species and roles

[John Grehan]

Stefan Koenemann wrote

>Terms like 'biological fate' and 'evolutionary role and tendencies' are
>certainly vague, kind of wishy-washy, suggesting inevitable destination
>(orthogenesis, to throw in another hard-digestible bite!).

Sorry, I have to jump on that. Characterising orthogenesis this way is a
product of propaganda promulgated by Simpson, Mayr, Gould, and many other
supporters of Darwinain models of evolution.


>The adaptation to a realized niche can be characterized as a constraint,
>e.g., a
>groundwater amphipod has a very limited range of potential adaptive
>solutions to
>environmental changes (to give a graphic example: it is unlikely to develop
>wings or metamorphosis in the proximate future). This is its evolutionary role.

I'm not sure I understand the link between constraint and role. The latter seems
to imply an organizational plan into which the particular organisms is placed
(perhaps true, but empirically problematic)

John Grehan