[Taxacom] Dispersal example

[Curtis Clark]

On 2014-04-21 2:41 AM, Michael Heads wrote:
> Accepting mutation-driven evolution, or any other theory, is certainly 
> not necessary. But Nei's idea is very interesting, and it means that 
> you don't have to accept that particular morphology has been 
> 'designed' for the 'good' for the species.

I've had the acquaintance of some panselectionists (there's that "pan" 
again), who even discount neutral mutations, and have not been convinced 
by their arguments. On the other hand, I've seen enough examples of 
"strong selection" to not discount selection as a major feature in 
evolution, and I've seen the 20th C "orthogenetic paradigm" in 
angiosperm evolution fall apart in the light of phylogenetic evidence. 
Many botanists accepted orthogenesis even absent a mechanism, and as 
recently as the 1970s there was still a tension between those and other 
botanists who were in the "modern synthesis" camp (I remember arguments 
between Cronquist and Stebbins when I was a grad student).

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