From: "herb sutter" <herb.sutter@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: dawkins/_the selfish
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:42:47 EST
Reply-To: "herb sutter" <herb.sutter@canrem.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

Chris,

Thanks for the reply, and I have to apologise for my own tardiness.  Not
only does it take days before I receive replies, but when I do receive
them I have to queue them in my backlog of mail where I've fallen
behind...  Fortunately, the system reaches an equilibrium:  the less
immediate response I am seen to give, the less people send me mail, and
after a time the two rates even out.  I'm not convinced that this is a
Good Thing.  :-(

In <94150#bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.929.16430@dosgate> "herb sutter"
><herb.sutter@canrem.com> writes:
>
>>2. I use the term "evolution" broadly for convenience.
>
>>3. This may surprise many, but I cheerfully agree that "microevolution"
>>happens all the time.  :-)
>
>What about common descent? If not, what evidence do you have for
>special creation?

Please forgive my ignorance and go slowly, but do you base your evidence
for common descent on structural and genetic similarity in living forms
and in fossilised remains?  I must say that I'm dubious of most such links
I've seen so far, if only because similarity doesn't imply relation.

One of the reasons I'm dissatisfied with many such explanations:  It is an
observed fact that many species are similar to other species.
Evolutionary theory was developed to explain that fact by stating that one
came for another or they shared a common ancestor.  Then, to prove the
theory, it is said that the similarity between many species is proof that
they must be related... which is using the observed fact that the theory
was attempting to explain in the first place as proof.  (Also, "A -> B"
and "B" does not imply "A"; saying that the observed results could have
come by evolution and then asserting that the observed results are true
does not imply that evolutionary theory is true.)

(Bother, my word choice is very poor... in the above paragraph, "species"
isn't quite the word I want, but I want something broader.  I have no
problems with speciation (at least for quite minor changes) but do have
problems with (even eventual) change of `kind'.  If you have suggestions
for better wording, please offer them.)

>
>>I just don't think it should be called
>>"evolution."
>
>Oh I see, since you use the term incorrectly, we should all change
>our usage? Is that it or am I missing something?

No, I don't mean to presume.  I'll try to restate.

"Microevolution" is the term in common usage, and I agree that what it
describes (as I understand it, I'm not a biologist) occurs.  My
reservation is that, in my view, what it describes is not what people
commonly think of as "evolution"; it may be misleading because of claims
that microevolution leads to macroevolution and change of `kind', thus the
fact that microevolution occurs is taken (I feel wrongly) by some as proof
that macroevolution and other aspects of the theory also occur.

The term itself is accurate and true to its root words, but bears
unfortunate connotations with many people.  "Variety within a kind" is
perhaps more precise, though I'm open to suggestions.

>
>>Of course there are blue finches and orange finches and
>>quite possibly purple polka-dotted finches, all descended from common
>>ancestor(s), but:  a) I would call this "variety within a `kind'" instead
>>of "evolution" (which implies eventual change of `kind');
>
>Do you have any evidence for your views.
>
>>b) the finches
>>are still finches, they haven't changed into dogs or cats.
>
>No, but they used to be dinosaurs (and yes, I have evidence _for_ this).

I would be grateful for references.  If you mean fossil sequences (perhaps
including creatures like Archaeopteryx (sp?)), I should warn again that
I'm dubious of claims that similarity must imply relation.  Evolutionary
theory cannot use similarity as proof, since that is what it is trying to
explain.

(More in another followup...)

.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| The optimist believes that we live in the best of all possible worlds.      |
| The pessimist fears that this is true.                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|UUCP:canrem!herb.sutter INTERNET:herb.sutter@canrem.com COMPUSERVE:70312,1233|
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

:DeLuxe2 1.12 #9091 * File not found.  Should I fake it? (Y/N)
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044