lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) (06/04/91)
Darrin Sharp asks, "I know that outwardly, the live specimens (of lungfish) very closely resemble the 400 million year old fossils. But how can this be? Is it common for organisms to not evolve for 400 million years? How long has it been since sharks and alligators/turtles/ crocodiles evolved? Any other species that haven't changed in this long?" There are no known examples of species that have not evolved for any substantial period of time and this includes coelacanths or lungfish. It is true that the external morphology of these animals closely resembles that of organisms that lived about 60 million years ago. However, at the molecular level these lungfish have evolved as much as any other extant organism. There is no such thing as a living fossil. It is a common misconception among non-biologists that evolution is associated with morphological change. Such a misconception is fostered by the fossil evidence that emphasizes such change. Incidently, I believe that the modern lungfish (Latimeria) has anatomical features that are different from those of the extinct organisms. Thus it is not even correct to claim that there has been no morphological change. -Larry Moran
lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) (06/07/91)
In response to a question about whether coelocanths have evolved Christopher Green mentioned punctuated equilibrium. Jorn Barger then said, "I'm a bit disappointed that only one coelocanth-followup mentions this obvious-but-still-apparently-under-disseminated viewpoint. This is hot stuff indeed, and theoretically revolutionary. The argument is that the classic pattern of evolution is not a smooth, gradual blurring from one species to another, but an alternation of relative quiescence and relatively rapid phenotypic transformation." I think that Jorn misunderstood the previous posters (including myself) who said that lack of phenotypic change does NOT mean that evolution has stopped. This is the same objection that I have to Eldridge and Gould's theory. They tend to focus on changes in morphology, as seen in the fossil record, and equate these changes with evolution. (In fairness this is actually an error made more often by their uninformed supporters.) I see evolution as a continual, relatively smooth, change in the frequency of genes in a population. Sometimes these genes affect morphology, in which case evolution is documented in the fossil record, but most of the time other aspects of the organism are affected. Jorn Barger then proceeds to offer an explanation of punctuated equilibrium, "I'll take this opportunity to present again my best guess as to the mechanism at work here: What has to be explained is why there may be adaptive mutations present in a genepool, _that don't spread through the entire population_. What is the conservative principle balancing natural selection? I claim it is sexual selection. If an ideal sexual stereotype is set up early on in the evolution of a new species, as it must be, then it may serve to reduce the sexual attractiveness of new adaptations that deviate from that stereotype. Perhaps a wide range of favorable adaptations can build up at the fringes of the genepool, in marginal niches where a slight adaptive superiority counts for more than sex-appeal, but never spread through the rest of the population, breaking through instead only when a change in the environment makes the niche marginal for the entire population." There are several better ways of explaining why a favorable allele may not become fixed in a population. But the main argument against sexual selection is much more obvious. Jorn, are you aware of the fact that punctuated equilibrium was based on the analysis of the evolution of molluscs? The other supporting evidence relies heavily on the evolution of other marine invertebrates and plants. I don't think that sex-appeal or sexual attractiveness is very important in oysters, ferns, grasses, and barnacles. -Larry Moran
lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) (06/07/91)
The latest issue of Nature contains the following paper. Gorr, T., Kleinschmidt, T. and Fricke, H. (1991) Close tetrapod relationship of the coelacanth Latimeria indicated by haemoglobin sequences. Nature 351, 394-397. The paper looks at the evolution of globin genes in a number of organisms including coelacanth. It is evident that these genes have not stopped evolving in the line leading to the modern coelacanth. This is the sort of evidence that many of us have been referring to when we point out that lack of morphological change over a long period of time does not mean that evolution stops. -Larry Moran
lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) (06/08/91)
Several people, including me, pointed out that coelacanths are not "living fossils" and that all organisms evolve even though there may be little obvious change in external morphology. Arlin Stoltzfus doesn't seem to like these ideas very much since he says, "Previous respondents have made rigid statements, and I hope they haven't discouraged you. As several people have pointed out, it is a bit odd to speak of a "living fossil," and it is quite true that all extant species are "modern" in the sense of living in the present and being the product of the last 4.6 billion years of evolution. However, the respondents misunderstand the word "primitive." Also, to insist that there is no such thing as a living fossil and that all organisms evolve at the molecular level is to miss the point, since it does absolutely nothing to explain why the coelocanth (if that is how one spells it-- I forget) and other primitive species have undergone less apparent morphological change than one might expect." I hope that I understand what Arlin is trying to say here. Apparently he agrees that the term "living fossil" is incorrect and should not be used. I assume that he agrees with the main point of this thread which was a response to the question "Can organisms stop evolving for 400 million years?" The answer is NO, do you agree Arlin? Arlin is raising a second but related point, namely why do some organisms have an exteranl morphology that is similar to that of extinct organisms. In his opening paragraph Arlin uses the term "primitive species", but then he goes on to say, "Primitive" may be a value judgement sometimes-- when used in reference to professional hockey, for example-- but in evolution it can have a precise meaning, when used carefully. Any two species will have had a common ancestor at some time in the past: the species that is more similar to the ancestor is more primitive, in the exact sense. Usually, it is misleading to talk about whole organisms-- much better to speak of