Susan Brassfield wrote:
>The fossil record has lots of examples of finely graded transitions from
>one organism to a radically different one.
This is completely wrong, unless you think eohippus is radically
different from equus. Even if you do think that, there aren't "lots of
examples" of that quality.
>At the same time there is also evidence of "leaps" but not true saltation.
>Please explain what you are talking about.
I don't understand the distinction. One is Anglo-Saxon, the other is
Latin.
>I read a Gould essay some years back that explained that large morphological
>changes can sometimes be brought about by small genetic changes--rate of
>growth, for example--but that's not what most people mean by "saltation."
>Saltation as such, as far as I can recall, was popular in the late 19th
century
>before the discovery of genetics. Surely that's not what you mean!
Obviously a tiny glitch early in the developmental process could have
profound effects on the final result; I never understood why that's supposed
to be an insight.
The only connection between saltation and genetics is one that makes an
opposite point to yours: genetics meant that the factors of inheritance don't
blend, they're particulate. One new gene can make a big change, and the
new feature won't be swamped out or diluted, it will spread through the
population intact.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ 415-648-0208 ~ cliff@cab.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 11 2000 - 02:00:45 EDT