Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 6:02 PM
21 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, ooh-child, PaulK, vimesey (5 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,242 Year: 5,279/19,786 Month: 1,401/873 Week: 297/460 Day: 49/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
Author Topic:   Irreduceable Complexity
Peter
Member (Idle past 2034 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 91 of 94 (29165)
01-15-2003 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Satcomm
01-14-2003 10:55 AM


Nothing wrong with a bit of skepticism
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Satcomm, posted 01-14-2003 10:55 AM Satcomm has not yet responded

    
Itzpapalotl
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 94 (29198)
01-15-2003 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Brad McFall
01-14-2003 8:39 PM


I understand microevolutionary change to be small changes for example the timing of events such as flowering in plants or emergence in insects. For example in monkey flowers the gene that allows one population of the plant to survive on copper contaminated soils directly prevents reproduction with other monkey flowers that do not live on copper contaminated flowers. Natural selection for copper tolerance led directly to reproductive isolation.

I agree the study of speciation has been a bit of a mess but this is beginning to change, this article is a good intoduction to the recent changes in the study and unserstanding of speciation: http://abacus.gene.ucl.ac.uk/jim/pap/malletjeb01.pdf

There is alot of research that has gathered good epirical evidence and it is listed in the reviews i mentioned, here are some more primary refernces if people are interested:

A. P. Hendry. Adaptive divergence and the evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: an empirical demonstration using introduced sockeye salmon. Genetica 112113: 515534, 2001.

Schemske, D.W. and Bradshaw, H.D., Jr (1999) Pollinator preference and the evolution of floral traits in monkey flowers (Mimulus). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 1191011915 Nagel, L. and Schluter, D. (1998).

Nagel, L. and Schluter, D. (1998) Body size, natural selection, and speciation in sticklebacks. Evolution 52, 209218.

Via, S. et al. (2000) Reproductive isolation between divergent races of pea aphids on two hosts: selection against migrants and hybrids in
the parental environments. Evolution 54, 16261637.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Brad McFall, posted 01-14-2003 8:39 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Brad McFall, posted 01-15-2003 2:38 PM Itzpapalotl has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3143 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 93 of 94 (29199)
01-15-2003 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Itzpapalotl
01-15-2003 2:01 PM


JUST refer to Wright's presence in your homeland and the differing opinions about the outcome. Like war this is not hard to understand.

I did work by "hurting" pea plants with copper in 1987 giving a stimulus to the pisatin biochemical pathway.

The reform I spoke of to Percy in Buffon's :mould: is not "paltry" compared to Darwin's own but like Croizat I seek a curriculum reflecting change rather of the order of Wolfram's non-biologically motivated response to computer use in society in science on the whole instead.

I may not be against your siding with post-Mayr/Dobshansky sympatric-sibling rate but I was generally thinking this kind of way back in the 80s when I WENT to Cornell. It can not be denied under/ground that I WENT. Cornell has a 4 rating in evolution/ecology/systematics and is despite its lower rating in other areas of biology at the top in the country in this field. I wa a top student BEFORE i began to write about evolution and actually TO DO it (in studies). The problem in the doing, and I have not read your link further&farther; enough to tell(is) if this is just another Ford ecology or rather a Wright supplementary space and time information?

Regardless your posting is of high quality and will help elevate c/e working groups generally. God Bless. Brad.

PS I tend to think about NS aka via artifactual artifical selection AFTER the "kind" of speciation n o t before. One can try this *reversal* affirmed as you wish but in resemblence by some other unspecified continguity (I have none in mind at present) through TEACHING evolution one may way this directum I guess but if that is what it is actually here(understood) say with respect to cell cycle timed philosophy (no matter the realism) and ANY Poincare RETURN POINTS point SET}{... my guess is that it will tend to meet MORE resistence (this would be becasue I happen to prefer Wright's math to Fic(spel?)sher's hyperselectionism FOR THE SAME BREEDING PROGRAM even though by your influence in this higher education available on line some actual and absolute progress be made reactantly or impedantly ence wise. May you out live Gladyshev's retirement fund for biology and not only drive a BEETLE so that we can out pace Mayr's "genetic revolution" with the next...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Itzpapalotl, posted 01-15-2003 2:01 PM Itzpapalotl has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 94 of 94 (29250)
01-16-2003 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Satcomm
01-14-2003 11:33 AM


quote:

I was attempting to answer Peter's question with an explanation to my reasoning. I was corrected by Schraf and John about the definitions of speciation. With that correction, and Peter's statement, I realized that I should have worded my first statement differently. Rather than saying that it cannot be proven, I thought it was more accurate to say that it hasn't been proven yet, and may or may not ever be proven. Things are proven true or false based on evidence.


I support your willingness to change in the light of better information.

Now is the time to say that nothing is actually "proven" true or false in science. Evidence either supports or not, but since we can never, in theory, have all the evidence, nothing is ever completely "proven."

Now, how is it that you believe that we don't have very good evidence for long-scale evolution? What kind of evidence do you think is lacking?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Satcomm, posted 01-14-2003 11:33 AM Satcomm has not yet responded

    
Prev123456
7
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019