For Salty

First off, Mammuthus I think that this is a wonderful idea.Now, as to the Clarification re: some of Dr. D.'s comments concerning the Semi-miotic hypothesis and the lack of evolution occuring in sexually reproducing species. How can the series of species radiations noted in the fossil record after each major exctinction event be explained if sexually reproducing species do not split and evolve into different species. I asked a varient this question earlier concerning the Cambrian explosion and your response was that you were not convinced species radiation occured within this group salties reply to my question re: speciation and the cambrian, actually my question was that as these species were likely sexually repoducing species then how did we get here from there. If you look ta the Permian or the K-T extinction boundries you see the same style of species radiation after the extinction event. So, how can this be explained if sexually reproducing species can only remove deleterious genes and not accumulate altered useful mutations which can include chromosomal re-arrangement.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 04-29-2003]

Not to mention that there is very little experimental support for asexual reproduction in many species (I am unaware of ANY in mammals, and I can not recall any in crustacians or reptiles either). While I agree that chromosomal re-arrangement plays a part in evolution, so does any other biologist/biochemist so this aspect of the semi-meitic proposal is not new. It is just not well defined due to the complexity and current lack of knowledge of the intricacies of the control of gene expression. Salty, or Dr. D., or whatever he prefers, also seems fixated on single point mutations as the primary mode of creative driving force (which he constantly confuses with selection as what the neo-darwinian camp views as the source of variation and new features in new species) while anyone well versed in molecular biology knows that amino acid changes via point mutation is only a small part of the possible genomic changes due to mutations. I have read the original articles concerning hopeful monsters and find useful data there, but I find that if you accept changes within the rate of evolution as possible that the concept fits in quite nicely with a larger darwinian framework, it just means that the changes are smaller than Goldschmidt proposed.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Actually I think that Salty is back at the worms place because he was tired of having his proverbial intellectual head handed to him. I have noted that the worm stifles and bans anyone who places supporting data concerning evolution on his board. Just the place for a person who will not gather and display data supporting his position.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Dan, do not worry about it. Salty attacks everyone who does not immediately bow down to his obviously superior model of evolution. I actually read some of his papers and tried to ask him some questions based on the addmitedly minimal amount of information in them and he gave me pretty much the same response. I have given him up as useless. The sad thing is that some of the ideas form his references (ie Goldschmidt, and Schindewolf) are interesting.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Thats because salty is running away, maybe from the dreaded Chicken of Bristol.And they ate Sir Salties Minstrel, and there was much rejoicing.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz