>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.<
DC: Evolutionary biology is relevant to many applications,
but certainly identifying everything with any conneciton as
evolutionary is unreasonable. Detailed knowledge of
evolutionary biology is not necessary to many of its
applications, nor is it the sole field producing anything.
However, evolution under artificial selection can produce
practical applications within a reasonable amount of time.
Bacteria, viruses, artificial nucleic acid strands, and
computer simulations can evolve fast enough to produce
results on a timescale that can actually get industrial
interest. Most eukaryotes require a bit of help, aka genetic
modification, to gain new features fast enough for
commercial appeal, though hybridization of different crop
strains can also produce novel features reasonably quickly.
>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?
DC: Artificial selection can cause evolution. Domestic and
lab organisms are different from the ancestral forms. This
is not usually very extensive evolution, though there are
several new species and at least one new genus produced
by artifical selection. Higher taxonomic categories become
more problematic to define and recognize. There are fruit
fly mutants that lack certain distinguishing features of all
flies, or even of all insects. Do these constitute new orders
or classes?
For evidence of common descent of higher taxa (more or
less what macroevolution seems to mean in young-earth
or other antievolutionary contexts), artificial evolution does
not help much. Paleontology and molecular systematics
are the major sources of evidence for the evolution of
suprageneric taxa.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
46860 Hilton Dr #1113
Lexington Park MD 20653 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand
Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G.
Wodehouse, Romance at Droigate Spa
______________________________________________
__________________
Sent via the WebMail system at
mail.davidson.alumlink.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 08 2001 - 18:11:40 EST