component properties. The ancestor of humans and whales walked on land. The terrestrial habit of humans can thus be considered primitive in comparison to the whale's marine habit. One can think of E. coli (as opposed to H. sapiens) as primitive in that it is unicellular, however, many features of this bacterium are probably not primitive. Thus, it is easy to use the word "primitive" in an exact and objective way, provided that one actually knows something about the relevant ancestor (this is often difficult)." Actually you demonstrate that it is NOT "easy" to use the word "primitive" in an exact sense! If you are referring to characteristics then it is permissible to point to a "primitive" characteristic as one which has been around for a long time. For example, when comparing whales and humans it is OK to say that functional limbs are "primitive" compared to the derived characteristic of degenerate limbs. Where people usually err is in assuming that a single characteristic defines an organism; as, for example, in stating that humans are more primitive than whales. Arlin makes this very mistake when he says that "the species that is more similar to the ancestor is more primitive". (In fairness he then qualifies his statement - but he should never have said it in the first place if he really understood the precise meaning of "primitive".) Arlin Stoltzfus then says, "The coelocanth looks alot like some 400 MY-old fossils, and that is why people can correctly call it primitive. To be precise, its gross morphology is primitive:...." Arlin, you are contradicting your own statements. It is NOT correct to call a modern coelacanth a primitive organism. This is not a description of a characteristic. Please BE precise. Arlin Stoltzfus also says, "The Port Jackson Shark is another morphologically primitive species: it has a morphology similar to that of some sharks from the Carboniferous period (ca. 300 MYA)...." It would be more correct, scientifically, to say that the external morphology of this shark is a primitive characteristic. This way you make it clear that you are only comparing one characteristic. Arlin concludes with, "So . . . many respondents have corrected the way you stated your question ("is it common for species to not evolve?") by pointing out, as I have, that every organism is expected to evolve at the molecular level, regardless of the rate of evolution at the morphological level. But this doesn't answer the intent of your question, does it? Its exciting to think of primitive organisms and to imagine that they are a window to an otherwise murky past: you want to know why the coelocanth appears to live the same way for 400 MY while other organisms diverge from their ancestors and quickly acquire new properties!" The first part of this paragraph is correct but the second part is confusing. Arlin, it may be exciting to think of "primitive organisms" but by your own definition and mine they do not exist. It IS appropriate to refer to some primitive characteristics of organisms. When you refer to the "rigid" statements that were made you were actually referring to rigorous statements. There is a difference, especially in science. -Larry Moran
lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) (06/08/91)
I (Larry Moran) said, "It is a common misconception among non-biologists that evolution is associated with morphological change. Such a misconception is fostered by the fossil evidence that emphasizes such change." Boris Borcic commented, "I am no biologist, but... isn't this a bit too dogmatic ? It is certainly true that non-biologists show a bias towards a morphological- change view of evolution, but calling this bias a _misconception_ is (I feel) an unwarranted institutionalization of the bias towards the molecular view of all things biological of _present-day_ biologists (as a population)." I hope that I'm not being dogmatic in the sense that I am advocating a belief that is not founded on firm logical ground. In the case of evolution I am referring to the standard textbook definition which is "a change in the frequency of genes in a population". Thus I claim that it is a misconception to assume that morphological change is the only kind of evolution. If Boris or anyone else has a problem with this then I suggest that they come up with a better definition of evolution or at least inform the rest of us that they do not accept the scientific definition. Note that the definition of evolution IS molecular and that it is agreed to by biologists who presumably should know what they are talking about. Boris, you admit that you are no biologist and yet you claim that biologists are "biased" toward a molecular view. It sounds like you are saying that you know more about biology than the biologists (otherwise you couldn't recognize the "bias"). How do you justify such a statement? Boris Borcic continues, "Molecular variation per se doesn't strike me as the only and undisputable foundation for measuring an amount of evolution. Evolution is an ecological process as well as a molecular one, and it is not obvious (to me, at least) that a measure of the evolution of a particular organism/species by what is significant at the molecular level should be automatically congruent to a measure of the same by what is significant at the ecological level." I don't understand what you mean by "ecological process". But, as I stated above, you are free to create your own definition of evolution as long as you tell us about it. We, on the other hand, don't have to agree with you! Please tell us more about the Boris Borcic non-biologist definition of evolution. Boris closes with, "Anyway, and whatever, you can't deny that orphan species such as Coelocanth or Sphaenodon are a remarkable evolutionary phenomenon." Oh yes I can! There are lots of examples, such as bacteria and single-celled eukaryotes, that have an external morphology that has changed little in several billion years. Look in a biology book under "stromatolites". The only reason why Coelacanths have attracted attention is because we humans have a bias towards those animals that are most closely related to ourselves. Or towards animals that are bigger than a breadbox. My own personal favorite among organisms that exhibit some "primitive" characteristics is Pelomyxa palustris, a single-celled eukaryote that shares some of the characteristics of the first eukaryotes. These characteristics are over one billion years old. Sorta puts coelacanths to shame doesn't it! -Larry Moran PS Don't worry about your English - it's excellent. Most of us can't write any better even though we learned English as a first language. Even after four years of living in Geneva I still couldn't communicate effectively in French, you should be proud.
barger@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Jorn Barger) (06/11/91)
lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) writes: > There are several better ways of explaining why a favorable allele may not > become fixed in a population. Fer instance? I'm perplexed at what appears to me a monolithic front claiming in effect "there is no mystery to be explained here". Darwin expected a gradual blending of morphologies. Of course there will always be amino acid substitutions, but why in some species is the morphology so static? > > Jorn, are you aware of the fact that punctuated equilibrium was based on the > analysis of the evolution of molluscs? The other supporting evidence relies > heavily on the evolution of other marine invertebrates and plants. I don't > think that sex-appeal or sexual attractiveness is very important in oysters, > ferns, grasses, and barnacles. Hmmmm. I've read enough on the evolution of sexuality to know that the mathematical models are far from complete. My inclination is that sexuality and sexual selection have to coevolve from the very first, but there are certainly problems here. I've never really thought about the plant side, and have not run across that in my reading. (References?) I wonder, though, thinking about the huge variety of pollen-shapes, ...certainly there is some sort of pollen-stereotype being selected for here. It's not inconceivable that the pollen-surface encodes the phenotype in some way? (As opposed to being an arbitrary random variant on other pollen forms.) I'm not especially in the thick of biology these days. Philosophically, though, I think it's always important in the sciences to spend a good amount of thought on the farthest-out hypotheses imaginable, just so as not to fall into the narrow traps of scientific pride. Regarding my "Revenge of the Nerds" theory of speciation, I think that as a counterweight to the normal cliches of Darwinian ethics, it serves a great purpose-- by that simple twist to conventional evolutionary thinking, suddenly you have a model where it's not survival of the fittest but an eternal battle between the conformists (to the sexual stereotype) and the experimenters, with the latter doomed to fringe niches until some uncertain day of judgment. (Blessed are the meek...?) So an ugly banal moral metaphor gains some artistic depth of passion.
lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) (06/14/91)
I (Larry Moran) said, "There are several better ways of explaining why a favorable allele may not become fixed in a population." and Jorn Barger replied, "Fer instance? I'm perplexed at what appears to me a monolithic front claiming in effect "there is no mystery to be explained here". Darwin expected a gradual blending of morphologies. Of course there will always be amino acid substitutions, but why in some species is the morphology so static?" Favorable alleles can be lost by chance in a population before they become fixed. This chance occurence is part of one of the main mechanisms of evolution; random genetic drift. Examples could be the accidental destruction of the group of organisms that contain the favorable allele or loss due to the fact that chromosomes are segregated during meiosis and not all combinations are passed on to the next generation. A favorable allele may also be linked to one which is selected against in a given population. The net effect might be to eliminate both alleles. Jorn, I think that you have read enough in these newsgroups to realize that Darwin's ideas are not particularly relevant to modern thought on evolution. It is not useful to quote Darwin, especially when you are attacking his position. Most of us agree with you that Darwin's position on a lot of things was wrong or incomplete. The reason why morphology may not change drastically over a long period of time should be fairly obvious. Several others have mentioned it here. If an organism is well adapted, morphologically, to a particular environment then most mutations in "morphology" genes will have negative fitness. They will not become fixed in the population and the morphology will not change. In some cases new structures might arise in part of the population and this group could evolve in a different direction (with substantial change in morphology). There is no mystery to be explained here. Jorn Barger also says, "I'm not especially in the thick of biology these days. Philosophically, though, I think it's always important in the sciences to spend a good amount of thought on the farthest-out hypotheses imaginable, just so as not to fall into the narrow traps of scientific pride." I agree with you. The problem is that amateurs resent it when experts shoot down their far-out hypotheses on scientific grounds. These amateurs then start complaining about the science mafia and how bigoted we all are. What amazes me is the hubris of some of those amateurs who post to talk.origins and sci.bio. They seem to assume that they have some insight into evolution that has never occurred to "narrow-minded" biologists even though these same biologists have been studying evolution full time for 200 years. Give us a little credit, eh! -Laurence A. Moran
barger@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Jorn Barger) (06/14/91)
lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) writes: > The reason why morphology may not change drastically over a long period of > time should be fairly obvious. Several others have mentioned it here. If > an organism is well adapted, morphologically, to a particular environment > then most mutations in "morphology" genes will have negative fitness. They > will not become fixed in the population and the morphology will not change. > In some cases new structures might arise in part of the population and this > group could evolve in a different direction (with substantial change in > morphology). > > There is no mystery to be explained here. > > Jorn Barger also says, > > "I'm not especially in the thick of biology these days. Philosophically, > though, I think it's always important in the sciences to spend a good > amount of thought on the farthest-out hypotheses imaginable, just so > as not to fall into the narrow traps of scientific pride." > > I agree with you. The problem is that amateurs resent it when experts shoot > down their far-out hypotheses on scientific grounds. These amateurs then > start complaining about the science mafia and how bigoted we all are. What > amazes me is the hubris of some of those amateurs who post to talk.origins > and sci.bio. They seem to assume that they have some insight into evolution > that has never occurred to "narrow-minded" biologists even though these same > biologists have been studying evolution full time for 200 years. Give us a > little credit, eh! (Gee. Third time through the flame/ kill-region cycle, and I'm still smokin'...) I had no idea you were so old! You must have seen an lot of experts shot down in your time, by a lot of amateurs, I bet! I'm a little surprised that you haven't gained the wisdom of age... a bit cantankerous and crotchety, I guess? Well, sorry, old man, but _ageing_ has a purpose, so maybe it's time you kicked off, eh what? :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) Shall I make it four cycles? Naaaaah... The problem, I would say, comes when "experts" begin to believe that "amateurs" can't possibly have _any_ new insights, and ask them to slink away at the magic words "Give us some credit". But to return to evolution: If, over millions of years, the typical pattern is for those few favorable morphological mutations _not_ to spread through the entire population, then genetic drift and unlucky allele-linkages are not sufficient explanations. If they are not sufficient explanations, then others must be proposed. My scientific strategy, amateur that I am (thank God), is to look for the deep metaphors, and treasure the most imaginative ones. Evolutionary theory may be inching out of the pit of the Darwinian metaphor, but I don't see many strong contenders being advanced. The metaphor of a contest between the sexually stereotypical and the unstereotypical-but-better- adapted has the terrific virtue of challenging the way we think about the universe, the biosphere, and our place here. I say it deserves more thought than "Plants and clams don't have much choice."
al@gtx.com (Alan Filipski) (06/14/91)
In article <676362319.66@egsgate.FidoNet.Org> L.A..Moran@f98.n250.z1.FidoNet.Org (L.A. Moran) writes: > >There are no known examples of species that have not evolved for any >substantial period of time and this includes coelacanths or lungfish. It is >true that the external morphology of these animals closely resembles that of >organisms that lived about 60 million years ago. However, at the molecular >level these lungfish have evolved as much as any other extant organism. How could we possibly verify the last statement? Isn't it more an assumption than an observation? (I'm not suggesting that the statement is untrue, just unknowable by present means.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ( Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 8836 N. 23rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA ) ( {decvax,hplabs,uunet!amdahl,nsc}!sun!sunburn!gtx!al (602)870-1696 ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mtp@allwet.zso.dec.com (Michael T. Peterson) (06/15/91)
barger@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Jorn Barger) writes: >The problem, I would say, comes when "experts" begin to believe that "amateurs" >can't possibly have _any_ new insights, and ask them to slink away at the >magic words "Give us some credit". I think you're paranoid. I've never run across any "experts" who have maintained, even in jest, that "amateurs" have no insights. By the way, I consider myself an "expert amateur" in that I have a PhD in Molecular Biology, but have not been paid for my expertise in over 12 years. Where does that leave me. On this same point, consider: Amateur is to Professional as Novice is to Expert. You need to get your terms clear. Whether or not you get paid for your knowledge of biology is NOT a criterion for expertise. I know quite a few "professionals" who get paid for what they do who are about as biologically sharp as a marble -- Rifkin, for example. So, what do you claim to be, an amateur or a novice! >But to return to evolution: If, over millions of years, the typical pattern >is for those few favorable morphological mutations _not_ to spread through the >entire population, then genetic drift and unlucky allele-linkages are not >sufficient explanations. Are you confusing the terms "species" with "population". If you really did mean to use the term "population" in its biological sense then you may not fully understand genetic drift. Genetic drift occurs among [isolated] populations within a species. By definition, a favorable mutation in such a population will not spread to the rest of the species. Therefore, the explanation is sufficient. So, suppose you mean "species", instead of population: Still, this makes no sense. To be precise, there are no "morphological mutations". There are only genetic mutations that express themselve morphologically (among other modes of expression). A mutation is "favorable" precisely because it is propagated down through the generations. Said another way, if a mutation is favorable and the individual within the species is not part of an isolated population it will be propogated down through the generations. >If they are not sufficient explanations, then others must be proposed. True, but in this case the explanation(s) are quite sufficient. >My scientific strategy, amateur that I am (thank God), If you interpret the tone of my response as antagonistic it is precisely because of the attitude(s) this seems to express. I suspect your resentment of "expertise" springs from your own feelings of inadequacy. >is to look for the deep metaphors, and treasure the most imaginative ones. As opposed to what, the correct ones? >Evolutionary theory may be inching out of the pit of the Darwinian metaphor, >but I don't see many strong contenders being advanced. How about punctuated equilibrium explained as a population-biology modeled by chaotic theory and non-linear dynamics. By the way, this theory does not substantially damage the fundamental tenants of Natural Selection, it only provides an explanation of how Natural Selection exerts its pressure in non-gradual ways. >The metaphor of a contest between the sexually stereotypical and the >unstereotypical-but-better- adapted has the terrific virtue of challenging the >way we think about the universe, the biosphere, and our place here. I say it >deserves more thought than "Plants and clams don't have much choice." Gizbah?
lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) (06/15/91)
Jorn Barger says, "I'm not especially in the thick of biology these days. Philosophically, though, I think it's always important in the sciences to spend a good amount of thought on the farthest-out hypotheses imaginable, just so as not to fall into the narrow traps of scientific pride." Jorn's far out hypothesis was that a lot of evolution could be explained by sexual selection. He was especially taken with the idea that morphological change might be inhibited because of sexual preferences. When I pointed out that sexual preferences among molluscs and plants didn't seem like a viable mechanism he responded with a theory about the shape of pollen grains having an influence on rate of evolution. With respect to the idea that we should consider far-out hypotheses, I said, "I agree with you. The problem is that amateurs resent it when experts shoot down their far-out hypotheses on scientific grounds. These amateurs then start complaining about the science mafia and how bigoted we all are. What amazes me is the hubris of some of those amateurs who post to talk.origins and sci.bio. They seem to assume that they have some insight into evolution that has never occurred to "narrow-minded" biologists even though these same biologists have been studying evolution full time for 200 years. Give us a little credit, eh!" Jorn Barger replies, "(Gee. Third time through the flame/ kill-region cycle, and I'm still smokin'...) I had no idea you were so old! You must have seen an lot of experts shot down in your time, by a lot of amateurs, I bet! I'm a little surprised that you haven't gained the wisdom of age... a bit cantankerous and crotchety, I guess? Well, sorry, old man, but _ageing_ has a purpose, so maybe it's time you kicked off, eh what? The problem, I would say, comes when "experts" begin to believe that "amateurs" can't possibly have _any_ new insights, and ask them to slink away at the magic words "Give us some credit". Jorn, I NEVER said that amateurs can't possibly have any new insights. On the other hand, your statements seem to imply that experts can't possibly have any expertise! Do you really believe that you have nothing to learn from these experts. Do you really believe that we should adopt your idea simply BECAUSE it is a far out hypothesis by an amateur? Are we not allowed to criticise it on the basis of what is already known? Do you really want me to shut up so that you won't be exposed to any knowledge? Have you ever considered the possibility that your far-out hypothesis could be WRONG? Jorn Barger continues, "But to return to evolution: If, over millions of years, the typical pattern is for those few favorable morphological mutations _not_ to spread through the entire population, then genetic drift and unlucky allele-linkages are not sufficient explanations. If they are not sufficient explanations, then others must be proposed." Of course! How could I have been so stupid! Jorn Barger says that genetic drift and other explanations are not sufficient explanations for loss of a favorable allele. Now I see the light! Please come and give a seminar here so that my colleagues can also be exposed to your remarkable amateur insight. Jorn Barger again, "My scientific strategy, amateur that I am (thank God), is to look for the deep metaphors, and treasure the most imaginative ones. Evolutionary theory may be inching out of the pit of the Darwinian metaphor, but I don't see many strong contenders being advanced. The metaphor of a contest between the sexually stereotypical and the unstereotypical-but-better-adapted has the terrific virtue of challenging the way we think about the universe, the biosphere, and our place here. I say it deserves more thought than "Plants and clams don't have much choice." You are perfectly entitled to "look for the deep metaphors, and treasure the most imaginative ones". You are not entitled to call this science. Professional scientist that I am (thank god) my scientific strategy is to find the most satisfactory explanation that is consistant with the facts. The reason that you don't "see" any strong contenders to replace Darwinism or neo-Darwinism is NOT that they don't exist! It's because YOU don't see them. If you want to learn about modern theories of the mechanism of evolution then read a book. Or, you could ask someone to explain it to you. Sexual selection is well known - it is discussed in most evolutionary biology textbooks. There is no evidence that sexual selection influences evolution in clams or plants, nor is there any obvious way for this to occur. I say that your ideas deserve more thought. Why does sexual selection challenge the way we think about the universe? You must have a very strange way of thinking about the Universe! (-: Are you aware of the fact that Darwin himself discussed sexual selection? You may have the last word on this topic, I don't see much point in continuing. -Larry (old crotchety) Moran
