Re: Recent evolutionary reading (attention Steven J.)
- From: "Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:55:55 -0600
"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:363cfb6a-120f-437e-b228-535b4d33781e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 12, 9:57 am, Robert Grumbine <b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Two books I've recently finished and enjoyed:
_Evolution for Everyone_ by David Sloan Wilson
SNIP...
Both are easily readable by the nonprofessional. Wilson's
introduces a fair amount of general evolutionary biology SNIP....
Sloan plugs and explains natural selection exclusively. Not that he
believes it to be the only cause of evolution, the point is he only
talks about natural selection as producing all life.
Can you produce the relevant passages?
The same with F.
Ayala in his new book; natural selection is treated the same: the main
cause of evolution producing all biological life.
Natural selection is part of the process, obviously. To say it's the "main
cause" ignores the role of variation and drift.
Going back some
years the same with Ken Miller in "Finding Darwin's God" - natural
selection and only natural selection is brought up as producing all
life.
Miller does not say that natural selection, and only natural selection
produced all life. Miller states that the mechanism of evolution is
variation and selection. While Miller says: (pg 48) "Even the opponents
of Evolution agree that natural selection is a genuine force in shaping the
characteristics of organisms, generation after generation." Miller also
knows the role of mutations in providing the raw material for natural
selection to work on. From "Finding Darwin's God", Miller states on page
104.
" Mutations acting on that digital genome, produce variation, the raw
material upon which natural selection goes to work".
Miller, however never states that mutation and selection are the only
mechanisms of evolution. Worse, for you, Miller, in his expert statement
for the Dover trial, states quite clearly:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/selman/2006-11-16_Miller_expert_report.pdf
Pg 4,5
"Evolutionary scientists have confirmed the process of natural selection
through direct observation, but have discovered that other processes are
also important in evolutionary change. These included genetic drift, the
so-called founder effect, genetic recombination, transposition, and
horizontal gene transport between species."
Of course Steven J would have us believe that lesser mechanisms
deserve recognition in the same breath and context as natural
selection.
Seven J. pointed out that there are other mechanisms by which evolution
occurs. He was showing that your "definition" of microevolution as being
the result of natural selection is wrong, as evolution can occur in the
absence of selection. It really doesn't matter if other scientists can be
quoted as saying that natural selection is the "main mechanism".
This was his silly and sourceless point that he made over
and over in recent exchanges with myself.
Actually, it was Ray who made the "silly and courceless" claims. Ray was
unable to provide a single biologist who defined microevolution the way that
Ray did.
Maybe Steven could provide some evidence that drift belongs in the
same league with natural selection since I have now cited three
evolutionary biologists who did not feel any other mechanism was
important enough and worth mentioning in their books?
You really didn't "cite" any biologist who says that natural selection was
the sole mechanism of evolution. You implied that they did, without
providing any real statements from those biologists.
http://www2.ncseweb.org/selman/2006-11-16_Miller_expert_report.pdf
refutes your statement entirely.
Also, David Sloan Wilson states in:
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/angier_wilson07/angier_wilson07.html
"It's like all the genes out there that have no effect on fitness; they just
drift into the population. This is why we have molecular "clocks." We can
date things from this kind of genetic drift."
Wilson also says in the book Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and
the Nature of Society
(pg 92)
"on the Galapagos Islands were explained as a product of genetic drift. The
British ecologist David Lack (1961) became famous for explaining these
differences in terms of adaptation and natural selection, ..."
In the paper: "Clonal population structure and genetic diversity of Candida
albicans in AIDS patients from Abidjan (Cote d' Ivoire)" 2006 (Postprints,
Univiersity of California) , co authored by Ayala, is this statement:
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3531&context=postprints
"These differences may have come about by genetic drift, although the
possibility of natural selection un response to drug treatments cannot be
excluded"
This would tend to indicate that Ayala accepts genetic drift as a mechanism
of evolution.
Again: so I am not misunderstood. These three biologists did not say
natural selection was the only mechanism.
Which contradicts your own "definition" of microevolution. This supports
Steven's statements, and refutes yours.
The point is that only
natural selection was touted as producing all life.
That 'point' is not supported by those biologists. Natural selection is
undoubtedly an important mechanism of evolution, but not the one that
"produced all life" by itself. Your claim was that microevolution was
DEFINED as being by natural selection. The biologists who you attempted to
use to support your claim do not agree.
DJT
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Recent evolutionary reading (attention Steven J.)
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: Recent evolutionary reading (attention Steven J.)
- References:
- Recent evolutionary reading
- From: Robert Grumbine
- Re: Recent evolutionary reading (attention Steven J.)
- From: Ray Martinez
- Recent evolutionary reading
- Prev by Date: Re: no longer a creationist
- Next by Date: Re: More full-bore dumb from Rush
- Previous by thread: Re: Recent evolutionary reading (attention Steven J.)
- Next by thread: Re: Recent evolutionary reading (attention Steven J.)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
