paulsamuel
Registered Senior Member
reply to WellCookedFetus
no, Gould's not denying that evolution happens. What Gould is saying.
macroevolutionary changes (in which he includes specieation) cannot be explained by microevolutionary processes (random mutation and gradual change through selection). this is the crux of the controversy.
he's saying specifically,
natural selection resulting in evolution does not occur only at the organismal level (he propounds species and cladal selection)
not all variation is produced randomly, so, in some instances, evolution is directed.
adaptive and non-adaptive changes are not solely responsible for evolution (i.e. non-selective processes).
The Darwinian foundation is there, but the framework has changed (or been replaced) so that it's hardly recognizable as Darwinian any longer.
These are not just mathematical changes, these are revisions that could be considered major (certainly Dawkins, Maynard Smith et al. consider them major since they are so adamant and vociferous in their opposition to them)
no, Gould's not denying that evolution happens. What Gould is saying.
macroevolutionary changes (in which he includes specieation) cannot be explained by microevolutionary processes (random mutation and gradual change through selection). this is the crux of the controversy.
he's saying specifically,
natural selection resulting in evolution does not occur only at the organismal level (he propounds species and cladal selection)
not all variation is produced randomly, so, in some instances, evolution is directed.
adaptive and non-adaptive changes are not solely responsible for evolution (i.e. non-selective processes).
The Darwinian foundation is there, but the framework has changed (or been replaced) so that it's hardly recognizable as Darwinian any longer.
These are not just mathematical changes, these are revisions that could be considered major (certainly Dawkins, Maynard Smith et al. consider them major since they are so adamant and vociferous in their opposition to them)