Reply to comment

Through are discussion last week, one of the ideas that seemed to create the most opposition was the idea of defining organisms based on their ancestors and not any singular or set of characteristics.  This concept makes sense to me.  Organisms have certain characteristics because they share genes with whatever organisms are related to them.  Defining a species in terms of their ancestor cuts out the middleman.  By saying elephants are elephants because they came from elephants makes more sense than saying an elephant is an elephant because it is a mammal (based on certain characteristics), it has a trunk, etc.  If an organism came from an organism that possessed those traits then both will have those traits.  So defining a species as coming from a common ancestor really just simplifies things.

            In regards to Darwin being a foundationalist or a non-foundationalist, in the general sense it is clear he is not a foundationalist.  His idea of evolution is moving in an unpredictable pattern towards no specific goal.  Natural selection helps increase representation of favorable traits with no motive and no morals, simply survival and reproduction.  However, I believe the idea itself can almost be treated as a foundationalist one.  Darwin talks about natural selection as an unstoppable, continuously present force.  In other words, natural selection is eternal and will be acting on populations as long as they exist.  The only major difference is there is no fixed goal, like loopy science, populations are continuously being put back through the cycle, constantly being changed, and no perfect answer or organism exists.