One must distinguish the past evolution of the characteristics of the moon
from that of its original creation. Evolutionary theory deals with the
appearance of new complex forms of life from simpler ones. The analogous
statement for the moon would be to find a simpler moon to which the present
more complex moon evolved from. It is the problem of origins that I strong
believe is not a scientific question. Moorad
>===== Original Message From email@example.com =====
>>I accept the (DWM) as a partial definition of evolution, but with
>>a minor proviso that this definition holds best within recent species
>>and is more problematic the farther one goes back in the history of
>>organic life. The statement fails to mention that, and would be
>>improved if it did.
>Hmm... Let's look at another set of historical events...
>I accept that meteoric bombardment is at least a partial description of
>how the moon came to be so pock-marked, with the minor proviso that
>this applies best to recently acquired craters and becomes more
>problematic the farther one goes back in the history of the lunar
>surface and the record becomes obscured by time and more recent
>Thus we should not rule out the possibility that many of the older,
>more disrupted lunar craters could have formed supernaturally and are
>not the products of natural causes. (Or, pace Moorad: We never
>saw the impact which produced Bessel crater, so why couldn't it have been
>made by elves? Science can't apply to any crater formed before 10000 BC,
>because there weren't modern humans or instruments to record it. Let it
>forever be an enigma!)
>.end speculations here...
>>The statement fails to address the critical question: What is the mechanism
>>that brought about DWM? That brings us to the heart of the matter, because
>>the answer must be, natural selection. Nicht wahr? (True, genetic drift and
>>neutral mutations possibly direct genetic exchange in very early organisms
>>are sometimes invoked as change agents, but they are relatively minor causal
>>factors.) If natural selection is not the major change agent in the overall
>>course of DWM, please correct me and tell me what is.
>Genetic variation is the major change agent. What locks a particular change
>into a population or affects its frequency in a population includes:
>natural selection, neutral drift, and other factors. It is actually a hot
>debate about which of the two, selection or drift, are the most influential
>agents of change. Certainly neutral mutations accumulate in a genome faster
>than selective ones.
>>But to do so would introduce a problem that the statement probably
>>wanted to avoid, namely, that the only direct evidence we have that
>>natural selection is the causal factor in DMW is bacterial resistance
>>to antibiotics, and what Gould called "short-term evolution" (STE)
>>studies, such as the finch's beak, peppered moths, spotted guppies,
>>and so forth. These studies are the only basis for the claim that
>>natural selection is the causal factor for all changes we see in the
>>fossil record and the tree of life. The operation of natural selection
>>throughout the entire tree of life is an extrapolation from such studies.
>>Or to say it differently, evolutionary biologists hold that socalled
>>macroevolution, or large innovative changes in DWM is microevolution
>>WRIT LARGE. This claim, however, is not a fact. Thus while DWM itself
>>is factual, its mechanism is not.
>Descent with modification can arise from multiple mechanisms, some are
>selective, others are not. I do agree that in most cases, it is a practical
>impossibility to determine what specific factors played a role at specific
>>To continue, such an extrapolation is unwarranted because of the simple
>>fact that changes observed in STE studies and bacterial resistance are
>>_reversible_. While finch's beaks become more robust in times of drought
>>when seeds have tougher shells, they revert to the more slender shape when
>>climate returns to normal and seed shells less hard to crack. Such
>>reversibility disqualifies STE from serving as the mechanism of DWM, or
>>at least raises serious questions about it. The statement would be more
>>forthright and therefore improved if it acknowledged this.
>Reversibility is irrelevant and in fact, many of the changes are not
>reversible at the genetic level. Remember that there is a gaping chasm
>between genotype and phenotype. The mapping between the two domains is
>anything but linear in all but the rarest situations. Point mutations
>can confer antibiotic resistance. However, given the odds of hitting that
>exact site again to exactly reverse the point mutation, it's more likely
>that a mutation that eliminates resistance will occur in another
>portion of the genome. Thus a phenotypic reversal (short-term or otherwise)
>does not equate to a genomic "reversal". And we have a recently described
>case where a bacterium acquired streptomycin resistance in a "long-term"
>manner such that loss of the resistance, even in the absence of the
>antibiotic, was selected against (A secondary mutation occurred which
>effectively "locked in" the first one). So, we can say that ratchet-like
>evolutionary progression has been observed even over short timescales.
>I suspect that true reversibility is a relatively uncommon phenomenon.
>Should we be surprised? I think not. In the mind-bogglingly huge
>morphology- or genetic-space available to organisms, it's not
>likely that one could take more than a couple steps in any direction
>and then return to exactly the same starting place.
>>Finally, DWM has produced the enormous diversity of life forms in the
>>tree of life. This is acknowledged briefly in the statement. Natural
>>selection is ideally suited to produce diversity.
>Actually, neutral drift also contributes to the production of diversity.
>>But what is more difficult to explain is _disparity_, or the highly
>>organized nature of the organic world, with its deep discontinuities
>>between the major families of organism, roughly designated as phyla,
>>using natural selection as the operating change agent. Dobzhansky stated,
>>"fundamental characteristics of organic diversity-- [are] its
>>discontinuity and hierarchical organization." If such a giant as
>>Dobzhansky made such a statement, shouldn't the statement under
>>consideration at least acknowledge that existence of the hierarchical
>>organization and discontinuities in nature, instead of silently passing
>>by on the other side of the road?
>Nobody is failing to acknowledge the hierarchical pattern of life and
>discontinuities. These are what led to the conclusion of descent with
>modification in the first place.
>Discontinuity is a product of speciation (a mechanism of evolution) and
>extinction. Such discontinuities tend to manifest more in the
>morphological arena than the biochemical one. Also, hierachical
>organization is a manifestation of the rates of change and the nature
>of speciation and organismal genetics. Understanding the timing and details
>of specific steps behind evolution is real challenge, IMHO.
>mail2web - Check your email from the web at
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 08 2001 - 16:04:23 EST