Darwinian and panbiogeographic frameworks

[Carmine Colacino]

Thank you for your message.
Of course, I was not blaming you for checking definitions in a dictionary, I
apologize if it seemed that way.
Moreover, I have no idea on how orthogenesis is defined in an Italian
dictionary either. It is not a problem of language, but of concepts, I
believe.
>From (the little) I know, it looks like Darwin itself was aware of the
importance of constraints, and he referred to them in several editions of
his book "On the Origin of species by Means of Natural Selection", and in
several of his published letters (see Craw, 1984. Charles Darwin on "Laws of
Growth". Tuatara 27: 19-20 for a compilation of relevant quotations).
Darwin admitted to have extended too far the action of natural selection, he
recognized that many morphological changes in plants could be "attributed to
the laws of growth, independently of Natural Selection" (Darwin, 1872. On
the Origin etc. 6th edn; see also Craw 1984. L?on Croizat's biogeographic
work: A personal appreciation. Tuatara 27: 8-13; Grehan 1984. Evolution by
law: Croizat's "Orthogeny" and Darwin's "Laws of Growth." Tuatara 27:
14-18).

In any case, Orthogenesis simply refers to the fact that a variation of form
is limited and constrained by the initial state.

This simple fact, therefore, limits the action of natural selection, doesn't
say it is irrelevant.

I am not sure I understood what you actually meant here:
> Please forgive my bias, but my comprehension of science is better
> done English and mathematics than in other european languages.

Carmine Colacino

> Carmine Colacino wrote:
>
>> That is NOT the meaning orthogenesis had in continental Europe.
>> For some strange reason, nobody went to check out what it actually means,
>>
>
> Well, this still doesn't explain to me what special properties of the European
> definition of orthogenesis, should we choose to use that one instead, that are
> relevant to the issue of how such a definition of orthogenesis, however
> conceived, should in some way vitiate the central tenant of Darwinism, namely
> that it is natural selection that is all that appears required to explain the
> evident results of evolutionary history.
>
> I am now told a discussion of molecular drive as it pertains to this specific
> definition of orthogenesis can be found in Systematic Zoology.  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, and perhaps I should be chided for looking at a
> dictionary to establish the common meanings of words and perhaps being
> insufficiently knowledgeable of the Italian translations, as to make the
> mistake of only looking in an American dictionary.  Please forgive my bias,
but
> my comprehension of science is better done English and mathematics than in
> other european languages.   When I don't know the meaning of a word, I tend to
> use a dictionary, typically an English one when there is no widely accepted
> mathematical definition.  I tend to use a dictionary definition of most terms,
> unless there is a specific technical reason, so that I may utilize the
> typically comprehended definition.  This has been most useful to me when
either
> my knowledge is inadequate or when existing useage does not easily permit
> discussion via mathematical analogy, especially if ones mathematical skills
are
> limited.
>
> 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.   In any event, given that this paper
> purports to establish the basis of the rejection of Darwinian theory on the
> basis of the relation of molecular drive to panbiogeography and orthogenesis,
I
> must confess it may have been an oversight for believing some of the
> immediately succeeding paper captured all the interest time gave me the luxury
> to investigate..  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.   In the meantime, perhaps others can
> clarify how they view the signficance of the findings in SZ 34:174-192 in the
> over-turning of Darwinian theory.  Perhaps the Kansas Board of Education got
it
> right after all and I am one of the few not to recongize it.
>
>> CC
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Carmine Colacino
>> Herbarium Lucanum & Dept. of Biology
>> University of Basilicata
>> 85100 Potenza, southern Italy
>> Tel. ++39/097-120-2216; Fax ++39/097-120-2256
>> e-mail: colacino at unibas.it
>> url: http://www.unibas.it/utenti/colacino/mediterraneo.html
>
>
>
> --
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Stuart G. Poss                       E-mail: Stuart.Poss at usm.edu
> Senior Research Scientist & Curator  Tel: (228)872-4238
> Gulf Coast Research Laboratory       FAX: (228)872-4204
> P.O. Box 7000
> Ocean Springs, MS  39566-7000
>


--
Dr. Carmine Colacino
Herbarium Lucanum & Dept. of Biology
University of Basilicata
85100 Potenza, southern Italy
Tel. ++39/097-120-2216; Fax ++39/097-120-2256
e-mail: colacino at unibas.it
url: http://www.unibas.it/utenti/colacino/mediterraneo.html