Reflectorites
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:20:26 -0500, Susan Cogan wrote:
SB>David Bradbury (or Stephen Jones, I couldn't find the original post):
It was me who posted it originally
>DB>2) Your following citation also brings up another interesting, but unrelated
>>thought.
>>
>>SJ>"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in
>>>recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal
>>>species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of
>>>fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both
>>>soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to
>>>induce speciation. And in computer life, where the term "species" does not yet
>>>have meaning, we see no cascading emergence of entirely new kinds of variety
>>>beyond an initial burst. In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see
>>>the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also
>>>clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often
>>>bounded within species. ... No one has yet witnessed, in the fossil record, in real
>>>life, or in computer life, the exact transitional moments when natural selection
>>>pumps its complexity up to the next level. There is a suspicious barrier in the
>>>vicinity of species that either holds back this critical change or removes it from
>>>our sight. (Kelly K.,"Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines", 1995,
>>>p475)
[...]
SB>I suspect the Kelly quote is out of context,
On what basis does Susan say this. Has she read the book?
SB>but if not perhaps you
>or Kelly should do some facing up to reality:
>
>This article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American.:
>"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to
>the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century.
>Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to
>encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed
>populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing
>sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new
>species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the
>new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced
>fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate
>species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants
>from which it had evolved."
>
>this is from the talk.origins archive which has two FAQ files that
>list observed instances of speciation. Here is one of them:
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
If this is what Kelly meant by "species" then he is indeed wrong on this
particular point.
But it is possible he regards these as just "variation". There are other
examples too of speciation among plants, but the cases are so trivial
(remaining within the same genera) that they serve to underline the *real*
problem that:
"...In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the
emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we
also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly
bounded, and often bounded within species. ... No one has yet
witnessed, in the fossil record, in real life, or in computer life, the
exact transitional moments when natural selection pumps its
complexity up to the next level. There is a suspicious barrier in the
vicinity of species that either holds back this critical change or
removes it from our sight."
SB>this FAQ lists about 7 references to speciation events and ends with
>"... on and on to about #50 if you like...
> There are about 100 each for every year before 1991 to 1987 in my
>database. "
>
>It's surprising neither you nor Kelly has not heard of *any* of them.
[...]
See above. How many examples does the FAQ list where: "natural selection
pumps its complexity up to the next level" (i.e. above the species level)?
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.1)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 25 2000 - 18:40:53 EDT