Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!uunet!mcsun!ukc!harrier.ukc.ac.uk!sss3
From: sss3@ukc.ac.uk (S.S.Sturrock)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Paranormal phenomena & evolution
Message-ID: <6761@harrier.ukc.ac.uk>
Date: 29 Jan 91 10:13:18 GMT
References: <15242@milton.u.washington.edu>
Reply-To: sss3@ukc.ac.uk (S.S.Sturrock)
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
Lines: 59

In article <15242@milton.u.washington.edu> jespah@milton.u.washington.edu (Kathleen Hunt) writes:
>
>Sorry, evolution *must* include genetic change.  This is the biological
>definition.  You can discuss environmentally-caused variation if you like,
>but please don't call it "evolution" or we will all get confused.  

The Biological definition may be incorrect.

>
>I think you are mixing up timescales here.  On the paleontological timescale,
>changes which appear to be "instantaneous" may actually have occurred quite
>smoothly.  By "smoothly" I mean that large evolutionary changes do not 
>spring full-blown from nothing, but must build up over a series of 
>generations -- i.e., no "hopeful monsters", or at least very few hopeful
>monsters.  [There are some exceptions (allopolyploidy in plants, for
>example).]  You may think I am belaboring the obvious, but creationists have
>this silly habit of thinking that `evolutionists' believe that complex
>organs like the eye sprang into being in a single generation...it is for
>the creationists' sake that I'm pointing this out.  

<Stuff Deleted>

>And by the way, cladistics is alive and kicking!  There's a good seminar
>on cladistics at my school right now...I haven't taken it but it looks
>pretty interesting.   "Abolish Reptilia!" 
>
>I get the feeling you are saying that the mere passage of time counts as
>evolution -- that is, that if a population existed for millions of years
>with exactly the same frequencies of alleles (this is highly unlikely,
>and I'm ignoring mutation), you would say it had evolved.  I don't 
>think this is right.  If I have misunderstood you, please set me straight.


I find it highly amusing that Cladistics could be considered as being alive
and kicking.  Maybe I am wrong but it relies on shared features to define
a similarity between species ie wings, therefore birds are closely related
to insects, and bats?!!? :-)

What about polyphyletic origins, take the 'phylum' Arthropoda.  Hmm?

Maybe you can give me a little fresh data.

For timescales take a look at the PHYLUM Trilobitomorpha.  Species in this
phylum evolved rapidly, very rapidly in fact, and the strata that the fossils
are preserved in can often be resolved down to seasons!  Tell me that isn't
a fine enough resolution. :-)

Anyway, there are regular instances when an organism has evolved suddenly,
again, how about the Ammonoidea?  I am quite clear about timescales involved,
what about the horse, there are NO inbetween fossils, just individual,
identifiable species.  This is the crux of the matter, it is simple to argue
that they have stopped evolving, but to then say that 'overnight' they changed
to a new species and left no record?  No I am not a creationist, or a Christian
or any other religion.

I would like you insights, or any others for that matter.


Shane Sturrock, Biol Lab.  Canterbury. Great Britain.