The synthetic theory of evolution
John W. Edser
on my news reader]
> > "Arlin Stoltzfus" <ar...@carb.nist.gov> wrote:-
> > > > JE:-
> > > > It is not enough just to mention these distinctions. They
> > > > must be reassembled into one rational _synthetic_ theory
> > > > of evolution, i.e. mutation, selection and evolution must
> > > > be logically combined, This is what Darwin and Wallace
> > > > achieved. Their contribution was a very uncommon act of
> > > AS:-
> > > By what fantasy can one suggest that Darwin & Wallace combined
> > > "mutation"
> > > with selection? Darwin did no such thing. He believed in a kind of
> > > environment-induced mass-action continuous variation that would create
> > > the "races" referred to in the subtitle of the _Origin_ ("The
> > > preservation
> > > of favoured races in the struggle for life"). "Individual selection"
> > > of
> > > genetic "mutants" was a later invention.
> > JE:-
> > Darwin was not aware of Mendel's work so he
> > had not idea of the particulate discontinuous
> > nature of all inheritance
> AS:-
> What is the point? We do not assess the value of a theory by what it
> might have been had the author of the theory been right in his
assumptions,
> instead of wrong.
JE:-
Arlin refuses to respond to the main points I
presented and obviously could not have read
my carefully worded reply.
In Arlin's post he assume that Darwin
viewed all heredity as continuous. I pointed out
that even if true ( which it is not), this
need not imply that Darwin only assumed a blending
inheritance, since he was referring to the continuous
variation of common_stable_ traits like coat
colors, beaks etc etc. Clearly, stable traits are
NOT continuous! A beak is a beak no matter how
you vary it, continuously or not. Clearly, the
majority of traits that Darwin discussed, that
he could observe, were variations of _stable_ traits.
This being the case Darwin did not just assume that
all inheritance was continuous and blending.
If you study any organism it is perfectly clear that
the number of traits that are stable determined
the species. The unanswered question today is how a
mere variant may produce a new _stable_ trait .The reason
Arlin is blind to the obvious is that he is a are gene centric.
This is not mindless name calling as Arlin implied that
it was! Gene-centric argument is entirely a different category
of evolutionary theory to pheno-centric argument.
If you just look at the genes as the mutationists did originally
(and you still do today), then you miss the obvious:
1) It's the evolution of _phenotypes_ that matter.
2) Phenotypes are coded for by genetic epistasis
and not single genes.
I strongly suggest you make an effort to understand
C.H. Waddinton's work outlined in the website
I previously quoted.:
http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/env5.html
Darwin's view pivoted on how numerous _stable_ traits
he could easily observe, could have evolved into new and
different stable traits, producing a new species.
I see no point in replying to Arlin's comments below
until he clears up this basic point : Did Darwin,
in Arlin's opinion, suppose continuous variation
only within _stable_ traits, or not?
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
Arlin Stoltzfus
>
>
> I see no point in replying to Arlin's comments below
> until he clears up this basic point : Did Darwin,
> in Arlin's opinion, suppose continuous variation
> only within _stable_ traits, or not?
So far as I know, Darwin did not base his view of variation on so-called
"stable" traits or "unstable" traits. Darwin does not use the word
"stable" in his chapters on variation. Anyone can confirm this by
simply searching the online version of the _Origin_ here:
www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/index.html
Given that the "stable/unstable" distinction appears to spring from
Edser's imagination, the issue is irrelevant to this discussion.
Second, in regards to blending inheritance, Darwin clearly believed
in it, and he based his theory on this belief. That is, he did
not believe that a single "sport" or variant could be acted upon
effectively by selection so as to be the start of something new in
evolution (a doctrine that, rather absurdly, was carried over into
the "New Synthesis" view, even though it had lost its validity with
the discovery of Mendelian genetics). Instead, the effect of
the new variation in a single individual would be diluted by
blending inheritance. In Darwin's view, it would take an entire
local "race" (Darwin's term) created by parallel variation
(variation in many individuals in parallel due to some change in
environment, according to Darwin's mistaken view of how hereditary
variation came about). This is why the subtitle of the _Origin_
referred to "natural selection" as "the preservation of favoured
*races* in the struggle for life".
Edser's penchant for repeating false claims _ad nauseam_, until
everyone else gives up, will eventually cause me to give up, too.
However, it does nothing to change the facts that are obvious from
reading the _Origin_.
