Xref: utzoo sci.bio:5172 talk.origins:15844
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!rust.zso.dec.com!allwet.zso.dec.com!mtp
From: mtp@allwet.zso.dec.com (Michael T. Peterson)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Coelacanth and Evolution
Message-ID: <1534@rust.zso.dec.com>
Date: 14 Jun 91 17:24:11 GMT
References: <1991Jun14.041331.16815@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <2102@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu>
Sender: news@rust.zso.dec.com
Reply-To: mtp@mold.zso.dec.com
Followup-To: sci.bio
Organization: DECwest Engineering
Lines: 71

barger@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Jorn Barger) writes:

>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".

    I think you're paranoid.  I've never run across any "experts" who have
    maintained, even in jest, that "amateurs" have no insights.  By the way, I
    consider myself an "expert amateur" in that I have a PhD in Molecular
    Biology, but have not been paid for my expertise in over 12 years.  Where
    does that leave me.  
    
    On this same point, consider:

         Amateur is to Professional as Novice is to Expert.
         
    You need to get your terms clear.  Whether or not you get paid for your
    knowledge of biology is NOT a criterion for expertise.  I know quite a few
    "professionals" who get paid for what they do who are about as
    biologically sharp as a marble -- Rifkin, for example.  So, what do you
    claim to be, an amateur or a novice!

>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.

    Are you confusing the terms "species" with "population".  If you really
    did mean to use the term "population" in its biological sense then you may
    not fully understand genetic drift.  Genetic drift occurs among [isolated]
    populations within a species.  By definition, a favorable mutation in such
    a population will not spread to the rest of the species.  Therefore, the
    explanation is sufficient.

    So, suppose you mean "species", instead of population:  Still, this makes
    no sense.  To be precise, there are no "morphological mutations".  There
    are only genetic mutations that express themselve morphologically (among
    other modes of expression).  A mutation is "favorable" precisely because
    it is propagated down through the generations.  Said another way, if a
    mutation is favorable and the individual within the species is not part of
    an isolated population it will be propogated down through the generations.

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

    True, but in this case the explanation(s) are quite sufficient.

>My scientific strategy, amateur that I am (thank God), 

    If you interpret the tone of my response as antagonistic it is precisely
    because of the attitude(s) this seems to express.  I suspect your
    resentment of "expertise" springs from your own feelings of inadequacy.
    
>is to look for the deep metaphors, and treasure the most imaginative ones.

    As opposed to what, the correct ones?

>Evolutionary theory may be inching out of the pit of the Darwinian metaphor,
>but I don't see many strong contenders being advanced.  

    How about punctuated equilibrium explained as a population-biology modeled
    by chaotic theory and non-linear dynamics.  By the way, this theory does
    not substantially damage the fundamental tenants of Natural Selection, it
    only provides an explanation of how Natural Selection exerts its pressure
    in non-gradual ways.

>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."

    Gizbah?