Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!bmcg!asgb!hao!ward
From: ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: On Natural Selection
Message-ID: <1485@hao.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 21-Apr-85 23:19:43 EST
Article-I.D.: hao.1485
Posted: Sun Apr 21 23:19:43 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Apr-85 02:40:32 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 88

>Sure - exactly as expected.  Pure grandstanding, as Bill says.  If they
>get more complex, we expect it.  If they regress, we expect it.  If
>they stay exactly the same, we expected that, too.  So no matter what
>happens, we expect it.  So, as always, evolution reduces to
>description, not explanation or mechanism.  This is not very
>compelling as an "expectation".

The theory of evolution by way of natural selection says that random
changes to the genetic material of organisms and  environmental
conditions that change in unpredictable ways interact to create new
species.  Predictions about the direction of any particular change in
the natural state are not only not supported by this theory, they are
forbidden.  How can you make predictions about how random changes will
occur? 

Darwin's theory allowed for both increase and decrease in complexity,
with an overall trend toward an increase, probably caused by factors
that cause a more complex organism to *generally* have a reproductive
advantage over one that is less complex.  Darwin's theory did not
allow for organisms that remain unchanged for long periods of time. 
This very large hole in the theory was the reason for the formulation
of punctuated equilibrium.  The proponants of punctuated equilibrium
are even now fighting the battle that is required to bring a new theory
forth and get it accepted in the community of science. This theory
allows for stasis.

Criticizing the theory of evolution for not predicting what it says
cannot be predicted makes as much sense as throwing out the principle of
uncertainty because it doesn't predict the location and velocity of a
photon.

>If we know enough about the environment to say "Evolution is based on
>direct natural selection, thus at any given time it procedes [sic] in
>the direction appropriate to the immediate environment", we know enough
>to say why, and whether, hyrax split and one group stayed the same,
>while another didn't.  But we don't, so we can't.  We can guess if we
>want to - but that's all.

In order to say why, and whether Hyrax split and one group stayed the
same, while another didn't we would have to know a great deal about the
genetic characteristics of the Hyrax, about the random changes that
were occurring, and about the environmental conditions that Hyrax was
facing.  Obviously we don't have that knowledge.  This says nothing at
all about the theory.

>Sermon:
>
>This stuff is a positive hindrence to science.  We say "natural
>selection" and our brains stop thinking.  But until we understand the
>physiological and biochemical basis of organismal response to
>environmental stimuli, we're going to STAY STUCK, invoking the magical
>incantation "natural selection" whenever a problem comes up, and we're
>going to continue to remain ignorant.  Phooey.
>
>We say "Natural selection - Ah!  Now I understand."  But do we?  Of
>course we don't.  What do you understand?  It's a buzzword that tells
>us exactly nothing except that what happened, happened.  Now, surely we
>could have deduced that without natural selection.  I'm not denying the
>concept _per se_.  Of course selection occurs.  But the real question
>is why one thing should be selected and not another.
>
>I don't get it.  You guys all KNOW this.  I'n not telling you one
>single thing that you don't already know.  Yet this pretense of the
>idea that natural selection means something or tells us something, is
>maintained.  Why?  Why do you do it?
>
>End of sermon.

Not only do us guys not know this, we know it to be false.  The theory
of evolution through natural selection may not provide some with
enough explanation, but it provides far more in the way of explanation
than any other theory.  It offers a general mechanism by which one
species can change into another and has pointed the way to fruitful
research.  It is true that at the present time we do not know the
mechanism by which species change or remain the same, but I expect that
this is a situation that will change in our lifetime.

The question that is the focal point of this newsgroup will be decided
by that understanding of the physiological and biochemical basis of
organismal response to environmental stimuli that Paul references.  The
mechanisms by which organisms change and resist change will become
known, and this knowledge will destroy the theory of evolution or make
it even more obviously true than it is now.  If a thorough
understanding of the ways genetics works proves that species cannot
change, the theory of evolution will die.  If, on the other hand,
evolutionary mechanisms are found, that should still the voices of
Creationism, since debunking Evolution is all they got.
[]