Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Polka Dots
Message-ID: <444@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-May-85 16:43:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.444
Posted: Thu May  9 16:43:29 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 12-May-85 11:28:51 EDT
References: <1011@uwmacc.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 119

In article <1011@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes:
>
>> In article <328@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes:
>
>> [Stanley Friesen]
>> 	Not true, biologists have found a number of species which
>> simply did not exist 300 yrs ago.
>
>I'm sure this is true.  I'm equally confident that you will list some
>of them for us, and that you will tell us where we can go read about
>them for ourselves.

	I have, in fact, been looking for the book, but I cannot seem
to find it at the local university library. I have also forgotten the
title(I thought it was "The Tempo and Mode of Evolution", but that is
a different book. The one I am looking for is a well written
"monograph" on the punctuated equilibrium theory, with emphasis on
the evidence for rapid evolutionary change. I found it originally at
the University of Kansas, and I think I also found it at Berkeley.
Can anyone out there find it?
>
>> They have also observed significant
>> adaptive change in some species as a result of industrial polution in
>> Britain, that is some animals have adapted to polution!! And
>> scientists were there to watch.
>
>I assume you refer to _Biston betularia_ and other species of moths.
>So what kind of evolution is this?  Now they are changing back as the
>pollution comes under control.  This is an unconvincing example because
>it does not demonstrate anything but a horizontal change within a gene
>pool.  Only a shift of allelic frequency within a population.  Nothing
>new, which is what evolution requires.

	Actually more has occured here(also more species than B.
betularia are involved), in several cases the melanic allele has
switched from a recessive to a dominant, which is *not* just a
frequency shift, it involves a restructuring of the gene pool.
Also, the reversal under removal of pollution is not significant,
evolution is *not* goal-directed and under changing condition it
is expected to shift directions. Certainly, removal of the selective
advantage of the melanic forms should eliminate a shift towards it.

>>>            2.  Mendel's laws  of  genetics  explain  almost  all  of  the
>>>                physical variations that are observed within life, such as
>>>                in the dog family. A logical consequence of these laws and
>>>                their  modern  day refinements is that there are LIMITS to
>>>                such  variation  [a,b].  Breeding  experiments  have  also
>>>                confirmed that these boundaries exist [c-e].
>
>> 		A list of citations follows here.
>
>> This is where mutation
>> comes into evolutionary theory - it provides the extra variation
>> which removes the limitation on short-term breeding.
>
>Then you'll tell us about these mutations that give rise to new things.

	Actually, I won't, since mutations are *already* new things.
>
>> Even breeding
>> has from time to time exceeded these basic limits, when there has been
>> sufficient time for genetic reorganisation; I am talking about the
>> vast number of dog breeds, many of which fall entirely outside of
>> the normal range of variation for a wild Canis(called "wolves").
>
>What limits were exceeded?  All dogs fall within a single species.
>They're all interfertile.  What genetic reorganization are you
>referring to?
>
	The limits I was talking about were the breeding limits
mentioned by the "Evidence for Creation" series. As I understood
the argument in that article, the author was claiming that all
genetic variation possible is inherent in the species, and that
selective breeding cannot exceed the existing limit of variation.
Now, since domestic dogs were bred from wild ancestors that were
essentially wolf-like, and since the full rang of canine morphology
is *not* found in wild wolves, the more extreme forms of domestic
dog *must* be new forms, and thus the breeding of dogs has exceeded
the postulated limit to selective breeding in the original article.
To be more specific the original talked about such things as the
difficulty breeders have in developing larger pigs and such like.
Now look at the size range in domestic dogs, and compare it to the
size range in wild canids and you will see what I am talking about.

>The *normal* range occurs in nature and evolution involves natural
>selection.  So how does a limit exceeded by *artificial* selection
>prove anything about natural selection - except that natural selection
>is not going to produce as extreme a variation?
>
	But you see, I was answering an argument against evolution
which claimed there was an intrinsic limit on variation, BASED ON
THE EXPERIENCE OF ARTIFICIAL BREEDING.(See 2. above)
>
>> Or how about the man-made species Zea mays(common corn); so different
>> from its wild ancesters that they are almost unrecognizable.
>
>Going back to the dog example, we observe the extreme morphological
>variability that can be formed *within* a single species.   The phrase
>"almost unrecognizable" in relation to ancestors therefore doesn't
>mean much by itself.  But perhaps you mean more than morphological
>difference.  I'm sure you must - please amplify.

	Zea mays is in fact considered a seperate species from its
wild ancestor, that is human breeding has created a new species
already. Also, I would even question keeping dogs in one species,
the extreme forms are most certainly *not* interfertile, or can
you think of any way a Great Dane and a Chihuahua could *possibly*
interbreed? In fact dogs form a rather unusual example of the
phenonomom called a "ring species", which is widely considered
to be one form of intermediate between a single species and multiple
species. It is not a very large step from the current condition
among special dog breeds and fully independent species.
>
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen