evolution as doctrine

Curtis Clark jcclark at CSUPOMONA.EDU
Sat Jan 3 19:34:56 CST 2004


At 21:04 2004-01-03 -0600, Jerry Bricker wrote:
>Are you suggesting we discuss Larmarkian evolution or some other
>explanation for how species change over time?

One of the reasons that I agree with John about evolution being taught as
doctrine is that it often gets boiled down to simplistic views such as
"Darwin v. Lamarck". There is a long history of proposed non-selectionist
mechanisms for evolutionary change. I am a selectionist (not by doctrine,
but rather because selection explains most of the stuff I study), so I am
no expert on these other views, but the terms "orthogenesis" and
"mutational drive" come to mind. In angiosperm taxonomy, for example, it
was once doctrine that lineages tended from free flower parts to fused
flower parts because of some internal mechanism, rather than external
adaptive factors. Even today, many evolutionists talk about "evolutionary
trends". And some of the things that orthogenesis purported to explain have
never been satisfactorily explained by selection, at least in part because
they happened long ago in species that no longer exist.

And transition-transversion bias can be regarded as a type of "mutational
drive".

I'm sure John can clarify the matter, but I wanted to post to make it clear
that this isn't just a "panbiogeographer thing".


--
Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona       http://www.csupomona.edu/
Professor, Biological Sciences                   +1 909 869 4062




More information about the Taxacom mailing list