP & ID)
> Generally, when we describe someone as a "Darwinian," we are saying that
> they believe that gradualism and selection are the important features in
> evolutionary process. It seems that ecologists tend to be hard-core
> Non-Darwinian biologists view drift, founder effects, macromutations
> with multiple effects) and similar processes as the important mechanisms
> an evolutionary pathway. S.J. Gould popularized this in the punctuated
> equilibrium model.
> Jim Behnke email@example.com
> Asbury College
> Wilmore, KY 40390 859-858-3511 x 2232
Thanks, Jim. I'm grateful for this statement. But a query. Do not such
phenomena as gene flow, genetic drift, founder effect, etc., still depend in
some way on selection, as in the establishment of a new population in a new
environment (e.g., migration to an island), even though the rate of
evolutionary change may be much more than gradual? Help me out in
understanding and clarifying this point.
(Berea College ex-patriate now in Boone, NC)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 26 2003 - 12:46:54 EDT