Subject:
|
Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Mar 2000 22:55:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
931 times
|
| |
|
|
Kya Morden wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 04:58:37 GMT, "Ben Roller" <broller@clemson.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher Tracey writes:
> > > Shiri's description is very good, I'll elaborate on a few points.
> > > The moth in question is the Peppered Moth(_Biston betularia_). Before the
> > > industrial revolution, the predominant form seen in the woods of England
> > > was white with dark brown spots,
> >
> > Ok everyone, raise your hand if these guys are making you feel dumb too.
> > It amazes me that you all knew which moths were being talked about. Man, some
> > people are just too smart. :)
> >
> > Ben Roller
>
> *blinks* I was almost about to post about the difference between
> Lamarkian and Darwinian evolution until it was cleared up by the later
> poster.
>
> But, for the fun of it, the example of Lamarkian evolution would be
> that the giraffe's neck grew longer because it stretched it to reach
> higher leaves and then it's children would inherit that advantage.
> Obviously due to those wacky tiny things known as genes, this
> evolutionary theory is invalid (hey how about that, we showed an
> evolutionary theory invalid *coughs*).
We did, but it didn't necessarily help--the Lysenko variant of Lamarckian genetics
was eagerly taken up by Stalin and his totalitarian regime--"New Socialist Man"
ring any bells? It was something that appealed to him because it implied that true
Communists (meaning: loyal Communists) could be created through hardship upon the
current generation. So I guess that would be "Social Lamarckianism," not "Social
Darwinism." ;)
> Anyway, Darwinian evolution, as I understand it, relies much more on
> natural selection, much as the story of the moths above demonstrates.
> In fact, this moth story (that and the canaries in the...gelopegoes(?)
> islands) are the usual example(s) of natural selection.
Ack! My eyeballs just had a seizure! Galapagos. :) Those are all still
microevolutionary--macroevolution, it's generally believed, requires a strong shift
in environments, which may be underway now (though we won't see the results for a
long time). There's also the question of what constitutes "macro," since that's a
notoriously subjective term--what is "big" or "little?" Darwin's contribution was
the principle of Survival of the Fittest; full-blown evolutionary theory is way too
big to be the creation (pun unintended, please don't send me to .pun) of any one
person.
best
Lindsay
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
