Xref: utzoo sci.bio:5173 talk.origins:15846
Newsgroups: sci.bio,talk.origins
Path: utzoo!utgpu!lamoran
From: lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran)
Subject: Coelacanth and Evolution
Message-ID: <1991Jun14.183157.23713@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 18:31:57 GMT


Jorn Barger 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."

Jorn's far out hypothesis was that a lot of evolution could be explained by
sexual selection. He was especially taken with the idea that morphological
change might be inhibited because of sexual preferences. When I pointed out
that sexual preferences among molluscs and plants didn't seem like a viable
mechanism he responded with a theory about the shape of pollen grains having
an influence on rate of evolution.

With respect to the idea that we should consider far-out hypotheses, I said,

     "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!"

Jorn Barger replies,

     "(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?

      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".

Jorn, I NEVER said that amateurs can't possibly have any new insights. On the
other hand, your statements seem to imply that experts can't possibly have any
expertise! Do you really believe that you have nothing to learn from these 
experts. Do you really believe that we should adopt your idea simply BECAUSE
it is a far out hypothesis by an amateur? Are we not allowed to criticise it
on the basis of what is already known? Do you really want me to shut up so 
that you won't be exposed to any knowledge? Have you ever considered the 
possibility that your far-out hypothesis could be WRONG?

Jorn Barger continues,

     "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."

Of course! How could I have been so stupid! Jorn Barger says that genetic
drift and other explanations are not sufficient explanations for loss of
a favorable allele. Now I see the light! Please come and give a seminar here
so that my colleagues can also be exposed to your remarkable amateur insight.

Jorn Barger again,

     "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."

You are perfectly entitled to "look for the deep metaphors, and treasure the
most imaginative ones". You are not entitled to call this science. 
Professional scientist that I am (thank god) my scientific strategy is to
find the most satisfactory explanation that is consistant with the facts.

The reason that you don't "see" any strong contenders to replace Darwinism
or neo-Darwinism is NOT that they don't exist! It's because YOU don't see 
them. If you want to learn about modern theories of the mechanism of evolution
then read a book. Or, you could ask someone to explain it to you.

Sexual selection is well known - it is discussed in most evolutionary biology
textbooks. There is no evidence that sexual selection influences evolution
in clams or plants, nor is there any obvious way for this to occur. I say
that your ideas deserve more thought.

Why does sexual selection challenge the way we think about the universe? You
must have a very strange way of thinking about the Universe! (-: Are you 
aware of the fact that Darwin himself discussed sexual selection?

You may have the last word on this topic, I don't see much point in 
continuing.

-Larry (old crotchety) Moran