I will "house" responses to my 10 assertions about evolution query in this post.
So far, only RPM has taken the bait. He asks some interesting questions in regards to the rather vague scope & nature of this query...but this was purposeful. If you examine RPM's list you see that it is clearly more focused toward the general public than my own list, which ended up highlighting possible differences of opinion within the Faith (e.g., Bora's & my own longstanding debates about levels of selection and what not). This is good, my overall aim is to synthesize a list which focuses on the intersecting commonalities. Some "hard science" and "culture war" elements should be included, as science & culture do meet in the public domain....
Hopefully more later. If I don't see your post, simply post a link in the comments. I'm going to make a proactive call out to John Hawks, Robert Skipper, John Wilkins and Afarensis.
Update: Afarensis here.
Update II: Skipper steps up to the plate. Hawks and Wilkins and all the other nameless savants are still not in the running.... (I found some of Rob's assertions hilarious, e.g., "genetic drift is not binomial sampling").
Update III: Wilkins steps up.
Update IV: Save the best for last? John Hawks finally responds.
(Note: I will link to all responses on Monday from my other weblog, which gets about 6 times more traffic than this one according to Sitemeter, so there is a morsel out there for those of you who bite on promises of more traffic)
- Log in to post comments
Mine is here
Razib, you're a task master! Here are my 10.
I found some of Rob's assertions hilarious, e.g., "genetic drift is not binomial sampling."
Like the master Gillespie says, "Populations do not reproduce by calling in their local statistician and asker her to pick exactly 2N gametes at random (with replacement) and toss them into the next generation. Rather, individuals find mates and have babies, babies survive to reproduce, etc." (Pop. Gen., 2004, p. 49)
Binomial sampling is a lovely way of modeling drift, but "its biological underpinnings can make us queasy." (p. 49)
Please, but the jar of marbles down and walk away.
just reread gillespie a few months ago, so i immediately thought of that too. anyway, still a hilarious 'inside joke.'
You called, and I answered...
Just a comment on the drift comment by Gillespie (got a ref for that?): a while back, in 1974, Ghiselin made this comment, which has stuck with me.
"We must not take the term 'strategy' too literally. The only real strategists here are evolutionary theorists. Carrots do not ponder differential reproductive success. - Organisms play the game because, and only because, their ancestors did not lose." (1974, The economy of nature and the evolution
of sex. Berkeley: University of California Press, p22.
I'm not terribly good at the 10 X 10 thing. In fact, I was never very good at coloring inside the lines in coloring books either. But, I did make a few statements about evolution, that is, natural selection in the simplest sense. And I'm going to back them up, in some future posts, with other people's data. : )
I forgot - here's the link.
John:
the drift comment by Gillespie (got a ref for that?)
Gillespie, J. (2004), Population Genetics: A Concise Guide. 2nd edition. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.