Theories of Evolution
Jonathan Paul Carson
jpc4e at dayhoff.med.Virginia.EDU
Thu Aug 25 13:50:22 EST 1994
I've gotten some comments (very helpful ones, actually) about
my last posting.
I never claimed to dethrone Darwin or uphold some
Bible-thumping view. I never wished to throw aside all of the
subtlety in the available models we know of in population
genetics by speaking plainly and generally. I never wanted to
preach the emergence of some Gaian global New Age consciousness.
Lovelock and Margulis are visionaries whom I admire, though; I
suspect that they are unhappy with the negative attention they've
gotten from crystal-brandishing gurus and cyncial hard-nosed
A fully-fleshed out idea is not necessarily a good one (due to
the fact that it is always a bit *too* exclusive); a half-baked
idea is not necessarily a bad one (inspiration moves science
along just as reductionist logic gives form to good ideas).
All I wanted to posit was the notion that evolution and
its underlying biochemical mechanisms is still a *dynamic*
field that generates much excitement among myself and others--
admittedly I have to brush up on my understanding of genetics
(and will do so very soon). I mean dynamic in the sense that
molecular biology and the study of evolution are not merely
tools with which to continue the never-ending (and futile)
dissection of life. They might possibly converge to yield some
powerful and far-reaching concepts of the whole. I mean, be
serious. Does anyone study a living being as if it were a damn
clock with just a lot of pieces? If you do, I wonder how you
look at your collegues and those you call friends.
More information about the Mol-evol