[Taxacom] Dispersal example

[Curtis Clark]

On 2014-04-20 2:27 PM, Michael Heads wrote:
> Most of us were taught the old idea that mutation is random and that 
> the course of evolution is determined by selection. But many 
> geneticists now think that mutation is biased and that this bias can 
> in itself determine evolution. This has been argued by Masatoshi Nei, 
> one of the pioneers of molecular biology and evolution (his work has 
> been cited 196000 times). His latest book - nice and short and clear - 
> is called 'Mutation-driven evolution'. (OUP, 2013)  This idea is 
> compatible with Darwin's later work (post-1859) where he rejects his 
> earlier panadaptationism (this is always 'overlooked' by the so-called 
>  'neodarwinians'), and also with Croizat's 'orthogenesis'.

I'm familiar with the arguments (although I have not studied them 
deeply), but it is unclear to me whether and how they are necessary to 
the basic tenets of panbiogeography. You and others seem to promote it 
as a "clean" science, unencumbered by extraneous theories and 
data-focused, but if indeed it relies on a specific mode of evolution 
being pervasive, that seems to be a weak spot. If someone showed 
conclusively that mutation bias played no role in evolution, would 
panbiogeography fall?

-- 
Curtis Clark        http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark
Biological Sciences                   +1 909 869 4140
Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona CA 91768