Science Forums 2

[lemit]

I haven't read "The Origin of Species," but I've been hearing quite a bit about it. Maybe I should look into it.

What I have read is Stephen Jay Gould's columns in "Natural History." In one of those, he pointed out that the theory of evolution, if thought of as a slow, consistent, mechanical process, has some flaws of the kind shown here in lawcat's post. An easy example Gould used was the Viceroy moth, which probably didn't develop its mimicry of the Monarch butterfly in a slow, gradual, mechanical process.

So, if we add chaos to evolution, as has famously been done with the dinosaurs, who seem to have evolved out of existence rather rapidly, we end up with a theory of evolution that is no longer subject to the claim that it's just a different religion, with rigid rules that must be followed.

And we end up with a theory of evolution that allows human influence on climate to be a formidable problem. I don't know if we will follow the route of the Viceroy moth or the route of the dinosaurs. But the longer we follow the organization of the ants (two pulling one direction while three are pulling the other), the closer we come to having that decision made for us.

--lemit