dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/26/85)
> [Mike Huybensz] > I rarely give references because I rarely have them near me. Generally, > I restrict my arguments to those founded on understanding of general > principles of evolution, logic, and argument (which can be found in > innumerable texts on the appropriate subjects.) If you want references > on those, you need only ask. I'm asking. I would like to seem them. If you don't have them near you, then go look them up, please. Here are some candidates: > Intermediate features may be useful and selected > for. Anyone who has worked with insects has seen numerous groups of insects > showing full ranges of development from rather generalized species to > highly specialized species with tremendous anatomical modifications. > The incredible number of insect species provides clearer examples than the > small number of large animal species most people are familiar with. Specific > groups to look at include ants and treehoppers. --- > [regarding the Salisbury article in Nature] > A quick search of the Science Citations Index provided several articles > responding to his. The most telling criticisms were: > 1) That he selected a modern enzyme with an extremely high specificity as > his model. Early life would not have needed such high specificity in > enzymes, and so would have a much larger number of possible enzymes to > start from. > 2) That early enzyme formation was a random phenomenon. There might well > have been chemical evolution before life really began. What were the followup articles? Thanks in advance. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |