arndt@lymph.DEC (04/19/85)
You got my message!!! YOU replied: "By your own admission it's Bunk. (cutting off rat's tails producing changes) Evolution can't be induced by severing limbs, since such gross actions will not alter the GENETIC (italics mine) make-up of the creature. Evolution requires a change in genetic structure." BUT you see, Padraig, that is indeed MY point, BUT that is not the point of the Evolutionists I quoted in the posting (Jay Gould among them). THEY see behavior as a MAJOR (99%) factor in the anatomical evolution of the human form!!!!!! Now we religionists indeed have our burdens to carry in the form of claims made and beliefs cherished by our coreligionists, BUT the point of my little "lame" satire was that perhaps evolutionists also labor under this little problem???? What do you think? Warm Regards, Ken Arndt
jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (04/20/85)
> > YOU replied: "By your own admission it's Bunk. (cutting off rat's tails > producing changes) Evolution can't be induced by severing limbs, since > such gross actions will not alter the GENETIC (italics mine) make-up of the > creature. Evolution requires a change in genetic structure." > > BUT you see, Padraig, that is indeed MY point, BUT that is not the point of > the Evolutionists I quoted in the posting (Jay Gould among them). THEY > see behavior as a MAJOR (99%) factor in the anatomical evolution of the > human form!!!!!! > > Ken Arndt First of all, it is easy to conceive of a situation in which cutting off rats' tails could cause evolution. Imagine a colony of laboratory rats in which every rat's tail gets cut off when it reaches adulthood. Any rat which was born without a tail would have a higher chance of survival because it there would be nothing to cut off, thus it wouldn't have to undergo an operation which could cause fatal bleeding or infection. Each rat born without a tail would have a greater chance of passing on its genes to the next generation. Eventually, the last rat born with a tail would die from bleeding or infection, and all the only ones left would be genetically tailless. It's also easy to imagine a situation in which behavior could influence evolution. Suppose that a tribe existed in which tallness was considered to be extremely important in selecting a spouse. Tall people would be more likely to get married (and thus have children), so eventually everyone in the tribe would be tall. Remember that evolution requires genetic differences between individuals and some form of selection. Behavior and external physical factors normally can't change genes, but they can provide selection. I say "normally" because it external physical factors (including ones influenced by behavior, like diet) could conceivably affect the mutation rate. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (04/21/85)
> > You got my message!!! > > YOU replied: "By your own admission it's Bunk. (cutting off rat's tails > producing changes) Evolution can't be induced by severing limbs, since > such gross actions will not alter the GENETIC (italics mine) make-up of the > creature. Evolution requires a change in genetic structure." > > BUT you see, Padraig, that is indeed MY point, BUT that is not the point of > the Evolutionists I quoted in the posting (Jay Gould among them). THEY > see behavior as a MAJOR (99%) factor in the anatomical evolution of the > human form!!!!!! > > Now we religionists indeed have our burdens to carry in the form of claims > made and beliefs cherished by our coreligionists, BUT the point of my little > "lame" satire was that perhaps evolutionists also labor under this little > problem???? What do you think? > > Warm Regards, > > Ken Arndt Well, since you ask... I don't understand what all the excitement is about. I said that evolution can't be induced in the rats by cutting off their tails. You agree with that. The behaviour aspect would arise if a mutatant, without a tail appeared and was allowed to breed with the rat population. In the lab the tail-less rats would come to dominate the population. In this context behaviour means something like "increased adaptability to the environment". I have just finished reading Gould's "Ever Since Darwin", and Montague's "Science and Creationism" and see no conflict between what I have said, and what Gould has said. I don't doubt that some people have said that behaviour is important. At a glance, it sounds plausible. I fail to see the relevence of the rat scenario to anything that you are claiming. There are two separate issues here: 1) Inducing mutations in laboratory rats, and 2) What happens after a mutation occurs? Your attempt at satire was based on the first. You are drawing conclusions on the second. Maybe I'm overlooking something, if so, let me know. Padraig Houlahan.
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/22/85)
> [Jeff Lichtman] > First of all, it is easy to conceive of a situation in which cutting off rats' > tails could cause evolution. Imagine... It's easy to conceive of or imagine many things. The difficulty lies in demonstrating them. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |