Zachriel
Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
| Quote | chunkdz: Unfortunately, Reznick's study is unable to address non-random evolutionary mechanisms.
Zachriel: Of course he did. It's called natural selection.
chunkdz: Besides natural selection, as the authors said. |
This is apparently what chunkdz is referring to:
| Quote | | Reznick et al.: Some have argued that selection among individuals within populations (natural selection) cannot account for these large-scale trends in evolution. Specifically, Gould and Eldredge argue for the necessity of bursts of speciation followed by species selection to sustain the rapid change associated with punctuations in the fossil record. Our work cannot address the efficacy of mechanisms other than natural selection, but it extends our understanding of what is attainable through this process. It is part of a growing body of evidence that the rate and patterns of change attainable through natural selection are sufficient to account for the patterns observed in the fossil record. |
What the authors refer to are large-scale trends and species selection. However, it is quite clear that the authors directly measured the rate of evolution in the studied organisms. This doesn't directly speak directly to other evolutionary transitions, but as they say, it does lend support to the capabilities of natural selection.
| Quote | Zachriel: The rates are well within theoretical ranges.
chunkdz: Is there a maximum theoretical limit to evolution?
Zachriel: Of course there are limits to the rate at which adaptations can spread in populations.
chunkdz: That wasn't the question. Please don't start with your usual obfuscations. |
Zachriel's original statement referred to rates, which were the object of study in Reznick's paper. Chunkdz then asks if there are "limits to evolution," an ill-phrased question which was answered in terms of rates. There are all sorts of other limitations to evolution. If chunkdz wanted clarification, then all he had to do was rephrase his question.
| Quote | | chunkdz: There is apparently something non-random driving morphological change under predation. |
There's all sorts of non-random mechanisms involved, but chunkdz is suggesting something called "endogenous evolution."
| Quote | chunkdz: The question is whether the changes are from non-random endogenous evolutionary mechanism, or random mutations acted upon by natural selection.
...
Zachriel: What exactly do you think happens with endogenous evolution? Can you express it as a hypothesis with entailed predictions?
chunkdz: Fodor thinks it's still elusive, but compelling. |
So the answer is "No." Endogenous evolution can't be expressed as a hypothesis with entailed predictions. Elusive yes, compelling no.
--------------
You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.
|
