Well, being Darwinism is not a "law" ( merely speculations by the
"visually impaired" leading the "visually impaired")
Actually, we speak of Newton's ideas as Newton's Laws even though we
know they are wrong by experiment and theory. Darwin's ideas are
likely less wrong, and have been proved by both experiment and theory.
Consequently, it is politer to refer to them as laws.
(Darwin himself spoke of one idea, but Ernst Mayr argued convincingly
that they are five:
* "Evolution as such", which comes from the understanding that
the world is not constant. It was not recently created; it
is not cycling. The world changes. Moreover, the types of
entities that live on it also change.
* "Natural selection", which is the understanding that
individuals in every generation differ from one another, or,
at least that some of them do. In every generation some
individuals survive and reproduce better than others. Their
genes multiply.
* "Multiplication of species", which is the understanding that
species either split into or bud off other species. Because
different ecological niches provide different ways for an
animal or plant to live -- provide different `professions' --
and because blueprints do not copy perfectly, different
plants and come to fill different niches, with different
shapes and behaviors.
* "Gradualism", which is the understanding that changes take
place through a gradual change of population rather than the
sudden production of new individuals.
`Gradual' is a relative word. In discussions of `punctuated
equilibria', I have heard people talk of one species
replacing another in the `blink of an eye'. What they meant
was a time period that is many times as long as written human
history. The `blink' might last 100,000 years.
* "Common descent", which is the understanding that every group
of living entities that we know of on this planet descended
from a common ancestor. (Prions do not fit this category,
but every other kind of biological entity does that we have
seen so far. Economies, which are also self-replicating
entitites, do not fit this category either.)
(My hunch is that the last notion will fade; but that people will find
the first three or four useful for centuries to come, just as Newton's
Laws are useful when considering planets, and Aristotle's useful when
moving heavy stones. By the way, speaking in defense of Aristotle, I
can tell you from personal experience that heavy stones stop moving
when you stop pushing. Worse, dropped stones seek the center of the
earth, even if your toe is in the way!)
How about this question... How probable would it be to
artificially INDUCE a small population of blind cave fish to start
growing eyes again without breeding it back to the parent Mexican
Tetra line? Could it be done in less than 100 generations?
I have no idea. I've heard that efforts are or have been made to
back-breed cows.
--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
