Daniel Smith
Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
| Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 02 2007,08:48) | It is interesting that, when asked questions, those who accept the theory of evolution answer in their own words, with links to sources, while those who don't accept it cut and paste more or less lengthy excerpts of other people's writings.
|
I can't win! First I'm told to bring it back to the subject - which was Schindewolf's take on horse evolution - then I'm chided for quoting Schindewolf! | Quote |
| Quote | Schindewolf did not subscribe at all to Lamarckism:
"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)
|
And this differs from Lamarkism how (your own words, please)? As I see it, he is saying "Lamark claims they adapt to present conditions, I say they adapt to future conditions". This is less mystic and more reasonable because . . . (own words, please)? |
You want me to explain Schindewolf's position without quoting Schindewolf?
OK, basically, Schindewolf believed that a lineage's evolutionary path was set from the first saltational event that created that type. He documented what he interpreted as evolutionary patterns throughout the fossil record - which he then used to construct the framework of his "typostrophic theory". This theory consisted of three stages; "typogenesis", which was the saltational evolution of types; "typostasis", which was a period of gradual development in a way that was constrained by the original typogenetic phase; and finally, "typolysis" which was a period of over-specialization that would usually end in the extinction of the species.
He did not believe that anyone was guiding these processes, he believed them to be totally self-contained.
| Quote |
| Quote | Schindewolf was familiar with the relatively new science of genetics:
|
That does not address the question. The question was "How do these 'internal factors', whatever they might be, get translated into mutations and changes in gene frequences?" In other words, how do the required changes in the DNA (that he could not have known about) take place? What makes a specific alanine change to leucine? Please answer in your own words. |
He believed that these saltational changes took place during ontogeny. He cited the many ontogenetic phases documented in the fossils of ammonites, corals, and other lineages in the fossil record as evidence of this. | Quote |
Being able to answer in your own words is significant because it shows that you have thought about the issues to at least some degree.
| Quote | Linnaeus first published his Systema Naturae in 1738. How could it not be flawed by today's standards? Hierarchies and evolutionary trees are still hotly disputed amongst those who classify organisms.
You are right that he formed no new hypothesis based on his hierarchy, but he was an adherent to natural theology - so that would be his "hypothesis" I suppose.
The point is that a nested hierarchy was postulated before Darwin's time so how could it be a prediction? |
Hierarchies are hotly disputed? Perhaps at some level, but they are being refined all the time. There is general agreement about the broad outlines and many of the finer details. Could you give an example of a hot dispute in taxonomy?
A nested hierarchy was postulated before Darwin's time? Could we please have a reference.
I think you still have not grasped the significance of a nested hierarchy and are confusing it with Linnaeus' use of a nested hierarchy in his classification scheme. The crucial thing as regards evolution is that it predicts the nested hierarchies will all be the same and that is what is observed. |
You just said Linnaeus used a nested hierarchy to classify organisms. Linnaeus did this more than 100 years before Darwin. Yet you want me to show that a nested hierarchy was postulated before Darwin's time?
As for your second point. Maybe you're right. I'm assuming that nested hierarchies based on morphological characters, or homologous characters, or analogous characters, or genetic sequences will all be different. I haven't seen how they all line up.
--------------
"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
|
