Re: The evolution of "evolution"

From: Derek Gatherer (
Date: Wed 12 Oct 2005 - 08:36:22 GMT

  • Next message: Derek Gatherer: "Re: The evolution of "evolution""

    At 23:41 02/10/2005, you wrote:

    >If you think I've misstated modern biology, perhaps you should point out the

    Let's see ..... and in the very next paragraph:

    >With its dependence on accident
    >in place of adaptation, neo-Darwinism is inherently implausible,

    That's about as whopping a misrepresentation as one could think of
    (it's called Hoyle's fallacy after the astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle who made the same mistake). Meanwhile in the real world, by the late 60s, many theorists had become so fixated on adaptation, that Steve Gould felt compelled to write his famous "Spandrels" article and his well-known Scientific American review to redress the balance. The neo-adaptationist Dan Dennett was then moved to respond to Gould at book length in "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". In "Structure of Evolutionary Theory", Gould dissects pan-adaptationism and its roots in laborious detail - you seemed to imply in a previous message that you'd read "Structure", so why the Hoyle's fallacy?

    Gould against adaptationism:

    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 12 Oct 2005 - 09:01:12 GMT