Larry Moran wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:44:30 +0000 (UTC), 
> Anon.  wrote:
> 

>>>Tim seems to be making the default assumption that most morphological
>>>features are due to natural selection. Dawkins certainly makes that 
>>>assumption. Is this valid? 
>>>
>>
>>Well, it's valid.  Is it correct?  My feeling is that it is, but if 
>>someone show me evidence that it isn't, then I'll change my mind.
> 
> 
> I can understand your "feeling." Since we don't have very
good evidence
> one way of the other is it valid science to rely on
"feeling"? Why are 
> you asking for experimental evidence against your feeling? I could just
> as easily state that most features are due to drift and it's up to you 
> to prove otherwise. Would that be an example of good science?
> 
> Why don't we just say that morphological features can become fixed in
> a population by adaptation - and quote some known expamples. We don't
> know if *most* morphological features are due to adaptation or whether
> they are accidents of evolution. 
> 
The problem with that is that it seems unlikely that most traits will 
have become fixed, because most traits have a function.  If you're 
saying that they became fixed by drift, then you're invoking a rather 
strange form of the blind watchmaker.

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara

Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax:  +358-9-191 22 779
WWW:  http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
Journal of Negative Results - EEB: http://www.jnr-eeb.org
---
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 2/28/04 3:37:34 PM