From: Wesley R. Elsberry                               Posted: 19 Sep 94  20:57
To  : Joe Morlan
Subj: Allopatric Speciation: Fa

You've stated in several messages that the reductionist definition
is based upon a false theory, and therefore it, too, must be false.

Is this a general principle, or do you make an exception for
allopatric speciation?

I mean, just read Mayr on Darwin:

[Quote]

   Needless to say, when Darwin wrote the Origin he did not know
anything about the laws of genetics. But by observation he did know a
number of things. He knew that in asexual reproduction the offspring is
identical with the parent, while in sexual reproduction each offspring is
different. Furthermore, he knew that each offspring had a mixture of the
characters of both parents. This "blending" of the characters had, as
Darwin saw it, a beneficial and a detrimental aspect. The beneficial aspect
was that any undesitable deviation from the type of the species would be
obliterated by blending. The detrimental aspect was that, of course, the
same would happen to any desirable novelty. And in this Darwin saw the
advantage of isolation on an island, where the inbreeding population was
too small for a valuable new character to be obliterated. Thus, even though
based on the erroneous theory of blending inheritance, Darwin correctly
pinpointed the importance of isolated populations as the cradle of
evolutionary innovation.

[End quote -- Ernst Mayr, TaNPoB, 1998, p. 164]

Nifty trick how Darwin could go from an erroneous theory to a correct
theory, isn't it?

I'd say that blows your conclusion about the reductionist definition
right out of the water on procedural grounds.

Do remember, it is Mayr saying that correct theories can come out of
erroneous ones here, and when Mayr says something, it means, "Listen
up."