In article <01bc4c4d$d9bd8400$634192cf at mycomputer>,
Joe Potter <joe.potter at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Richard M Kliman <rkliman at runet.edu> wrote in article
><5itc9d$8u6 at ruacad.runet.edu>...
>> I'm confused. I thought the point of this thread was to discuss possible
>> explanantions for the persistence of sexual reproduction in the face a
>> presumed cost to the female. If the point of this thread is to argue the
>> merits of Eldredge's book or Dawkins' "ultra-Darwinist" viewpoint, then
>> fine. If Eldredge argues that sex makes no sense in the context of
>> Dawkins' argument, then either (1) Eldrege is wrong - sex is compatible
>> with Dawkins - or (2) Dawkins is wrong. Either way, this has little to
>> do with the origin and maintenance of sex - i.e., the actual study of
>> evolution. Neither Eldredge nor Dawkins - regardless of their collective
>> contributions to evolutionary biology - should serve as a focus for
>> discussions on the evolution of sex.
>>>> So what *is* the point to this thread?
> Beats me Rich. I did not start the thread, I only interjected a point.
>Then I simply responded to those who said I was mistaken, or did not
>understand simple biology --- or such like.
>> I only want to bring up the point that Eldredge has (if my
>interpretation is correct) pointed out an inconsistency with modern
>synthesis. I hoped to >see others discuss this.
But has he? I've pointed out before that I believe your portrayal of
Dawkins' model as goal-oriented is probably incorrect. Also, please reread
what the above post. If Eldredge does actually claim that Dawkins' model
is inconsistent with the modern synthesis (and this is a new wrinkle to
your argument), then this is between you and Eldredge :) This appeal to
authority, however, has little to do with real debate about evolutionary
I suspect that most evolutionary geneticists have little problem
reconciling sex with the modern synthesis. Expecting others to center
the debate around your interpretation of Eldredge's interpretation of
Dawkins' model is not reasonable.
Dept. of Biology