gordon
Member
Member # 781
|
posted 16. September 2003 10:37
A new thread so as to not divert from the subject of Paul's thread on ontogeny.
I had commented to Walter:
quote:
I am not sure I understand why this [clear cut lineages and ancestors] should be expected of evolution - the very nature of Nature seems to prohibit the "clear cut" lineages and ancestors as ReMine seems to think should be in abundance.
I am curious as to whether Discontinuity Systematics - or Intelligent Design in general - does provide evidence of, or better yet, examples of, "clear cut lineages and ancestors".
To which Walter responded, to which I will respond as needed (again, sorry for the point-by-point, but I think in this case it makes for an easier understanding):
quote:
Darwin's Origin of Species never discussed the origin of species -- the process of cladogenesis. Instead, his book discussed the transformation of species through time -- anagenesis or LINEAGE.
Ok. Of course, the theory as laid out by Darwin is not the theory of today, so I fail to see the relevance. quote:
Also, anagenesis (not cladogenesis) is where natural selection was said to operate. Yes, the classical Darwinians expected to find identifiable lineages.
Perhaps so. Are there any "classical Darwinians" around today? I personally don't know of any, but perhaps you do? quote:
I'd say the classical Darwinians themselves contradicted your notion of what evolution predicts. Their research program devoted many resources and over a hundred twenty years in the search for clear-cut ancestors and lineages -- and failed.
Perhaps you could document this search (yes, I have read your book), or at least mention a few examples, for I have never heard of such a thing. quote:
Indeed, they went considerable distance in (unintentionally) creating, what turned out to be, an illusion that ancestors are clear and had been identified. An entire systematic methodology (Darwinian Systematics) went down with it.
This is most intriguing! Again, I have never hard about this. Surely this is all documented somewhere. What ancestors have been (illusionarily, of course) identified? quote:
And the entire edifice of illusion constructed by the Darwinian Systematists (e.g. paraphyletic groups) had to be torn down by the cladists and thrown in the dumpster of history.
And so you 'establish' that the 'original' theory has been supplanted. Again, I fail to see the relevance. If Darwin's original theory - so-called "classical Darwinism" I suppose - was still the norm, then I suppose you would have a point, but as this is not the case, these appears to be little more than flailing.
Now that this is in a new thread, perhaps discussion of Discontinuity Systematics can proceed. For example, as it is claimed that a failure of 'classical Darwinism' was the inability to find 'clear cut lineages and ancestors', it stands to reason that a superior alternative should have done this, even if the only accpetable "descent" is within 'kinds' or 'baramina' or whatever they are being called by the anti-Darwinists.
Is this so? If not, why then is Discontinuity Systematics presented, at least implicitly, as superior? And if DS has in fact done this, where can we learn more about it?
Would HGT confound DS?
If not, why not?
[ 19. September 2003, 09:39: Message edited by: gordon ]
IP: Logged
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic