On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:42:11 +0000 (UTC), 
Tim Tyler  wrote:
> Larry Moran  wrote or quoted:
>> Tim Tyler  wrote:
>> > Larry Moran  wrote or quoted:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> >> Hmmm ... I think I see your objection. You want a precise
definition of
>> >> evolutionary change so you can objectively analyze the
mechanisms. I've
>> >> been assuming all along that changes are most easily
quantified by adding 
>> >> up mutations in DNA but you don't seem to accept that
particular measure.
>> > 
>> > It's a great measure - but not the /only/ one - and as I mentioned in
>> > another post, it has some definite flaws as a metric of evolutionary
>> > change.
>> 
>> What are the flaws ... other than the fact that it leads to a conclusion
>> you don't like?
> 
> The ones I mentioned in another post - namely a neutral mutation
> counts as the same quantity of evolutionary change as a mutation that 
> causes speciation.
> 
> This is contrary to common sense relating to the relative 
> significance of such changes in evolution.

That "significance" is subjective. You may think that some heritable
changes are more significant than others but that perspective isn't
shared by all scientists. What I'm looking for is some objective
measure of heritable change that counts as evolution. So far, the only
one that seems to work is to count every mutation even if it doesn't
cause a phenotypic change that attracts your attention. 

If you want to limit evolution to just a subset of all heritable 
changes then please come up with an objective way of defining this
subset.

>> > I am not my mind.  I am not my body.  I am not my DNA sequence ;-)
>> 
>> What the heck does this mean? I sounds like new-age doublespeak.
> 
> The smiley was intended to indicate that this was a joke.
> 
> However there was a hint of seriousness: evolution is about more
> than just DNA sequences.  Attempt to measure it *only* in terms
> of DNA and much of its richness will be omitted.

I don't disagree. Sometimes we don't know the underlying mutations
so we measure evolution by examining phenotypic changes that are
presumably due to mutations. If we knew what mutations caused the
phenotype then we could just look at the DNA directly to follow
their evolution within the population. What I don't understand is 
why you want to eliminate some kinds of mutations from even being 
considered as valid characteristics for biological evolution.



Larry Moran
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 5/31/04 5:02:44 PM