James, I wondered the same thing -- is this really evolution, but they used
the word, quite breathlessly. Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Tauber" <jtauber@jtauber.com>
To: "Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>; "FoRK" <fork@xent.com>; "Antoun
Nabhan" <antoun@incellico.com>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: Evolution being slow ...
> Again, not species-creating changes.
>
> Certainly it's an example of natural selection but not the macro-evolution
> which is what I was describing as really fascinating.
>
> I wonder if the initial gene pool already included the beak variations. In
> that case all you've got is a shift in the proportions within the gene
pool.
>
> James
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>
> To: "James Tauber" <jtauber@jtauber.com>; "FoRK" <fork@xent.com>; "Antoun
> Nabhan" <antoun@incellico.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 10:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Evolution being slow ...
>
>
> > Actually, I hear, under some circumstances, evolution is very fast.
> >
> > Someone did a study on the Galapagos with some kind of bird that
adapted,
> > through evolution, to changing food supply.
> >
> > After a few generations, just a few years, they had longer beaks and
> shorter
> > toes, or something like that.
> >
> > I saw a PBS special on it some years ago.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "James Tauber" <jtauber@jtauber.com>
> > To: "FoRK" <fork@xent.com>; "Antoun Nabhan" <antoun@incellico.com>
> > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 6:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: Evolution being slow ...
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Yes, you're right of course. But they are hardly species-creating
> changes.
> > I
> > > should have been clearer: I was talking about macro-evolution (going
way
> > > back to prebiotic), not improvements within a species.
> > >
> > > If you take the changes necessary to take a mouse's genotype to a
> human's,
> > > how many of those changes are individually beneficial?
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Antoun Nabhan" <antoun@incellico.com>
> > > To: "James Tauber" <jtauber@jtauber.com>; "FoRK" <fork@xent.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 7:23 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Evolution being slow ...
> > >
> > >
> > > > At 06:36 PM 4/20/01 -0400, James Tauber wrote:
> > > > >One thing that has always fascinated me is the number of genotypic
> > > mutations
> > > > >that need to take place for the phenotype to have a beneficial
> change.
> > > It's
> > > > >not as if a single change to the DNA has an immediate benefit. You
> > really
> > > >
> > > > Huhwhat? There are Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms - one-base
> changes -
> > > > that account for significant phenotypic mutations like Huntington's
> > > Disease
> > > > and increased resistance to certain cancers. Likewise, a change in a
> > > > limited number - frequently 13 or fewer bases appear to account for
> > > > differences in "Continuum Traits" like blood pressure and ability to
> > > > metabolize cholesterol. So maybe there's a big probabilitistic
> > > > concatenation to get from a mouse to a human, but to get from an
early
> > > > human to a healthier, stealthier human isn't necessarily so
> improbable.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not a bioinformaticist, but I play one at conferences,
> > > > --Antoun
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 29 2001 - 20:26:03 PDT