Re: Mendel refutes evolution
- From: "ErikW" <bryophyta@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 18 Mar 2006 04:37:05 -0800
BROKEN LADDER wrote:
I see what you mean
You do?! How is that possible? He doesn't mean _anything_. He's
talking pure nonsense.
that certainly can't be studied in terms of microevolutionary processes.
There are no such things as "microevolutionary processes".
It is actuall often called just that in scientific journals, but just
as often, or more so, the word micro is left out.
Evolution
is mutation/recombination and natural selection, period.
Well we could include migration and drift for example but it's not my
intent to quibble. What is meant in this case by macroevolution are
patterns like the one he described. We could try to be reductionist and
have a go at attributing the changes in species diversity to selection
and mutation (migration, drift) but the more fruitful aproach would
indeed be like you explain it below. And both researchers and other
people would say that Matt described a macroevolutionary pattern.
On the other hand I don't think that evolutionary theory is meant to
explain everything in biology but as much as I would like to stuff this
example into ecology and avoid the word macroevolution alltogether he
has a point and we are stuck with it.
At any rate, the border between micro- and macroevolution is a real
fuzzy one.
Do you know any promising theory to explain that
particular pattern or the "larger area dominates" -pattern in general?
N & S America are both pretty large places after all.
In general, a larger area has a greater chance of having given rise to
the evolution of a more diverse array of species, and hence greater
competition for resources within the various ecological niches. This
would be similar to the way in which larger countries often produce
better athletes than smaller countries...they have a bigger pool from
which to produce a "great fighter".
What I would like to know now if is the same pattern applies to plants,
bacteria, funghi...
I'm sure there's much more rigorous theory that I haven't even thought
of, but that's something to chomp on.
.
- References:
- Re: Mendel refutes evolution
- From: BROKEN LADDER
- Re: Mendel refutes evolution
- From: Robin Levett
- Re: Mendel refutes evolution
- From: BROKEN LADDER
- Re: Mendel refutes evolution
- From: Matt Silberstein
- Re: Mendel refutes evolution
- From: ErikW
- Re: Mendel refutes evolution
- From: Matt Silberstein
- Re: Mendel refutes evolution
- From: ErikW
- Re: Mendel refutes evolution
- From: BROKEN LADDER
- Re: Mendel refutes evolution
- Prev by Date: Re: Chez Watt: 1 billion people under Darwinist terror
- Next by Date: Re: A feet of imagination
- Previous by thread: Re: Mendel refutes evolution
- Next by thread: Re: Mendel refutes evolution
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|