Richard Wein wrote:
>But that still leaves the need for a term to refer to the modern
>understanding of the evolutionary mechanism. Some people use "neo-Darwinism"
>or "modern synthesis". Apparently "modern synthesis" is the most up-to-date
>term, but it's very awkward. Phrases like "he's a modern syntheticist", or
>"this is a modern synthetic view of origins" are horrible (and not generally
>used). Perhaps I'll use "neo-Darwinism" in future. But I'm open to other
>suggestions.
Modern evolutionary biology is pluralistic, a reaction to the forced
synthesis of neo-Darwinism, which purported to be a marshalling of
evidence from various fields, but which was really an exhortation to
put the wagons in a circle in defense against creationism. This involved
sweeping anomalies under the rug, which is not how science should
proceed.
>If you're using "macroevolution" to mean the ocurrence of large phenotypic
>changes in one generation, then I'm not the only one who is using terms in
>non-standard ways! The word is normally used to refer to evolution at and
>above the species level.
I didn't know the usage had become so standardized. But if a large
phenotypic change doesn't qualify as a species-level change, what does?
I don't see the value of introducing the different question of what should
constitute a different species.
>I was very careful, in my own definition of gradualism, to emphasize that I
>was talking about small increases in genotypic complexity, not small
>phenotypic changes.
How do you quantify and compare genotypic complexity? Especially
with drift going on?
So apparently, gradualism is alive and well, we just have to recognize that
even large sudden phenotypic changes are really just another face
of microevolution. It seems the term's application has been stretched
into meaningless universality.
>The occurrence of sudden phenotypic changes is quite compatible with the
>modern understanding of evolutionary mechanisms. The reason I reject your
>segmentation theory (and why evolutionary biologists would probably reject
>it if they were aware of it) is because the particular evolutionary pathways
>that you propose are implausible, and you reject other pathways without good
>cause.
I wish you could come up with the more pointed criticism that would make
me forget about the thing. If you don't like my kind of macroevolution, which
involves simple and well-understood kinds of mutations, I have to wonder
what sort of macroevolution you do envision.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ 415-648-0208 ~ cliff@cab.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 29 2000 - 04:09:53 EDT