Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!bu.edu!bu-bio!colby
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: non-genetic evolution... not
Message-ID: <80394@bu.edu.bu.edu>
Date: 28 Apr 91 21:12:41 GMT
References: <79788@bu.edu.bu.edu> <47570@ut-emx.uucp> <79798@bu.edu.bu.edu> <1991Apr25.203311.20957@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu
Reply-To: colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby)
Organization: Biology Dept., Bost
Lines: 45

In article <1991Apr25.203311.20957@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>In article <79798@bu.edu.bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby) writes:
>>	Remember that evolution is _defined_ as a change in the
>>gene pool; therefore non-genetic evolution is by definition non-
>>sensical.

>     It seems to me that the definition presented above is useful in some
>contexts, but overly restrictive in others.  The wasp example which
>someone else posted is a good example.  Whether or not the wasps' gene
>pool changed, there has been a change in the species which is persistent
>against (one presumes) significant external perturbations.

	How does this differ (in the wasp case) from a persistent
change in a species induced by an external parasite (for ex lower
body weight due to the parasite tapping energy from the host)?
Would you consider that an evolutionary change? (Hint: it isn't)

	[some stuff deleted]

>    My definition has the advantage that it allows us to include in
>evolutionary theory things which we may not have thought of yet.

	So does the current definition. 

>Further, stability of evolved traits as the hallmark of evolution brings
>the language of biology into line with modern thinking in other
>sciences.

	You've been listening to creationists too long if you think
evolutionary biology is lagging behind the other sciences. (Hint:
go browse through recent copies of _Nature_ or _Science_ -big
league science journals- and see if you see any articles about
evolution. Hint: you will)

>(I am curious to hear comments on this last point.  Would people
>think of this as an advantage, a disadvantage, or neither?)
	
	Evolved traits (since they are by definition genetically
based) have been known to be stable since Mendel's work.

>				Marc R. Roussel

Chris Colby
email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu