Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!ils.nwu.edu!aristotle.ils.nwu.edu!barger
From: barger@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Jorn Barger)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Coelacanth and Evolution
Message-ID: <2053@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu>
Date: 11 Jun 91 15:05:24 GMT
References: <1991Jun6.171806.23089@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Sender: news@ils.nwu.edu
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Lines: 40

lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) writes:

> There are several better ways of explaining why a favorable allele may not
> become fixed in a population.

Fer instance?
I'm perplexed at what appears to me a monolithic front claiming in effect
"there is no mystery to be explained here".  Darwin expected a gradual
blending of morphologies.  Of course there will always be amino acid
substitutions, but why in some species is the morphology so static?
> 
> Jorn, are you aware of the fact that punctuated equilibrium was based on the
> analysis of the evolution of molluscs? The other supporting evidence relies
> heavily on the evolution of other marine invertebrates and plants. I don't
> think that sex-appeal or sexual attractiveness is very important in oysters,
> ferns, grasses, and barnacles.

Hmmmm.  I've read enough on the evolution of sexuality to know that the
mathematical models are far from complete.  My inclination is that sexuality
and sexual selection have to coevolve from the very first, but there are
certainly problems here.  I've never really thought about the plant side,
and have not run across that in my reading. (References?)  I wonder,
though, thinking about the huge variety of pollen-shapes, ...certainly
there is some sort of pollen-stereotype being selected for here.  It's not
inconceivable that the pollen-surface encodes the phenotype in some way?
(As opposed to being an arbitrary random variant on other pollen forms.)

I'm not especially in the thick of biology these days.  Philosophically,
though, I think it's always important in the sciences to spend a good
amount of thought on the farthest-out hypotheses imaginable, just so as
not to fall into the narrow traps of scientific pride.

Regarding my "Revenge of the Nerds" theory of speciation, I think that as
a counterweight to the normal cliches of Darwinian ethics, it serves a
great purpose-- by that simple twist to conventional evolutionary thinking,
suddenly you have a model where it's not survival of the fittest but an
eternal battle between the conformists (to the sexual stereotype) and the
experimenters, with the latter doomed to fringe niches until some
uncertain day of judgment.  (Blessed are the meek...?)  So an ugly banal
moral metaphor gains some artistic depth of passion.