Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002
|
Daniel Smith:
| Quote |
It would seem Wesley, that you have erected your own strawman to use against Schindewolf.
|
I am taking Schindewolf's words as expressing his opinion and holding him responsible for those because, as even Daniel has had to stipulate, they are demonstrably false. It is Daniel who has been engaging in revisionism in the exchange, seeking some exculpatory out for Schindewolf, and is now reduced to making wild and false accusations of bad behavior on the part of his correspondents.
| Quote |
You've provided one quote - from a lifetime of work - and concluded (from that one quote) that Schindewolf did not understand Darwin (and by implication - Darwin's theory).
|
My point, in case Daniel missed it, is that Schindewolf misrepresented Darwin. Unable to get around that clear demonstration that Schindewolf is an unreliable guide to prior work, Daniel is having a good go at shifting goalposts again. I think I have been pretty clear concerning the limits I was placing on my discussion; I can't help it if Daniel can't parse that.
| Quote |
In order to scientifically conclude that Schindewolf did not understand Darwin's theory, it would be necessary to search through his life's work, find every instance where he makes a claim about Darwin's theory, and show that a significant amount of them render that conclusion.
|
Hypocrite. Daniel isn't willing to apply that standard to all the other people whose life's work he is willing to denigrate, sight unseen.
And I haven't said anything about the current validity of Schindewolf's ideas on their own because I haven't thoroughly studied Schindewolf's ideas. Unlike Daniel, I don't care to dismiss stuff on the basis of personal ignorance. As to the completeness of the fossil record, I think that studies by Raup and Foote are more quantitatively based, and far more recent. That said, it sounds like the first two points of "rapid radiation, stasis, and over-specialization" are things that even Darwin discussed, and the third sounds like orthogenesis, which is thoroughly discredited.
On "rapid radiation", Darwin said the following:
| Quote |
I may here recall a remark formerly made, namely that it might require a long succession of ages to adapt an organism to some new and peculiar line of life, for instance to fly through the air; but that when this had been effected, and a few species had thus acquired a great advantage over other organisms, a comparatively short time would be necessary to produce many divergent forms, which would be able to spread rapidly and widely throughout the world.
|
So that one Schindewolf might have cribbed from Darwin, and so much the worse for Schindewolf if he didn't credit Darwin for it.
On long periods of no change, Darwin said the following:
| Quote |
Nothing can be effected, unless favourable variations occur, and variation itself is apparently always a very slow process. The process will often be greatly retarded by free intercrossing. Many will exclaim that these several causes are amply sufficient wholly to stop the action of natural selection. I do not believe so. On the other hand, I do believe that natural selection will always act very slowly, often only at long intervals of time, and generally on only a very few of the inhabitants of the same region at the same time. I further believe, that this very slow, intermittent action of natural selection accords perfectly well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of this world have changed. [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.153]
|
So that one Schindewolf might have cribbed from Darwin, and so much the worse for Schindewolf if he didn't credit Darwin for it.
Darwin didn't go any way toward the dead-end of orthogenesis, which is a point to him. If Schindewolf did go that way, so much the worse for him (and according to the Afterword by Wolf Reif, that is exactly the way Schindewolf went).
Another interesting bit comes from the Foreword to Schindewolf's book by Stephen Jay Gould, where he notes that Schindewolf's forcefulness of character inhibited expression of critical views in Germany for many years:
| Quote |
Reif ends: "Finally, as late as the 1970s young authors risked censure by their superiors if they discussed typostrophism [Schindewolf's main concept] critically. Under the influence of Schindewolf's authority, evolution was no topic for the would-be paleontologist." I believe I sense some legitimate bitterness in Reif's words.
|
So it seems that when he was at his prime, Schindewolf encouraged stifling dissent from typostrophism and failed to be a role model for any sort of "strengths and weaknesses" blather.
Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 27 2008,17:04
--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
