Xref: utzoo sci.bio:5171 talk.origins:15842
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,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Coelacanth and Evolution
Message-ID: <2102@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu>
Date: 14 Jun 91 13:56:44 GMT
References: <1991Jun14.041331.16815@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Sender: news@ils.nwu.edu
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Lines: 58

lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) writes:
> The reason why morphology may not change drastically over a long period of 
> time should be fairly obvious. Several others have mentioned it here. If
> an organism is well adapted, morphologically, to a particular environment
> then most mutations in "morphology" genes will have negative fitness. They
> will not become fixed in the population and the morphology will not change.
> In some cases new structures might arise in part of the population and this
> group could evolve in a different direction (with substantial change in
> morphology).
> 
> There is no mystery to be explained here.
> 
> Jorn Barger also says,
> 
>      "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."
> 
> I agree with you. The problem is that amateurs resent it when experts shoot
> down their far-out hypotheses on scientific grounds. These amateurs then
> start complaining about the science mafia and how bigoted we all are. What
> amazes me is the hubris of some of those amateurs who post to talk.origins 
> and sci.bio. They seem to assume that they have some insight into evolution
> that has never occurred to "narrow-minded" biologists even though these same
> biologists have been studying evolution full time for 200 years. Give us a
> little credit, eh!

(Gee.  Third time through the flame/ kill-region cycle, and I'm still
smokin'...)
I had no idea you were so old!  You must have seen an lot of experts shot
down in your time, by a lot of amateurs, I bet!  I'm a little surprised
that you haven't gained the wisdom of age... a bit cantankerous and
crotchety, I guess?  Well, sorry, old man, but _ageing_ has a purpose, so
maybe it's time you kicked off, eh what?

:^) :^) :^) :^) :^) Shall I make it four cycles?  Naaaaah...

The problem, I would say, comes when "experts" begin to believe that "amateurs"
can't possibly have _any_ new insights, and ask them to slink away at the
magic words "Give us some credit".

But to return to evolution:
If, over millions of years, the typical pattern is for those few favorable
morphological mutations _not_ to spread through the entire population, then
genetic drift and unlucky allele-linkages are not sufficient explanations.

If they are not sufficient explanations, then others must be proposed.

My scientific strategy, amateur that I am (thank God), is to look for the
deep metaphors, and treasure the most imaginative ones.  Evolutionary
theory may be inching out of the pit of the Darwinian metaphor, but I don't
see many strong contenders being advanced.  The metaphor of a contest
between the sexually stereotypical and the unstereotypical-but-better-
adapted has the terrific virtue of challenging the way we think about
the universe, the biosphere, and our place here.  I say it deserves more
thought than "Plants and clams don't have much choice."