> Sorry if I seem so contentious on the point but I repeat, the vehement >
> reliance of natural selection as a mechanism for macro-Evolution has >
> stiffled the quest for truth in this arena for a century (and still > does!)
This the standard arguement against natural selectioin. It is used because
natural selection has in fact passed every expermental and observational test
to which it has been subjected. Most of the arguements about macroselection
revolve around things like macromutation (hopeful monsters) developemental
biology and of course Intelligent Design. The most reasonable of these has to
do with the work on evo devo but even here this work simply supplies natrual
selection with tools it needs to do its work. It is not that other processes
are key players it just that selection is the only mechanism that explains the
presence evolution and preservation of adaptation in the biological world.
People have always have had trouble accepting selection as the key player in
our history. It seems so simple. Many have considered it a tautology (organisms
that survive better survive better) almost empty of content but this fails to
see it as a motive force. Darwin's initial formulation still work
s and all advances in biology have simply enforced the role of selection. I
think the main reason that selection is so unpopular is that it affronts our
inflated sense of our own wonderfulness. Hubris pure and simple.
In the end macroevolution is simply evolution occurring over long periods of
time. Trends in evolution reflect the ability of biotic life to probe the
environment to discover new and better ways to make a "living".
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
