Subject: Re: abiogenesis
Date: 20 Aug 1999 03:41:30 GMT
From: Chris Ho-Stuart <>
Organization: Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Newsgroups: aus.religion,aus.religion.christian,nz.soc.religion
In aus.religion.christian Julian S Visch <> wrote:
> In article <>, "beyond.help" <> writes:
> |> Darwinian evolution, which Niles says is dead.
>
> Now we are getting somewhere, now think for a moment, when was
> Darwin around? O.k. now think what do scientists do? Research
> maybe? And like maybe over time Darwin's initial theory has been
> devised so that his original theory is like out of date with the
> common theory on how evolution works. You do realise evolution
> has two parts, one that we evolve, and second how we evolve.
>
> |> > No, I only mean that you stated that Edredge stated evolution
> |> > was dead, then denied you did. CLearly, you did state
> |> > it. Clearly, you lied.
>
> Are you sure you aren't just refering to Darwin's initial theory on
> how evolution works?

Actually, beyond help is simply working from a whole series of
false premises about what Eldredge and Darwin proposed.
This post is for the benefit of folks who want to base their
agreement or disagreement with the actual position of Eldredge
and Darwin. This of course includes people who disagree with those
distinguished gentlemen, but want to be truthful about what it is
they disagree with.

Darwin proposed a process of cummulative change in successive
generations over long periods of time to explain the observed
facts of patterns of diversity in living and extinct life forms.
He also proposed mechanisms by which cummulative change tended to
give rise to a diversity of highly adapted organisms well fitted
to their particular life style and environment.

Darwin did not explain the source of change in successive
generations; although the fact of such change is directly
observed. The explanation came from the study of genetics.

Darwin did not require the change to be smoothly continuous; though
Eldredge sometimes managed to give that impression. The Punctuated

Equilibrium FAQ at

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html 

discusses this is some detail.

Never-the-less, early in this century an often unstated assumption
of relatively smooth continuous change did become pervasive in the
scientific community, particular amongst those working in genetics
rather than paleontology.

Eldredge and Gould brought to prominence the observation of long
periods of statis in many extinct populations, interspersed with
periods of much more rapid change. This is called punctuated
equilibrium.

The actual mechanisms for change and the source of adaption
remain exactly as before: and entirely Darwinian. This is clearly
apparent in the interview with Eldredge which I cited previously.

http://www.calacademy.org/calwild/archives/sum98/niles.htm 

One extract, which has been posted before and ignored.

My position is the same as Darwin's on this: Evolution works
through processes such as natural selection and speciation.

[ Niles Eldredge ]

Eldredge and Gould were quite provocative with their conclusions,
which is not unusual in the cut and thrust of scientific debate.

Never-the-less, they are generally pretty clear that what is dead
is "phyletic gradualism", not "Darwinian evolution". Both Eldredge
and Gould are Darwinists; as the quote above shows.

Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart