Daniel Smith
Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007
|
Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 01 2007,23:27) | Quote | I have to clarify here that this was not Schindewolf's view. He held "mysticism" (as he called it) in contempt and thought that evolution proceeded by internal factors alone - which constrained it along certain paths.
|
How does this differ from the views of Lamark? |
Schindewolf did not subscribe at all to Lamarckism: Quote | an unbiased examination of the fossil material itself also reveals that absolutely no direct response to environmental influences or appropriate adaptations in the Lamarckian sense must necessarily be inferred... Formerly, in emphasizing the supremacy of the environment, the properties and qualities of organisms were unduly disregarded. Yet it should be obvious that in such chains of reactions and complexes of conditions the objects themselves must be credited with critical significance. When I heat two chemical substances together, it is not the rise in temperature but the composition of the original material that is decisive. The rise in temperature only triggers the reaction; under certain circumstances, it can be replaced by a different physical or chemical action (pressure, catalysts), and the result, determined by the original material, will still be the same. At most, the environment plays only a similar role with regard to organisms; it can only provoke and set in motion some potential that is already present. | Basic Questions in Paleontology, pp. 312-313 (emphasis his) Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 01 2007,23:27) | How do these 'internal factors', whatever they might be, get translated into mutations and changes in gene frequences? Schindewolf, obviously, could not have expressed much of an opinion on the subject as at the time it was not even known what material carried genetic information. | Schindewolf was familiar with the relatively new science of genetics: Quote | For our phylogenetic approach, then, we shall take from genetics the basic pair of factors, random mutability and directive selection. These two factors and their mechanisms provide a satisfactory understanding of microevolution, of the experimentally ascertainable modification of forms of lesser rank. The changes observed here are usually confined to species and have nothing to do with innovation, with the creation of new organs, but always only with relatively trivial, gradual changes regarding size, shape, number, color, and so on in organs that are already present. | ibid., pg. 329 (emphasis his) Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 01 2007,23:27) | However, what is your explanation. Presumably you have thought about it as you are carrying the torch for Schindewolf. |
I have thought about it, but I'm not sure what my explanation is yet. I fully expect more discoveries to reveal that DNA is deeper than originally thought, and that things like this will be found more and more often. Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 01 2007,23:27) |
Quote | 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. |
You say he held mysticism in contempt yet at the same time believed that somehow horses not only knew that at some time in the future they would benefit from having fewer toes but were actually able to evolve towards that state? To me, that is a prime example of mysticism. Again, what mechanism do you propose? |
He never said horses "knew" any such thing, and I'm not sure how you got that from my posts. I'm afraid though, that I mischaracterized Schindewolf's views here. He never used the term "goal" when describing his views - that was my word.
-------------- "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
|