Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006
|
| Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 09 2009,18:13) | Bill, I see that I did insert the term "speciation" into the debate. I never intended to do so. That was a slip. It also explains why I immediately asked the question about biological systems - not speciation.
I viewed your attempt to insert Mayr's definition of "speciation" into the debate as a dodge. I now see that I am partly at fault for that.
I know that "reproductive isolation" can occur through drift in separate populations and I'm not arguing that it cannot. I still don't see that as applicable to any of my arguments. |
Mayr's view of speciation is directly applicable to your assertion that the "scientific" prong of your (exceptionally weak) positive argument is adequately elucidated and defended by the works of your favorite authors (Schindewolf, Goldschmidt, etc.). These scientists were motivated by dilemmas regarding speciation that Mayr and others substantially solved 60 years ago. The reality of allopatric speciation (which you acknowledge as well established), as well as other mechanisms that go far beyond "the sheer accumulation of micro-mutations" and that have been part of evolutionary theory for decades, completely obviate the need to introduce saltation and corresponding entirely speculative "new" causal mechanisms into evolutionary theory.
I introduced these topics, and particularly the extensive quotation of Mayr, to exemplify the authors I rely upon to guide my limited reading resources and to make exactly those points, in direct response to your false assertion that adequate science supports your view on saltation.
As for your question about the origins of complex biological systems by sole means of micro-mutations, I have already told you I don't intend to circle your mulberry bush, as you have made it amply clear that your prior, theological commitments render you implacably committed to ignore any and all evidence addressing this question, adjusting goal posts as needed.
The only dodge involved is that of which you take ownership: "That was a slip. It also explains why I immediately asked the question about biological systems - not speciation." God, you crack me up.
It seems obvious to me that you are unwilling or unable to address the following question:
Given that population thinking vis speciation (e.g. allopatric speciation) obviated the need for saltation in the mode of Schindewolf, Goldschmidt, etc., and given that saltation has been regarded for decades as having decisively refuted by population arguments, does not the reality of speciation in Mayr's allopatric mode (about which you know there is a scientific consensus) refute the "scientific" prong of your "theory"?
--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace
"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington
|