Arlin
John W. Edser
"Arlin Stoltzfus" <ar...@carb.nist.gov wrote :
> > JE:-
> >I see no point in replying to Arlin's comments below
> > until he clears up this basic point : Did Darwin,
> > in Arlin's opinion, suppose continuous variation
> > only within _stable_ traits, or not?
> AS:-
> So far as I know, Darwin did not base his view of variation on so-called
> "stable" traits or "unstable" traits.
JE:-
Do you think Darwin was stupid?
Do you really think that Darwin saw no
heritable trait stability within a species on
which to base his contention of continuous
variation? You utterly misrepresent
Darwin If you suggest that he really thought
that beaks, heads, eyes, ears, noses
etc only ever varied in a continuous way
so that a pair of lips will commonly be
observed to grade into a beak ?
Darwin was concerned with speciation.
This is defined by trait _stability_ i.e.
NON continuous variation. The fact
that a stable trait called a beak could
continuously vary in size within the
Galapagos finches but remain "a beak",
producing a new species with a _different_
stable beak size, depended on two
logical assumptions, not just one :-
(1) Continuous variation of beak size etc.
(2) Conservation of the beak phenotype.
If (2) does not exist then (1) _cannot_ exist.
Continuous variation cannot exist without an
implicit supposition of something stable.
Continuous variation, alone, is just a figment of the
human imagination that can only be predicated on
an _implicit_ supposition of something stable.
In physics this simple realization gave rise to
quantum theory.
> AS:-
> Darwin does not use the word
> "stable" in his chapters on variation.
JE:-
Darwin left unsaid a lot of things
that he actually _did_., i.e. he left
a lot of his viewpoint, implicit, e.g.
he never defined fitness. He even
allowed Herbert Spencer to misuse
the term but he did imply the
correct use of it within his own theory.
Darwin did not explicitly insist that only
fertile offspring should be counted
to determine what is selected ( fitness)
because it was so obvious. Sterile forms
are all selectively dead in the water. Note
the gene centrics do _not_ discriminate
between fertile and infertile organim's
reproduced to calculate individual gene
fitness; the source of most of their problems.
_________________________________
If you really want to understand Darwinism
simply examine the _logical_ structure of
his proposed _theory_. It is mindless
pedantry for Arlin to suppose that just
because Darwin never used the term "stable
trait" he must have only supposed that trait
variation was continuous and blending,
so that a stable heritable trait, for Darwin,
did not exist.
You must always separate out within Darwin's
writings what he incorporated logically into his
theory as a _necessity_ and what was just simple
speculation, around the theory.
__________________________________
>snip<
>AS:-
> Second, in regards to blending inheritance, Darwin clearly believed
> in it, and he based his theory on this belief. That is, he did
> not believe that a single "sport" or variant could be acted upon
> effectively by selection so as to be the start of something new in
> evolution (a doctrine that, rather absurdly, was carried over into
> the "New Synthesis" view, even though it had lost its validity with
> the discovery of Mendelian genetics).
JE:-
Darwin could see BOTH trait stability and trait variation
but could not determine how either was inherited so
he just endlessly speculated. Pangenesis was added later.
Here at least was a beginning of a particulate (quantic)
non blending view of inheritance.
It must have been as obvious to Darwin that trait stability was
inherited as it was obvious to the many generations of thinkers
before him. Most of us can be observed to inherit just one head, two
eyes, five fingers etc. Since Darwin was one of the best observers
of life on this planet that has ever been, I doubt that he missed
seeing it! "Sports" deviated too strongly from existing stable traits
and were too drastic to be of any value, so he disregarded them
as significant to selection. The assumption of a base level of
heritable trait stability is so _obvious_ that nobody has ever felt the
need to make a fuss about it. Most of Darwin's writings focused
on the opposing problem: how variation_ within_ a stable trait,
was produced, inherited and selected, evolving a _new_ stable
trait.
Darwin's evolutionary focus was always on trait _stability_
even if he never used that exact term! He was obsessed with
how new stable traits arose from apparent continuous variation
commonly found within the older stable traits e.g. how jaw bones
evolved to become tiny amplifiers within the inner ear etc to
produce in the end, a new species with a different jaw
and different ears.
> AS:-
> Instead, the effect of
> the new variation in a single individual would be diluted by
> blending inheritance. In Darwin's view, it would take an entire
> local "race" (Darwin's term) created by parallel variation
> (variation in many individuals in parallel due to some change in
> environment, according to Darwin's mistaken view of how hereditary
> variation came about). This is why the subtitle of the _Origin_
> referred to "natural selection" as "the preservation of favored
> *races* in the struggle for life".
JE:-
Darwin had the honesty to examine many major objections
to his theory. Any supposition of only blending inheritance
was possibly fatal to his theory and he could see that, so he
was prepared to _suggest_ ways in which it may not be fatal
if you supposed _only_ blending inheritance. Darwin did not
know how inheritance worked and neither did it matter.
All he needed to know to produce his theory was that something
was inherited and that is all that he claimed, within his theory.
Although Darwin discussed how inheritance may or
may not work, none of this speculative discussion was
incorporated into his stated theory. It remained what it was,
speculation, as did his discussion with Wallace about group
selection and his view of Pangenesis and many other of his
propositions. However, sexual selection was a adjunct to his
theory, by necessity.
Within the logic of his own theory Darwin just said, something
was inherited, I don't know what it is, but the selection of small
changes that can be inherited are much more likely to be selected
than most larger ones. Darwin used basic common sense ( which
seems to be sadly lacking in many sbe discussions) to validly
speculate about what he did not know about. This simple act of
intelligence has been vindicated many times over.
> AS:-
> Edser's penchant for repeating false claims _ad nauseam_, until
> everyone else gives up, will eventually cause me to give up, too.
> However, it does nothing to change the facts that are obvious from
> reading the _Origin_.
JE:-
Arlin's penchant for repeating poorly predicated claims
_ad nauseam_, cannot change the direction of an argument.
Arlin should learn to reconstruct the past from the _logic_ of
what remains and not just rely on the sterile pedantry of
insisting on the use, or non use, of some poorly defined,
term/terms.
Arlin Stoltzfus
>
> > AS:-
> > Darwin does not use the word
> > "stable" in his chapters on variation.
>
> JE:-
> Darwin left unsaid a lot of things
> that he actually _did_., i.e. he left
> a lot of his viewpoint, implicit, e.g.
> he never defined fitness. He even
And we should leave it to you to fill in the gaps that Darwin left,
without providing any textual references to back up your claims?
> If you really want to understand Darwinism
> simply examine the _logical_ structure of
> his proposed _theory_. It is mindless
> pedantry for Arlin to suppose that just
> because Darwin never used the term "stable
> trait" he must have only supposed that trait
> variation was continuous and blending,
> so that a stable heritable trait, for Darwin,
> did not exist.
Darwin not only *explicitly* stated his belief in blending inheritance,
he persisted in this belief when its problematic implications were
outlined forcefully by critics such as Fleeming Jenkins. You are
asking us to deny Darwin this explicitly stated belief because it
has an implication that YOU have imagined and that YOU find
objectionable, even though you are unable to offer any evidence that
Darwin imagined this implication and found it objectionable.
If blending inheritance means that every trait, such as beak shape,
will shift subtly due to the new variation that is blended into the
"race" each time it faces a change in "conditions of life", then so
what? This is manifestly what Darwin believed, whether you like it or
not! At long last, just read the _Origin_! Such effects of blending
inheritance do not formally preclude quasi-stability of traits like beak
shape, for various reasons (e.g., because the effect, even at its strongest,
could be subtle; or because the conditions of life might cease to change
for some time). If Darwin stated that blending inheritance directly
conflicted with the observation that some traits persist over time,
show us where he stated this. I have already shown where he states
his belief in blending inheritance in Chs. 1, 2 and 5 of the _Origin_.
Arlin
John W. Edser
"Arlin Stoltzfus" <ar...@carb.nist.gov> wrote
> > > AS:-
> > > Darwin does not use the word
> > > "stable" in his chapters on variation.
> > JE:-
> > Darwin left unsaid a lot of things
> > that he actually _did_., i.e. he left
> > a lot of his viewpoint, implicit, e.g.
> > he never defined fitness. He even
> AS:-
> And we should leave it to you to fill in the gaps that Darwin left,
> without providing any textual references to back up your claims?
JE:-
What is for sure is that we can't just leave it
up Arlin to fill in any of Darwin's NON explicit
precepts. Arlin has shown he does not
even want to try to understand the logical structure of
Darwin's theory. He has simply refused to differentiate
between what Darwin did as a necessity for his theory,
and what he did as just valid speculation around that
theory, despite myself emphasizing all this in my previous
posting (these points were just snipped with no reply).
