Joined: Sep. 2007
|Quote (creeky belly @ Sep. 23 2007,05:40)|
|Do you mean "archetypes" like he writes on page 411? As he says: "In contrast, we stay with the objective natural data and strive to arrange the morphological steps in the system in their natural sequence." So let's look at fossils that have been discovered since 1950: how about the Therapsid-Mammal transition, are they far enough apart? Try Colbert and Morales (1991) or Strahler(1987). Reptile-Amphibian? Try here. Fish-Amphibian? Try here!|
I'm not sure what you're arguing against here. The passage you quoted was from the chapter on taxonomy and he was discussing phylogenetic classification (which he deemed subjective) as opposed to morphological classification (which he called objective).
You seem to be arguing as if he denied common descent or evolution in general. He denied neither. His contention was with the mechanism of evolution.
Schindewolf proposed that evolution proceeded according to patterns. He gave the example of the marsupial and placental wolves. These obviously unrelated animals developed eerily similar features quite independently of each other.
He also proposed that evolution proceeded as if constrained by a goal. He gives the example of the evolution of the one-toed foot on the horse - which began long before the horse moved onto the plains and the one-toed foot became advantageous.
He also proposed that evolution occurred during ontogeny and gave several examples of ammonoid suture and coral septal apparatus evolution to support his views.
Again, I'm not sure what you are arguing against.
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright
"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins