Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
4 posts • Page 1 of 1
I'm a Chilean student. In my country, since certain time as far as to present day, some debate has arisen in the scientific community regarding the legitimacy of natural selection as a mechanism that explains organic evolution. Thus, certain biologists have proposed the idea of "natural drift".
However, I want you read the following paper, and then you post your commentaries, appreciations, critics, ideas, etc.
The paper is: "The origin of species by means of natural drift" by H.Maturana & J.Mpodozis. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 73: 261-310. 2000
and you can find it in:
http://www.matriztica.org/UPIMGS/CAT_10 ... _drift.doc
http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script= ... =i&tlng=en
well---that is all...at least, for now.
thanks in advance,
From the little I have read so far, it is an interesting proposal.
Especially a), d), and f)
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".
~ George washington Carver
It sort of reads like semantic nit-picking - the distinctions they make don't really exist, but claiming the distinctions the only way you can build such an extreme * NOT A BUT B * system.
They are basically saying that it's not the genes that reflect evolutionary changes, but gene-environment interactions, but those are in no way mutually exclusive areas.
It seems as if, their premise is based upon the observation that different organisms often have very little genetic difference, but seem to differ more based upon gene expression. And although that's true, it would seem to be an overly simplistic interpretation of the nature of genes. It also runs into major difficulties with really genetically distinct organisms.
This may be one of those suggestions (like Margulis' assertions about symbioses) that don't really work as a major mechanism in evolution, but which need to be factored into the discussion. It seems like if you don't stand on a hill and scream, "You're all wrong! THIS is the way it works!!!!" (or you hit the jackpot with earlier theories, like Margulis), no one pays any attention to your hypotheses.
Apparently, a similar hypothesis on the role of genetic drift in speciation were published recently:
4 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests