limits of variation

Thu 27 Jul 1995 14:19 CT

Jim Bell writes:
>>All of the data and evidence demonstrates limits, to such an overwhelming
degree that, using Gould's test of fact, 'it would be perverse to withold

And Stephen Jones wrote:
>>The 100% result of *all* such experiments has been that there *are* definite
limits to biological change and therefore evolution (ie. macro-evolution)
*has* been destroyed (by your definition)!<<

What I find curious is that both of these statements make sweeping conclusions
but do not cite a single experiment and its interpretation to back up these
conclusions. I have found a way to get at least one of the references that I
mentioned while at work. The reference is found below.

Anyone can make sweeping generalizations but it is more difficult (and more
important) to back up the generalizations by citing specific experiments and
the interpretation of the data. My father-in-law is a lawyer/judge, my wife
is a paralegal and my sister's husband is a lawyer, so I can use the following
example. If I say "All experimental, psychological and sociological data
proves that 100% of lawyers are not members of the human race" I have proved
nothing. I have cited none of the data/experiments to back up such a claim.
So, if you are going to claim that ALL data proves a limit, what data are you
going to cite?

The reference to the bacteria which became colonial is Boraas, M.E. The
induction of algal clusters by flagellate predation EOS, Tran. Amer. Geophy.
Union, 64:1102 It is now in the species Coelosphaerium which is in a
different family from the original Chlorella vulgaris. It began with colonies
ranging from 4 to 32 cells in size but then settled down to an even 8.