Richard Wein wrote:
>This definition of Darwinism implies gradualism, in the sense that large
>increases in complexity cannot occur in a single generation. However, it's
>important to note that we're talking here about genotypic complexity,
>because most random variation occurs at the genotypic level, and a small
>change in the genotype can result in a big increase in phenotypic
>complexity. For example, an organism may have a complex gene which is
>unexpressed and a simple mutation may "switch on" this gene. Also (Cliff
>please note), the merging of two organisms by symbiosis (as is thought to
>have occurred in the evolution of the eukaryotic cell) is not a violation of
>gradualism, because it does not involve the creation of new complexity, but
>simply the combination of existing complexity from two organisms into one.
Snce Darwin wrote before genetics existed, I would think it pretty clear
that he was thinking mostly about morphology when he spoke of slight
changes. I don't see why it's so "important to note that we're talking
here about genotypic complexity", when that is not what Darwin had
in mind, that's just what you have in mind.
Is the point that gradualism is saved if only we focus on the 'real core' of
things, the genetic level? How do you quantify and compare genotypic
complexity? You don't seem to want to judge by the morphological effects,
you seem to want to come full circle and judge genetic mutations by their
base-pair morphology, their most meaningless aspect. It's like talking
about ink and fonts when the topic is literature.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ 415-648-0208 ~ cliff@cab.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 26 2000 - 18:08:16 EDT