-----Original Message-----
From: bivalve [mailto:bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 5:06 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: Applied evolution
NW: Will a straightened-out mollusk taxonomy at the NIH get the Chesapeake
Bay cleaned up? Those of us who like fried clams just don't get concerned
by their pedigree.
DC: It might help in a couple of ways. Are those clams legally harvested
and are they really clams? Cut-up bits of meat are not distinctive
morphologically, but molecular analysis plugged into an accurate genetic
database can identify the source of meat. This was actually done in a study
of whale meat marketed in Japan. Not all of it was what it was supposed to
be. Evolutionary data can tell us which species are likely to be confused.
Molecular data for these species can help us identify other specimens that
are not morphologically distinct, such as very young juveniles. This
enables easier study of life history dynamics. In turn, this will allow
better fisheries management. Taxonomy and evolution of molluscan parasites
has shown that the major pests of Chesapeake Bay oysters were introduced
when someone tried to grow Pacific oysters over here. Knowledge of
evolutionary relationships can point to other introductions that would
probably be a really bad idea.
NW: I know what you are saying (sort of), but the problem is that
"everyone" knows that Evolutionary Processes are long term, as in "mill-yons
and mill-yons of years," so that when you say that you are going to "apply"
evolution to a current problem, we get the mental concept of asking one of
you for the time, and you start explaining how to build a clock...or more
appropriately, you look up at your calendar.
But, in actuality, if you are doing DNA testing, etc, etc, which may, as you
claim, have a basis in phylogenic determination, it may not be required for
that to be fully understood by the lay user. It is like the use of the
Wilson cloud chamber; the particle physicist does not have to know
meteorology to use it.
To apply the title "Applied Evolution," or worse, "Evolutionary Biology," to
all the technology that you are willing to share with others will
undoubtedly earn you the ill-will we all share for NASA, who proudly lays
claim for nearly every piece of American technology since Sputnik, from
calculators to electric toothbrushes, especially near Congressional
appropriations time.
NW: What you say is true and logical, but I have heard many of today's
evolutionists claim that the division between artificial selection and
natural selection is, well, artificial. If the individual has certain
traits, if lives (and multiplies); if it doesn't it dies. That is what good
ol' Sagan called his "proof" of the "fact" of evolution in his Cosmos
series, and it's one of the thorn's in the side of many of us concerning the
typical presentation of evolution.
DC: The definition of evolution is key here. Examination of the fossil
record shows that organisms have changed over time, and, at a smaller scale,
historical observations show the same thing. Thus, some evolution has
indeed occurred, and may be properly called the fact of evolution. The
means by which these changes have taken place, and the extent of the
evolutionary connections between organisms, are the subject of ongoing
study. Natural selection and genetic drift acting on the variations
produced by mutations provides a good explanation of quite a lot of the
history of life, but we certainly do not know all that there is to explain,
much less have explanations for everything.
NW: So, do you agree that artificial selection should not be touted as a
cause of evolution, especially if speciation has not been proven, or do you
feel that all "selections" are fair game?
Regards,
Norm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 08 2001 - 12:18:39 EST