Mutations ? (Re: D'Abrera on Science and Philosophy)

[John Grehan]

My response to Doug Yanega


>In what way is there coincidence of structure between four different
>families of butterflies, two of moths, two hemiptera, three coloeoptera,
>one orthoptera, one homoptera, and five hymenoptera that are all part of a
>mimetic complex?

They are insects in the first place.

 These represent a vast array of different organisms with
>great genetic differences between them, yet somehow they all end up
>resembling one another. The only common factor here is the predators, i.e.,
>selection.

As mentioned before, I do not rule out natural selection having a role,
just that
its not the only factor that need be considered.

>Or perhaps everyone has forgotten that one of the main lines of evidence
>used by Darwin was human-directed breeding of domestic plants and animals.

My understanding of Darwin is that the main lines of evidence for his
evolutionary
theory was biogeography and ecology (and this is what the Darwin historians
say). My
reading of Darwin is that he points to biogeography as giving his first
insight to
evolution.

My understanding of Darwin's experience is that his interest in breeding came
later, and while it provided him with insight intos selection, it was
backfilling
his theory, not generating it.

I admit ahead that my interpretation of Darwin may be erroneous.

>Are you claiming that no new plant or animal breeds have been developed in
>the last 100 years? These are all quite excellent examples of visible
>positive effects of genomic modifications, and I cannot imagine how one can
>ignore them. Of course, whether you consider the transformation from a wolf
>to a Pekingese to be a *positive* effect is a matter of opinion. ;-)

No I have not made such a claim, and of course I made no intimation to be
ignoring them.

John Grehan