Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,248 Year: 5,505/9,624 Month: 530/323 Week: 27/143 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mimicry and neodarwinism
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 99 of 188 (348290)
09-12-2006 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Muhd
09-12-2006 1:09 AM


Errors were pointed out.
This isn't much of an answer for very specific errors that were pointed out to you.
Are you agreeing with them or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Muhd, posted 09-12-2006 1:09 AM Muhd has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 105 of 188 (348487)
09-12-2006 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Belfry
09-12-2006 5:41 PM


cute typo
are engulfed and beeing heated.
I find the typo in the wiki article a bit amusing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Belfry, posted 09-12-2006 5:41 PM Belfry has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 180 of 188 (396661)
04-21-2007 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by MartinV
04-21-2007 3:33 PM


Misuse of Punc eq?
Having no access to the whole article I dare say that "punctuated evolution" is neodarwinistic new-speak for saltationism.
Is sure sounds like it from the bit quoted. If so it is a misuse of the term. However, saltationsism would not be the right term either since that means a large change in one generation.
I suspect that what they mean to say that there is a single jump to a small amount of (but effective) mimicry and then refinement. That is neither punk eq or saltationsism.
It is however a "jump" to have some mimicry appear where there was none. I just don't see why they use the punk eq term and don't see why you would use saltationism unless you misunderstand what the paper might be refering to or the meaning of saltationism itself.
We can sort it out if someone has access to the whole paper.
Ah, after refering to the whole abstract I see you left out an important bit that helps to guess what they mean. They refer to macromutations and micromutations. As best as I can tell the macromutation term refers to larger jumps but fall short of being saltationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by MartinV, posted 04-21-2007 3:33 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by MartinV, posted 04-21-2007 4:19 PM NosyNed has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 182 of 188 (396667)
04-21-2007 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by MartinV
04-21-2007 4:19 PM


The real problem
The real problem "Martin" is your inability to deal with complexities and subtleties. There is a gradiation between very minor phenotypical effects and what is usually refered to as saltation.
Since we have known examples of what, I think, can legitimately be called saltation it can't be ruled out. However, once you are below speciation there is no firm line where we can stop calling it a large mutaion and simply refer to it as 'regular' mutation.
The argument being discussed in the paper, as best as I can make out is whether a large jump is ever needed in the development of mimicry or not. However, I don't know where one would try to draw a line defining "large". Such subtle distinctions seem to be a bit difficult for you to grasp. Keep up the good work.
Edited by NosyNed, : spelling again

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by MartinV, posted 04-21-2007 4:19 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by MartinV, posted 04-21-2007 5:09 PM NosyNed has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024