barger@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Jorn Barger) (06/17/91)
lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) writes: > Jorn's far out hypothesis was that a lot of evolution could be explained by > sexual selection. He was especially taken with the idea that morphological > change might be inhibited because of sexual preferences. When I pointed out > that sexual preferences among molluscs and plants didn't seem like a viable > mechanism he responded with a theory about the shape of pollen grains having > an influence on rate of evolution. (Why do you speak to me in the third person? Am I beneath your contempt, or something?) What I actually said was that sexual selection might have implications that are still undreamt of. And if the shape of pollen grains is irrelevant to evolution, why are the shapes so distinct, and how does a plant recognize members of its own species? > Jorn, I NEVER said that amateurs can't possibly have any new insights. You said you were "amazed by the hubris" of amateurs who "seem to assume they have some insight into evolution that has never occurred to... biologists." If that doesn't imply that you assume amateurs can never have new insights, I don't know what does! > On the other hand, your statements seem to imply that experts can't >possibly have any expertise! Do you really believe that you have nothing > to learn from these experts. Do you really believe that we should adopt > your idea simply BECAUSE it is a far out hypothesis by an amateur? > Are we not allowed to criticise it > on the basis of what is already known? Do you really want me to shut up so > that you won't be exposed to any knowledge? Have you ever considered the > possibility that your far-out hypothesis could be WRONG? I'm sorry, but I am deeply insulted by your tone. There is a polite, respectful tone for scientific discussion that involves presenting a hypothesis for consideration, presenting counterarguments, weighing each other's contributions, and making a considered judgment of the tradeoffs. What infuriates me is that I feel you have neither weighed what I've said, nor barely tried to listen to it, attacking instead the fact that I dare to venture into your "professional" preserve. If I wasn't interested in feedback, I wouldn't have posted the idea. I certainly have not asked you to shut up, but you incarnate so many of the prejudices I despise that I did make a joke about wishing you'd succumb to the weight of your "200 years" of expertise. How patronizing it sounds when you ask if I've considered that I might be wrong! Do I really sound like I think I'm divinely inspired, or something? I think I've noticed a cool twist to the punct. eq. debate, and I'm trying to get others to think about it, that's all. I resent that you brush it off with such minimal attention. > Jorn Barger continues, > "But to return to evolution: If, over millions of years, the typical > pattern is for those few favorable morphological mutations _not_ to > spread through the entire population, then genetic drift and unlucky > allele-linkages are not sufficient explanations. > If they are not sufficient explanations, then others must be proposed." > > Of course! How could I have been so stupid! Jorn Barger says that genetic > drift and other explanations are not sufficient explanations for loss of > a favorable allele. Now I see the light! Please come and give a seminar here > so that my colleagues can also be exposed to your remarkable amateur insight. Nice guy. I'm not talking about loss of one favorable allele. I'm talking about a pervasive pattern that persists even across geologic time, where morphological mutations seem to be selected against. I'm saying that in at least some cases, sexual selection fits the bill as a plausible mechanism. I think people should keep that pattern in mind. > You are perfectly entitled to "look for the deep metaphors, and treasure the > most imaginative ones". You are not entitled to call this science. > Professional scientist that I am (thank god) my scientific strategy is to > find the most satisfactory explanation that is consistant with the facts. Well I'm glad you've got a lock on recognizing satisfactory explanations and factual consistency, but I think if you were a little more aware of the cognitive processes required to make those judgments, you'd see that sorting out interesting metaphors is at the very root of those processes. > The reason that you don't "see" any strong contenders to replace Darwinism > or neo-Darwinism is NOT that they don't exist! It's because YOU don't see > them. If you want to learn about modern theories of the mechanism of evolution > then read a book. Or, you could ask someone to explain it to you. I've read a lot of books, wise guy. I haven't seen anything that really jells, the way survival of the fittest does. Help me out? > Sexual selection is well known - it is discussed in most evolutionary biology > textbooks. There is no evidence that sexual selection influences evolution > in clams or plants, nor is there any obvious way for this to occur. I say > that your ideas deserve more thought. There's well-known, and there's well-known. Last I checked, the whole topic of sexuality was a slithering can of worms. Has anyone defined a set of criteria for when sexual selection might be expected to emerge? > Why does sexual selection challenge the way we think about the universe? You > must have a very strange way of thinking about the Universe! (-: Are you > aware of the fact that Darwin himself discussed sexual selection? Yes, I'm aware. Yes, I have a way of thinking about the universe that's much stranger than you could ever dream. But _anyone_ whose view of the benevolence or malevolence or disinterest of the universe owes anything to the image of "nature red in tooth and claw", ought to weigh the contrasting image of nature as a war between convention and innovation, for it is profoundly _different_ and therefore important to contemplate. > You may have the last word on this topic, I don't see much point in > continuing. I hope you'll reconsider, despite the heat of my emotion. In another message, Michael Peterson asks if I'm confusing the terms species and population. I am not. I am differentiating mutations with morphological impacts _that provide an advantage in coping with the environment_ from mutations with morphological impacts _that provide an advantage (or disadvantage) in terms of sexual selection and sexual stereotypes_. I'm trying to gain a hearing for the insight that sexual selection might act in opposition to "natural selection" in terms of promoting the spread of mutations through a population, particularly when the "naturally adaptive" mutations have morphological impacts. And that the pattern one would naturally expect to arise in consequence would look a lot like punctuated equilibrium, a model which, last I heard, had not been grounded mathematically, not even by "chaotic theory and non-linear dynamics". I wonder if you guys are Creationist-wary, or something? 'Cause I'm not one of _those_, nor a UFO-exobiologist, nor anything you've got a name for yet. I _am_ a sociobiology enthusiast, but mostly what I'm after is to crack open cliched thinking in every field, especially when it tries to hide behind claims of expertise. 'Cause hiding behind claims of expertise is _deadly_ to scientific progress.
lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) (06/19/91)
Boris Borcic said, "As for justifying my statement that there is a bias towards the molecular view, *without* assuming knowledge of biology other than what is according to you, it is logically sufficient to note that biologists [TM Moran] mean "evolution of molecules of lifeforms" when they say "evolution of lifeforms". Whether this bias is reasonable is all together a different question... The word "bias" is insulting. To be accussed of bias is to be accussed of holding an UNREASONABLE or IRRATIONAL prejudice. Thus, there is no such thing as "reasonable bias". When you accuse all biologists of bias you are stating that they have an opinion or concept that is irrational for one reason or another. It is quite natural that I react to such a statement and it is acceptable for me to question your authority to make such a statement. So far, you have not given me any reason to accept your accusation. If you wish to explain why you think that biologists are biased then now is the time. Boris says, "I gather from your responses to the original poster and to me that a bias is to you the difference of any view to the expert's view; e.g. a pejorative someone who knows better is free to use on someone who knows less well. By this definition, the expert's view is of course devoid of bias. The matter of biasses would moreover be completely extra-scientific since in a world where everybody shared "the" scientific view, there would be no biasses." Let's review the history of this exchange. You said that lack of morphological change is evidence that evolution has not occurred. I responded that evolution can occur at the molecular level and that morphological change does not have to be evident. I pointed out that the scientific definition of evolution is a molecular one. You responded by accusing all biologists of a bias towards a molecular definition! No one accused YOU of bias! I made a well-meaning attempt to educate you in an area with which I am very familiar and you are not. You respond by claiming that you are right and I am biased. There doesn't seem to be any point in continuing. I'm sorry that you react so negatively to criticism. Boris Borcic said, "Molecular variation per se doesn't strike me as the only and undisputable foundation for measuring an amount of evolution. Evolution is an ecological process as well as a molecular one, and it is not obvious (to me, at least) that a measure of the evolution of a particular organism/species by what is significant at the molecular level should be automatically congruent to a measure of the same by what is significant at the ecological level." I (Larry Moran) commented, "I don't understand what you mean by "ecological process". But, as I stated above, you are free to create your own definition of evolution as long as you tell us about it. We, on the other hand, don't have to agree with you! Please tell us more about the Boris Borcic non-biologist definition of evolution." and Boris replied, "Here I must question your good faith :-( since the paragraph