On Wednesday, January 17, 2001 5:14 PM Emlyn emlyn@one.net.au wrote:
> I have some qualified respect for those who say that natural selection
might
> not be the whole answer. However, the burden of proof/evidence is upon
them
> at this point; they must show in convincing ways that natural selection
has
> flaws or is too weak, and make at least some cogent argument as to the
> alternative, tangible mechanism.
This comes down to causes of evolution. If you are positing there're only
two ways to evolve -- either by natural selection (=adaptation to
environments) or conscious design -- I think you are narrowing the field too
much. (For the record, I dismiss conscious design in evolution -- at least,
insofar as someone is positing a god.:)
At the very least, one can add to the list neutral selection (alias genetic
drift) -- certain things are just random. See Motoo Kimura's _The Neutral
Theory of Molecular Evolution_. There is good evidence that most genetic
changes have little or no impact on fitness. And, by most, the figure seems
to be above 90%.
Add to this internal factors, such as molecular drive and orthogenesis.
Natural selection is an external factor. Evolution, in a sense, is like
dialectic between external and internal factors with the latter dominating.
(What an organism or species is right now has more impact on what it's
descendants than external factors, even though they all play a role in the
outcome.)
Directing myself toward the bed,
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:20 MDT