propaganda

[John Grehan]

Stefan Koenemann wrote:

>But since we are back to terms and definitions: I am irritated by the use of
>"only" in your message. Doesn't orthogenesis literally mean 'straight
>development' and doesn't a more complete definition include exactly this
>idea of
>continuous evolution in one direction in addition to internal constraints? Am I
>the victim of a serious case of propaganda?

Yes I think so. In the past orthogensis was characatured in as straight
evolution, then
dissmissed because evolution is not "linnear". In earlier postings there
was a discussion of
"ortho" which showed that the term was not limited to that of single
direction. Croizat
combined the concept of lineage evolution and spatial differentiation to
produced a
model of evolution where orthogenetic processes were reconstitutated spatially
through recombinations of characters. Through vicariant form-making lineages
can branch without precluding orthogenetic processes.

>
>And John Grehan wrote:
>>>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.<<
>

>I am glad to hear that Gould read your book.

A correction here. It was not my book, but Croizat (1958). Gould actually
read it
during Graduate School.


I agree with you that a frequently
>occurring phenomenon in evolutionary biology is this persistently sticking to
>one's model or concept.

And this I have absolutely no problem with. I am as persistent in my view as
Gould, Mayr, or Simpson might be in theirs.

John Grehan