"No, I'm trying to make a point that morphology does not equal speciation. If the definition of "species" can be used to refer to Yorkies and Great Danes as different species, then, basically, morphology = species, and you've got a much stronger support for straight-up Darwinism. Since, after all, his finches *do* look different, even if they can breed with each other."
Okay, for the sake of this debate I'll stick to the mating-based biological species concept. However, I would argue that there really isn't that much of a difference between the two dogs you mention in comparison to say, an octopus and a horse. In addition, I would point out that since Darwin's finches, which are only one piece of evidence that even Darwin used, biologists have found numerous other examples to back up evolution. A finding that some of Darwin's finches can mate hardly damns evolution as a whole, since numerous studies have been performed by scientists since, who have had the resources to check for mating capability.
"That it's all about this looking like that thing, which may or may not have to do with exclusivity of reproduction...That a "common ancestor" may or may not simply be a relative of one species that *looks like* another species."
I think we can agree that at a certain level of differentiation, one thing looking like another thing is evidence that the two species cannot possibly mate. Tracking down certain common ancestors can be difficult, because the fossil record is very incomplete. However, this does not mean that biologists are incapable of coming to conclusions on other, more well understood, parts of the data.
"I'm saying there are certain questions you can't ask because you'll get branded a "creation scientist." It's self-interest based on fear. Which is the real shame of the ongoing evolution vs. creation battle."
Okay, lets look at Richard Dawkins, one of the most prolific writers in the field of evolution. In his book, "The Blind Watchmaker", he states:
"But there are other theories that are most definitely not versions of Darwinism, theories that go flatly against the very spirit of Darwinism. These rival theories are the subject of this chapter. They include various versions of what is called Lamarckism; also other points of view such as 'neutralism', 'mutationism' and creationism, which have, from time to time been advanced as alternatives to Darwinian selection. The obvious way to decide between rival theories is to examine the evidence." (287)
Later in the chapter Dawkins explains:
"We now come to another historical rival to Darwinism - the theory of 'mutationism'. It is hard for us to comprehend now but, in the early years of this century when the phenomenon of mutation was first named, it was regarded not as a necessary part of Darwinian theory but as an alternative theory of evolution! There was a school of geneticists called the mutationists, which included such famous names as Hugo de Vries and William Bateson among the early rediscovers of Mendel's principles of heredity. De Vries in particular was impressed by the magnitude of the change that mutation can wreak, and he thought that new species always originated from single major mutations." (305).
You get the basic idea. Throughout that section, Dawkins maintains a seperation between the scientific but flawed alternitives to evolution and the religious-based creationism. If anything, he goes out of his way to avoid labeling brilliant scientists with oddball views as creationists.
Your fishery example doesn't exactly come off as a heated scientific debate. 
Your interview example demonstrates that Wallace had faith in a higher being. However, it says very little about his theory. On the webpage you cited, if you go up to the main page you will have access to the misinformation section. There it says:
"Wallace did not coin the phrase "survival of the fittest"--Herbert Spencer did. It was Wallace, however, who suggested that Darwin use the phrase as a means of conveying the basic idea of natural selection to nonspecialist readers."
This seems to contridict your earlier statement that:
"It wasn't creationism, but it wasn't Darwinism either - and definitely wouldn't adapt itself to "social darwinist" ideas of survival of the fittest..."
However, later on you say:
"Darwin and Wallace agreed on the mechanics, but Wallace had an abiding interest in the human soul."
So, I'm sort of confused as to what you're saying as far as the differences between Wallace and Darwin go.
I think that, as far as the evolution debate goes, you have people attacking it from both the right and the left. I can understand that evolution goes against the ideas expressed by creationist goofballs, and that they feel the need to attempt to disprove it. However, what I don't understand is why so many people on the left are just as vehemently against the theory. |
