throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (09/26/86)
> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) > The whole concept of evolution > is interesting: we are evolving to higher and higher states. This > implies some 'high state' toward which we are moving. There must be > some ideal to which we achieve closer and closer appoximations. Where > did this ideal come from? Well, since in Darwinian evolution there is no such reference to "evolving to higher states", the answer is that in Darwinian evolution the ideal didn't come from anywhere, since it doesn't exist. This "definition" of evolution as directed towards "higher states" is a common misconception. Darwinian evolution is talking about adaptation to environment, not change directed to some "ideal form". And even if there is an "ideal form" that is "perfectly suited" for some environment-or-other, Darwinian evolution is *NOT* directed "towards" this ideal, but rather *AWAY* from less-adapted forms. Please, folks, if you want to find flaws in evolutionary theory, attempt to find these flaws in the real theory, not in a straw man disguised as evolutionary theory. -- Optimization hinders evolution. --- Alan J. Perlis -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
hogan@rosevax.UUCP (Andy Hogan) (10/04/86)
In article <599@dg_rtp.UUCP>, throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes: > > stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) > > The whole concept of evolution > > is interesting: we are evolving to higher and higher states. This > > implies some 'high state' toward which we are moving. There must be > > some ideal to which we achieve closer and closer appoximations. Where > > did this ideal come from? > Well, since in Darwinian evolution there is no such reference to > "evolving to higher states", the answer is that in Darwinian evolution > the ideal didn't come from anywhere, since it doesn't exist. > This "definition" of evolution as directed towards "higher states" is a > common misconception. Darwinian evolution is talking about adaptation > to environment, not change directed to some "ideal form". > Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw In fact, if I remember my lessons, Darwin and his work were thoroughly attacked *because* his theory dropped this notion of Man being on top of a ladder of lower-to-higher forms of life. This ladder, as generally thought of in Darwin's day, had simple creatures at the bottom, and moved "up" through reptiles into mammals. Then it very carefully put monkeys, great apes, Negroes, Asians, and (European) Caucasians as the last few rungs of the ladder. Nice little bit of racism built right into scientific thought, eh? Darwin's writings on evolution and natural selection knocked this ladder over, stating quite clearly his view that Man was not a pinacale, but just the most well adapted and succesfull animal. This flew directly in the face of the *common* perceptions (and almost directly into the teachings of the various Christian churches.) And as far as I can tell, this has been a basis of the problems evolution has had with support in the general populace ever since. -- Notice how they do not so much fly, as plummet. {appropriate head movement} --Monty Python (Flying Sheep Sketch) Andy Hogan Rosemount, Inc. Mpls MN path: ...ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!rosevax!hogan