you cite was followed by two others you conveniently deleted and where I made my meaning clear, or at least clearer." I did not behave in bad faith. I read the following two paragraphs as well. If you want to discuss your ideas about evolution then I would be happy to hear them but I honestly do not understand what you mean by stating that evolution is an ecological process - especially when you contrast it with molecular variation. If you do respond by clarifying then please state in your next posting whether you want to engage in a scientific discussion of your ideas or whether you would prefer not to hear from biologists. I said, "My own personal favorite among organisms that exhibit some "primitive" characteristics is Pelomyxa palustris, a single-celled eukaryote that shares some of the characteristics of the first eukaryotes. These characteristics are over one billion years old. Sorta puts coelacanths to shame doesn't it!" Boris said, "I guess Peloxyma palustris is also easy to grow in the lab ?" No, it is impossible to grow in the lab. The organism dies within a short time of being removed from its normal environment. There are only a handful of different samples that have been described. (Is there a point that you were trying to make?) Boris goes on to say, "Look, I am no special fan of coelacanths or "living fossils". My own personal favorite among exceptional patterns of evolution is convergence, and my favorites among organisms that exhibit it are Hummingbirds and Sphingidae. Adults of these two very specialized and extraordinary families - as compared to their respective phylogenetical neighbors - display a striking similarity in shape, size, locomotion, nutrition, and, to a limited extent, thermoregulation and migrating practice. The observation of a feeding Hummingbird and a feeding Sphinx, hovering in static flight over some flower with their long buccal instrument dipping in nectar, tells me these two groups have something particular in common. (And if you tell e.g. "you ignorant, they are also some bats", I'll say "ok, add in the bats if you think they belong") Now one is a bird and the other is an insect. What was their closest common ancestor like ? How do their molecules compare ? If your model of evolution implies a state-space for species such that common factors like the one between Sphinxes and Hummingbirds cannot be evidenced, I'll say it is incomplete. If you tell me that such a model is the only one serious biologists would consider (which I do not believe), I will say that biologists are not true to observation." The common ancestor of chordates and arthropods probably lived about 700 million years ago. It was likely a seqmented worm-like creature but it could have been unicellular. The DNA and protein sequences of birds and insects confirm that they separated about his time. In other words they are fairly closely related on an evolutionary scale. Boris, in good faith, I do not understand your statments about "state-space" and convergence. Do you see convergence as a major problem for biology? If so please explain why. As far as I know the modern theory of evolution would not have any trouble with the example that you quote. -Larry Moran
dmark@acsu.buffalo.edu (David Mark) (06/19/91)
In article <2129@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu> barger@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Jorn Barger) writes: >lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) writes: > >> Jorn, I NEVER said that amateurs can't possibly have any new insights. > >You said you were "amazed by the hubris" of amateurs who "seem to assume >they have some insight into evolution that has never occurred to... >biologists." If that doesn't imply that you assume amateurs can never have >new insights, I don't know what does! There is a big, big difference between "amazed if they do" and "never". David Mark dmark@sun.acsu.buffalo.edu
pcg@panix.uucp (Paul Gallagher) (06/29/91)
Concerning sexual isolation and speciation: Ernst Mayr's model of peripatric speciation, from which the punctuated equilibrium model developed, presents speciation as occuring when small, isolated populations undergo change. In Mayr's model, sexual isolation occurs only afterward, when the changed population once again comes in contact with the parent population, and sexual isolation is selected for. Morphological change 1st, reproductive isolation later. However, changes in sexual behavior may have led to speciation. For example, sibling species, species so similar as to be almost indistinguishable from each other, often are prevented from hybridizing only by differences in courting and mating practices. Some species originate through the multiplication of chromosomes, by auto- polyploidy or allopolyploidy, which results in reproductive isolation. Polyploidy is often induced by plant breeders, sometimes using the chemical colchicine. Oats, wheat, cotton, tobacco, potato, banana, coffee, and sugar cane are all polyploids. I think the proper term for what's being called "state-space" is niche. When species converge, the terms "homology" and "analogy" are usually used to distinguish between similarities that have a similar genetic basis and similarities which are simply functional or mechanical. Also, almost all people studying evolution agree that heritable morphological change has a genetic basis, but that doesn't mean they all become population geneticists. Most of the living things on earth are identified and distinguished from other species by gross morphology alone. Genetic exams and cross-breeding experiments have been performed on only a small portion of known species.