On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 03:02:20 +0000 (UTC), 
Jeffrey Turner  wrote:

[snip]

> I'm not a (pan-)adaptationist.  For the most part, I agree with Gould
> (not surprising really, considering I learned a great deal from his
> monthly column in "Natural History" over the years).  I hadn't read
> his spandrel analogy before and Larry bollixed it just enough to make
> it seem laughable to me - but then I wasn't predisposed to see the
> spandrel as separate from the arch in the first place.  

I think the "spandrel analogy" is quite silly and I never refer
to it. Could you please remind me about the time that I "bollixed"
it?

I suspect the real problem is yours. You are confused about the 
difference between "spandrels" and random genetic drift as a 
mechanism of evolution.

> Leaving aside the issue of random drift, I'd say that a new species 
> just has to have an edge on the previous species - it doesn't have to 
> be finely wrought in every particular.  

Why does a new species have to have an "edge" over previous species?
This isn't the current consensus amoung those who study speciation.
Do you know something about the subject that they don't? If so, 
please let us in on it.

> After sufficient time the species that inhabits a given niche will 
> be superior in all relevant aspects to anything else that might be 
> possible with modest mutations - so the ear-size of elephants is 
> optimum for them, but there either hasn't been time or isn't a 
> suitable pathway to bring the egg-size of a kiwi bird down to
> something less than one-quarter the size of the mother kiwi.

I'm glad you're not a pan-adatiopnist. I'd hate to think what you
might write if you were!




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 4/4/04 8:40:32 PM