Orthogenesis again

[John Grehan]

Stuart Poss commented:

>I am now told a discussion of molecular drive as it pertains to this specific
>definition of orthogenesis can be found in Systematic Zoology.

I don't think I said that - although there is brief reference to it in the
article. A
more detailed account of the possible significance of molecular drive and
Darwin's laws of growth are discussed in the panbiogeography book.

  Although I have
>a complete set of this journal and have read many of these papers, I must
>confess to not being familiar with the special definition of orthogenesis
made
>plain in SZ 34: 174-192,

Sorry, no "special defnition" was made. The article looked at the defnitions
of practioners such as Haacke (who started the term), and others, and assesed
the conflicting definitions to argue that those of Mayr, Simpsion, Gould were
less accurate (Gould even got the orginator wrong I think).

and perhaps I should be chided for looking at a
>dictionary to establish the common meanings of words

I was just surprised at using the dictionary as the authority for scientific
terms in an issue one is involved with debating. I apologise for any
implication of chiding.

and perhaps being
>insufficiently knowledgeable of the Italian translations, as to make the
>mistake of only looking in an American dictionary.

I pulled off the shelf Van Nostrand's scientific encyclopeida (New Jersey,
1958)
which defines orthogenesis as "A theory of organic evolution which assumes
the occurence of progressive change in living things along definite lines of
development." Not too far off the mark, certainly nothing about purposeful
evolution, so no need to regard American dictionaries as necessarily
inadequate.

  Please forgive my bias, but
>my comprehension of science is better done English and mathematics than in
>other european languages.

I think all Colacino was pointing out is that European views on orthogenesis
did agree with those I presented, and conflicted with those of Mayr etc. I
don't
thing he was implying that you need to read non-English languages to be aware
of other views on orthogenesis, and since there are English speaking
supporters that would not be necessary to be aware of the alternative usage
to that of Simpson, Mayr and Gould etc.

>However, it does strike me as surprising, that if orthogenesis is such a
>powerfully explanatory theory, that I did not hear a great many other
>scientists citing this work as a profound revolution in our understanding of
>the organization of the natural world.

The trouble with someting being regarded as "powerful" it can be circular.
Powerful explanatory theories tend to be those that are popular, which by
definition makes them powerful. Orthogenesis is a concept supported by a
minority, so by the definition of popularity its not powerful. Until
shortly after the turn of the century Darwin's natural selection was not
all that popular either.

  Perhaps I didn't appreciate the profundity of the work from
>its title.  In any event, as soon as I have the time, I look forward to
reading
>to discover how Darwin got it wrong.

I think you will find that the arguments inadequate, and that Darwin never
got it wrong. Actually Darwin didn't get it wrong. He did propose an
orthogenetic model, and regreted later giving too much attention to natural
selection.

  Perhaps the Kansas Board of Education got it
>right after all and I am one of the few not to recongize it.

I found this final comment a bit obscure. Please clarify.

John Grehan