# Evolution: Objections to an Internal Mechanism

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [September 15, 2001, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830 "2001-09-15T16:24:02Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Firx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Firx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Firx)\
**Post date:** [September 22, 2001, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830/81 "2001-09-22T20:38:00Z")

</div>

Originally posted by Jorolat:

> [@](#):
>
> ## quote:
> 
> ## I think the “weak” form says something more like 'once the entire body plan is put together no really large changes can occur, and the process by which the body plan forms is GUIDED BY NATURAL SELECTION [my emphasis]. This would seem to be consistent with many of the ideas Gould expressed in “Wonderful life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History”.
> 
> This appeared in a message posted on the 17th September at 11.12 pm and can be found on page 1 of this thread. The paragraph was subsequently quoted by someone else who apparently didn’t see any incongruity in the phrase I have emphasised.
> 
> I must admit that after reading your post re my memory and good faith that I was astonished to find that the author of this phrase was none other than yourself!

You’re absolutely right! Clearly the fact the I said “guided by natural selection” means that I am merely repeating a dogmatic phrase, and appealing to the metaphysical! How silly of me! I might call your attention to the fact that I also specifically refuted the SENSE of your claim, which can accurately be be conveyed by:

> [@](#):
>
> “Of course when called to account they will argue that this is not what they meant but a post or two later “Natural Selection does this” and “Evolution does that” will start to appear again and we’re back into the metaphysical.”

A remark which you seem to think characterizes mine. I really am SO sorry to do this, Jorolat, but how about a little context?

Originally posted by DaveW:

> [@](#):
>
> “If I’m interpreting the “weak” form correctly, it basically just says that when large transitions occur, something really interesting goes on - more interesting than, say, populations of short-necked animals slowly evolving into giraffes. I agree. But in this form, there’s no need to add in the “something else” hypothesis, and hence no scent of mysticism.”

My comment was in response to the one above. From this we can clearly see that I was **expressing my _opinion_ to DaveW about Gould’s interpretation of the “weak” bauplan theory** , and not making a claim that natural selection holds a “metaphysical” power over all organisms without being a part of them. Not everyone here has been pushing an agenda, so try to keep the difference between facts and opinions straight, okay? If it’s too confusing you can always ask for someone to clarify or cite.

And by the way, I’d like to refer you to [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=87747&pagenumber=2#post1634367).

I was going to comment on your inability to distinguish between your own preconceived ideas and rational argument, and on the differences between what people say and what you think they say (Hint: They aren’t the same!), but why bother? Anyone who has read this thread will already know, and my saying it certainly won’t help you. There is one question that I’d like to ask: What are your credentials? I’d really like to know if you have a paying position related to your “theory”, so I can organize a picket line.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830.md?page=4)