Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: No Cigarettes, Please
Message-ID: <638@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Aug-85 18:25:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.638
Posted: Fri Aug  9 18:25:08 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Aug-85 07:48:10 EDT
References: <1318@uwmacc.UUCP> <112@rtp47.UUCP> <1361@uwmacc.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 47

In article <1361@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Risky Rat) writes:
>
>I misspoke somewhat.  What I should have said, was that natural
>selection is considered unimportant more and more in regard to
>*speciation* - not evolution in general.  
>
	Well, I would not say "more and more". There is currently
considerable controversy over this issue, and it is not at all clear
which way it is actually shifting. There is much new evidence that
coontradicts the predictions of the P.E. purists. Thus the theory
may actually be tending towards some sort of middle ground.

>Anyway, to clarify, my favorite passage comes from:
>
>    Stephen Jay Gould, "Is a new and general theory of evolution
>    emerging?", _Paleobiology_, 6(1), 1980, 119-130.
>
>    come into contact.) But in saltational, chromosomal speciation,
>    reproductive isolation comes first and cannot be considered as an
>    adaptation at all.  It is a stochastic event that establishes a
>    species by the technical definition of reproductive isolation.  To
>    be sure, the later success of this species in competition may
>    depend upon its subsequent acquistion of adaptations; but the
>    origin itself may be non-adaptive.  We can, in fact, reverse the
>                                                       [page 124]
>
	Note, that he is here only talking about one kind of
speciation, chromosomal speciation. This by no means the *only*
kind of speciation, and I do not think even Dr Gould would claim
it is the most important mode of speciation. Very few other types
of speciation have actually been well verified as even being
possible, so this leaves this as a rather special case.

>I highly recommend this paper.  It is my impression that Gould is very
>popular in this newgroup but that few have read more than his popular
>books and/or his essays in Natural History.
>
	Well, I do have a lot of respect for him, although I am far
from agreement with him on many points. Certainly his books are worth
reading, as an introduction to one school of thought among modern
biologists.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen