|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: forsdykeforsdyke Date: Nov 1, 2007 11:10
The idea that "natural selection is of secondary importance" in
evolution has recently been recalled by Masatoshi Nei in "The New
Mutation Theory of Phenotypic Evolution" (Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, USA, July 24). He concludes by noting that:
"Historically, the word mutationism was used to refer to William
Bateson's saltationism or similar ideas, in which natural selection
plays little role."
For more on William Bateson see: http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/bateson1.htm
and our forthcoming book: '"Treasure Your Exceptions." The Life and
Science of William Bateson.' (Springer, New York, 2008; see
http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/book04.htm).
Donald Forsdyke,
Department of Biochemistry,
Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
|
| |
|
| | 26 Comments |
|
|
Author: Joe FelsensteinJoe Felsenstein Date: Nov 3, 2007 10:29
In article darwin.ediacara.org>,
forsdyke wrote:>The idea that "natural selection is of secondary importance" in
>evolution has recently been recalled by Masatoshi Nei in "The New
>Mutation Theory of Phenotypic Evolution" (Proceedings of the National
>Academy of Sciences, USA, July 24). He concludes by noting that:
>"Historically, the word mutationism was used to refer to William
>Bateson's saltationism or similar ideas, in which natural selection
>plays little role."
>
>For more on William Bateson see: http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/bateson1.htm
>and our forthcoming book: '"Treasure Your Exceptions." The Life and
>Science of William Bateson.' (Springer, New York, 2008; see
> http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/book04.htm).
I think two other people in present-day biology have similar views to what
Nei is saying, if I it correctly. Arlin Stolzfus, and um, er, Donald Forsdyke.
Or do I misunderstand?
|
| Show full article (1.15Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: ArlinArlin Date: Dec 17, 2007 22:17
On Dec 17, 12:53 am, Tim Tyler cyberspace.org> wrote:>> The [Modern Synthesis] argued instead that adaptation occurs by shifting the
>> frequencies of alleles (with infinitesimal effects) already present in
>> the "gene pool". They redefined "evolution" as "shifting gene
>> frequencies".
....
>
> A reference for this, maybe?
|
| Show full article (2.36Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: DKDK Date: Dec 18, 2007 09:56
>On Dec 17, 12:53 am, Tim Tyler cyberspace.org> wrote:>>> The [Modern Synthesis] argued instead that adaptation occurs by shifting
> the
>>> frequencies of alleles (with infinitesimal effects) already present in
>>> the "gene pool". They redefined "evolution" as "shifting gene
>>> frequencies".
>....
>>
>> A reference for this, maybe?
>
>Thanks for asking. The opposing positions of the MS and Mutationism
>are documented in "Mutationism and the Dual Causation of Evolutionary
>Change" (Stoltzfus, 2006, Evol and Dev 8:304-17), and in the extensive
>supplementary material, both of which you can request
>(stoltzfu@ nospamumbi.umd.edu, remove nospam). The documentation comes
>in the form of direct quotations from the mutationists and the
>architects of the MS. Reading the paper by Stoltzfus (2006) is a hard
>slog but I promise that if you devote an hour or two to reading it you ...
|
| Show full article (2.79Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tim TylerTim Tyler Date: Dec 18, 2007 09:56
Arlin wrote:
> Please be aware that many evolutionary biologists today will assert--
> with implacable confidence and without any documentation-- that the
> MS says something else, in the faith that whatever seems...
|
| Show full article (1.71Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tim TylerTim Tyler Date: Dec 18, 2007 09:56
Arlin wrote:
> On Dec 17, 12:53 am, Tim Tyler cyberspace.org> wrote:>>> The [Modern Synthesis] argued instead that adaptation occurs by shifting the
>>> frequencies of alleles (with infinitesimal effects) already present in
>>> the "gene pool". They redefined "evolution" as "shifting gene
>>> frequencies".
> ....
>> A reference for this, maybe?
>
> Thanks for asking.
[snip reference to more material by Stoltzfus]
What I was interested in a reference for was:
``they insisted that mutation had no direct or controlling
influence on what happens in evolution, due to the buffering
capacity of the "gene pool".''
|
| Show full article (1.16Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tim TylerTim Tyler Date: Dec 19, 2007 10:49
DK wrote:
> Arlin gmail.com> wrote:>> In his NYT review of Behe's book this past
>> summer, he castigates Behe for suggesting that evolution depends on
>> the rate of mutations, insisting that "If correct, Behe's calculations
>> would at...
|
| Show full article (1.61Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ArlinArlin Date: Dec 19, 2007 10:49
> An appeal to authority in place of the valid argument.
> Which is surprising because 1) Behe's position is impossibly weak
> and can be dealt with properly, 2) Dawkins knows and can do much
> better (but apparently can't resist cheap shots).
Cheap shots, indeed. I directed you to the documentary evidence in
Stoltzfus (2006) which you did not read. I will provide some
quotations from the MS architects below. Unfortunately, your
statement above reflects an unwillingness to accept evidence-- Dawkins
says "X" but you interpret this to mean "not X" on the grounds, that
in spite of what he *actually wrote*, you are confident that he "knows
better".
> Of course the rate of evolution depends on the rate of mutations!
> Had anyone seriously suggested that it's not?
Yes, they have, and that's exactly the point that I am making, and
that Dawkins was making. I only quoted Dawkins because he faithfully
reflects the MS position documented in statements such as the
following:
|
| Show full article (5.58Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tim TylerTim Tyler Date: Dec 20, 2007 11:03
Arlin wrote:
>> Of course the rate of evolution depends on the rate of mutations!
>> Had anyone seriously suggested that it's not?
>
> Yes, they have, and that's exactly the point that I am making, and
> that Dawkins...
|
| Show full article (6.39Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
