Re: Junk DNA: A hypothesis
From: William Morse (wdmorse_at_twcny.rr.com)
Date: 01/29/05
- Next message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Selection timescale"
- Previous message: William Morse: "Re: Junk DNA: A hypothesis"
- In reply to: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Junk DNA: A hypothesis"
- Next in thread: Larry Moran: "Re: Junk DNA: A hypothesis"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:44:19 -0500 (EST)
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:ct1rij$ggv$1@darwin.ediacara.org:
>
> "Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message
> news:ct10qr$7jc$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
(snip)
>> Organisms that evolve slowly rapidly lose their red-queen-style
>> races with rapidly-adapting parasites.
> But organisms DON'T evolve. Species evolve. The slogan is: Genes
> mutate, organisms are selected, species evolve. IF all selection
> is conventional organism-level selection, then carrying genes that
> promote evolvability provides no selective advantage to the organisms
> that carry them. Organisms CAN'T evolve.
> However, if there is something else that is ALSO going on - species-
> level selection - then it MIGHT be the case that evolvable species
> do better than less evolvable ones.
One of the keys to this may be that for conventional organism-level
selection, organisms are assumed to die one at a time. In fact, they
frequently die en masse - e.g. the recent tsunami, which was a horrible
tragedy for humans but a potential extinction event for isolated
populations of other biota. This gives much greater scope for selection at
the population level.
Yours,
Bill Morse
- Next message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Selection timescale"
- Previous message: William Morse: "Re: Junk DNA: A hypothesis"
- In reply to: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Junk DNA: A hypothesis"
- Next in thread: Larry Moran: "Re: Junk DNA: A hypothesis"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|