__________________________________________
All Darwin's developed views on heredity were just
speculation around his theory. What he _did_ was just
assume something was inherited. That is all that he
needed to do to produce his theory.
__________________________________________
Discussion:
Darwin fills in his own gaps by what he _did_.
What he did is entirely determined by what he
just assumed, implicit or explicit. All of it is
available to anyone who takes time and
effort to understand the strict logical structure
of his theory. Darwin, like anybody else, did
not explicitly say or write down _everything_
he to needed to produce his theory of evolution.
However, given a modicum of intelligence, anybody
can reconstruct any non explicit precepts by just using
the logical structure of the theory. This is not unlike
reconstructing a building from just a few scattered
rocks, or an entire animal from just a few shards
of bone. The skills required to do this are both
deductive and _inductive_. Arlin appears to lack
the inductive skills necessary to make such an enq.
Like most people, many of Darwin's more obvious inductive
assumptions were not mentioned in his writings. He never
expressly stated that only fertile organism's must be counted
to determine what is selected, but that is what he did.
Selection produces entirely different predictions and
results, if you only count the _fertile_ organism's reproduced
to determine fitness. Constant gene centric
model misuse plagues evolutionary theory (the mutationist
view as to what causes evolution that Arlin supports, marks
a beginning to model misuse) and is based on the
fact that after the rediscovery of Mendel's genes many
post Darwinian evolutionists, starting with the mutationists,
just counted gene freq. in organism cycles and not within
_fertile_ organism cycles, as Darwin's implicit fitness assumption
says that they must. Hamilton's inclusive fitness was a futile
attempt to patch up this error within Neo Darwinism. His band
aid solution festered to produce Dawkin's selfish gene, madness.
Darwin never explicitly suggested how fitness must be
measured, the very heart of his own theory, but he did
_use_ a very strict measure of fitness (how
you must determine what is selected using his theory).
It is what's actually selected and not just what is inherited
that determines fitness within evolutionary theory.
All that matters is the _logic_ of what Darwin actually
_did_ not _just_ what he said, or failed to say.
Darwin did not know how inheritance works, but
he did not have to know how it works, except to
suggest something was inherited, to produce his
theory. Darwin did not explicitly suggest that stable
traits were the basis of speciation, but this is what he
implied. Darwin discussed continuous variation only
within the context of existing stable traits and _not _
within the context of just more and more continuous
variation.
> > JE:_
> > If you really want to understand Darwinism
> > simply examine the _logical_ structure of
> > his proposed _theory_. It is mindless
> > pedantry for Arlin to suppose that just
> > because Darwin never used the term "stable
> > trait" he must have only supposed that trait
> > variation was continuous and blending,
> > so that a stable heritable trait, for Darwin,
> > did not exist.
> AS:-
> Darwin not only *explicitly* stated his belief in blending inheritance,
> he persisted in this belief when its problematic implications were
> outlined forcefully by critics such as Fleeming Jenkins.
JE:-
Science is not based on belief! Darwin's
"belief in blending inheritance" was mere
speculation about something, he was the
first to admit, he did not understand. This
belief was not a part of his theory, just a
take-it -or-leave-it adjunct to it.
Arlin, because he does not understand the logical
structure of Darwin's theory, refuses to discriminate
between valid speculation around Darwin's theory
and any statement about what his theory actually
consisted of. Darwin's many views of inheritance
were speculation around his theory and _not_ a
part of that theories vital structure. The only concept
of inheritance that he used that formed a pillar
within his theory was the simple assumption that
something was inherited. That is all he knew, and
that is all he needed re: inheritance suppositions.
> AS:-
>You are
> asking us to deny Darwin this explicitly stated belief because it
> has an implication that YOU have imagined and that YOU find
> objectionable, even though you are unable to offer any evidence that
> Darwin imagined this implication and found it objectionable.
JE:-
Again, Arlin does not understand the logical structure
of Darwin's view. It is was never a necessity for
Darwin to say exactly how inheritance works
for his view of how selection works, to be valid.
Arlin continually confuses Darwin's valid speculation
with the logical structure of his proposed theory.
> AS:-
> If blending inheritance means that every trait, such as beak shape,
> will shift subtly due to the new variation that is blended into the
> "race" each time it faces a change in "conditions of life", then so
> what? This is manifestly what Darwin believed, whether you like it or
> not!
JE:-
What Darwin believed here was merely a speculative
adjunct to what his theory actually consisted of because
science then, and science today, has never been _based_
on belief (but valid speculation within it, may validly be so
based).
Darwin did not just speculate, or even just view, continuous
variation within more and more continuous variation, he
speculated and viewed continuous variation within very
obvious trait stability. One head, two eyes, five digits
etc etc. The logic of his speculation here, was based
on the logic of what he suggested he could see:-
1) stable trait ---> continuous variation ---> stable trait
NOT:-
2) continuous variation ---> continuous variation
OR:-
3) continuous variation ---> stable trait -->-. continuous variation
as one completed evolutionary sequence.
The 3 hypothesis above are self exclusive and make different
predictions of nature. Darwin only assumed 1 and not 2 or 3
to form the logical structure of his theory. In 1, continuous
variation was not an implicit assumption, but trait stability was.
Darwin's speculation, 1 above only required that
something of the continuous variation he observed
that he assumed was partly heritable, be "logically
sandwiched" between past and present _stable_
traits. He could not explain how a new stable trait
that caused a new species could be inherited from
just the continuous variation he observed within
stable traits, so he speculated as much as he could
about this subject.
The important point here is to note that
Darwin's lack of knowledge of how heritability
actually worked was NOT fatal to his theory.
Which-ever-way he speculated here, did not
alter the basic viability of his proposed theory.
It could however, alter the future direction of
research into his theory.
Trait stability was always an implicit focus of
Darwin's speculation re: how heritable continuous
variation may serve selection to produce a new
species. Because he we as not a fool he understood
that some sort of particulate inheritance must exist, here.
This is why his pangenetic _particulate_ theory (gemmule),
as just valid _speculation_, was finally added to his
theory as a take-it-or-leave-option, to try to expand
his basic assumption that only something was inherited
within observed continuous variation.
I doubt that Darwin _explicitly_ suggested that
even trait stability was inherited, because it was
so obvious. Perhaps Arlin may like to question if
Darwin actually thought that trait stabilty was
heritable. To what extent do we have to "dumb
down" Darwin's basic precepts for Arlin to
understand what they were?
>snip<
Arlin Stoltzfus
> > AS:-
> > Darwin not only *explicitly* stated his belief in blending inheritance,
> > he persisted in this belief when its problematic implications were
> > outlined forcefully by critics such as Fleeming Jenkins.
>
> JE:-
> Science is not based on belief! Darwin's
> "belief in blending inheritance" was mere
> speculation about something, he was the
> first to admit, he did not understand. This
> belief was not a part of his theory, just a
> take-it -or-leave-it adjunct to it.
>
> Arlin, because he does not understand the logical
> structure of Darwin's theory, refuses to discriminate
> between valid speculation around Darwin's theory
Bla, bla, bla. Below is repeated the passage that I quoted earlier
in which Darwin's reliance on blending inheritance is operative:
p. 59 "If monstrous forms of this kind ever do appear in a state of
nature and are capable of reproduction (which is not always the
case), as they occur rarely and singularly, their preservation would
depend on unusually favourable circumstances. They would, also,
during the first and succeeding generations cross with the ordinary
form, and thus their abnormal character would almost inevitably be
lost."
That is, Darwin relies on the assumption of blending inheritance to make
a non-obvious conclusion, one that is important for defining what Darwin
sees as the usual causes of evolution, namely that striking characters
in a single individual would be lost by interbreeding with other
individuals. With such comments Darwin discounted an important role
of "sports" as the source of novelty in evolution, and focussed instead
focus on his preferred gradualistic mode of "definite and indefinite
variation", the kind of variation that, from its phenomenology,
we would recognize today as environmental rather than genetic.
> > AS:-
> >You are
> > asking us to deny Darwin this explicitly stated belief because it
> > has an implication that YOU have imagined and that YOU find
> > objectionable, even though you are unable to offer any evidence that
> > Darwin imagined this implication and found it objectionable.
>
> JE:-
> Again, Arlin does not understand the logical structure
> of Darwin's view.
There is nothing of relevance in your message. The notions that you
refer to as the "logical structure of Darwin's view" clearly conflict
with the views that I have attributed to Darwin based on textual
evidence.
I am aware of this. Continuing to describe these views _ad nauseam_
does nothing to advance the argument because it does nothing to address
the fact that you have not offered a shred evidence to associate
Darwin with these anachronistic views about selection coefficients and
mutation and so on. Since this is the third time you have responded
irrelevantly and at length, I give up.
Arlin
John W. Edser
"Arlin Stoltzfus" <ar...@carb.nist.gov> wrote in
> > > AS:-
> > > Darwin not only *explicitly* stated his belief in blending
inheritance,
> > > he persisted in this belief when its problematic implications were
> > > outlined forcefully by critics such as Fleeming Jenkins.
> > JE:-
> > Science is not based on belief! Darwin's
> > "belief in blending inheritance" was mere
> > speculation about something, he was the
> > first to admit, he did not understand. This
> > belief was not a part of his theory, just a
> > take-it -or-leave-it adjunct to it.
> > Arlin, because he does not understand the logical
> > structure of Darwin's theory, refuses to discriminate
> > between valid speculation around Darwin's theory
AS:-
> Bla, bla, bla. Below is repeated the passage that I quoted earlier
> in which Darwin's reliance on blending inheritance is operative:
JE:-
I repeat "science is not based on belief".
"Bla" just about sums up Arlin's understanding
of what science consists of. Darwin's theory
was a statement of science that was not
based on speculation.
Here is a summery of the points Arlin failed to address:-
1) Darwin only assumed that something was inherited.
This is all he needed to for his theory. He speculated
about how inheritance may work. This was not critical
to the validity of his theory.
2) Darwin speculated on the continuous variation he
observed that was all within_stable_ traits. Evolutionary
significant variation was sandwiched between stable traits so
that one stable trait evolved into another (and a new species)
via heritable continuous variation found within the stable traits.
Darwin's contribution was to describe the continuous variation
commonly found within all stable traits that the creationists
refused to observe simply because this level of variation clashed
with their own belief of species formation.
3) Darwin discounted "sports" (large non continuous
variant changes) but did not suggest that heritable stable
traits did not exist or that continuous variation changes
causes speciation. Within his theory continuous variation
allowed the evolution of a new stable trait. One evolutionary
sequence within his proposed theory was strictly :-
stable trait ---> continuous variation ---> stable trait
This is _not_ the same as:-
continuous variation ---> continuous variation -
or:
continuous variation ---> stable trait ----> continuous variation
> p. 59 "If monstrous forms of this kind ever do appear in a state of
> nature and are capable of reproduction (which is not always the
> case), as they occur rarely and singularly, their preservation would
> depend on unusually favourable circumstances. They would, also,
> during the first and succeeding generations cross with the ordinary
> form, and thus their abnormal character would almost inevitably be
> lost."
> That is, Darwin relies on the assumption of blending inheritance
JE:-
Any speculation here does not affect the validity of his
proposed theory.
> AS:-
>.. to make
> a non-obvious conclusion, one that is important for defining what Darwin
> sees as the usual causes of evolution, namely that striking characters
> in a single individual would be lost by interbreeding with other
> individuals.
JE:-
Such an event can be observed to be a reality.
Today we know that such a trait is not necessarily
lost but may be reduced to a recessive state.
Any speculation of blending inheritance was just
that, speculation.
> AS:-
> With such comments Darwin discounted an important role
> of "sports" as the source of novelty in evolution, and focussed instead
> focus on his preferred gradualistic mode of "definite and indefinite
> variation", the kind of variation that, from its phenomenology,
> we would recognize today as environmental rather than genetic.
JE:-
Because Darwin discounted SOME large heritable non continuous
variants (sports) does not mean he therefore must have discounted
ALL the non continuous variation that he commonly observed.
Above he used the words "definite and indefinite variation".
Here he refers to small discontinuous (definite) and continuous
(indefinite) variation, commonly found within stable traits like
wings, eyes, legs, heads, etc etc.
> > > AS:-
> > >You are
> > > asking us to deny Darwin this explicitly stated belief because it
> > > has an implication that YOU have imagined and that YOU find
> > > objectionable, even though you are unable to offer any evidence that
> > > Darwin imagined this implication and found it objectionable.
> > JE:-
> > Again, Arlin does not understand the logical structure
> > of Darwin's view.
> There is nothing of relevance in your message. The notions that you
> refer to as the "logical structure of Darwin's view" clearly conflict
> with the views that I have attributed to Darwin based on textual
> evidence.
JE:-
They do not conflict.
It is a simple fact that all that Darwin assumed within
his theory was that _something_ was inherited. Because
something was inherited then something _can_ be
selected, allowing Darwin's theory to become
valid science.
All of Darwin's discussion on what is inherited
and what is not, and how inheritance works was
speculation around his theory that did _not_ reduce
the validity of his proposed theory.