Re: [OGD] Re: Evolution

[Paul J. Johnson]

Charles Darwin, who was on a divinity track until his calling from the Almighty sent him in search of evidence to bring the facts to the ignorant masses. His, i.e. Chuck's, primary role was developing through the accumulation of evidence (data!!) through observation, experimentation, deduction, and logical argument using common and everyday, and well known (in the times) phenomena, a mechanism to explain how organic evolution worked, including the intriguing problems of orchid pollination and relationships with bees and other insects. The basic concepts of organic change and relationships amongst and between different kinds of plants and animals did not start with him. Deliberations, in written form, on organic evolution go back as far as at least Hellenistic Greece. Chuck's grandfather wrote extensively on the phenomenon and it was a major intellectual subject of the day. The naturalists of the 18th century and early 19th century did not belabor the question of evolution, they merely argued (in the intellectual sense) the details and interpretations of the mechanisms; Darwin and Wallace provided their hypothesis on the mechanism - natural selection. In fact, when a reading is done of Darwin's books and papers you will find quit obviously that he avoided using the word "evolution." That was not his basic interest, natural selection was. So, to honestly discuss such issues it must be recognized that Darwin provided evidence and a hypothesis, natural selection; he did not provide us with evolution.

On Dec 2004, at 12:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The reality of evolution is well documented. The mechanisms are fairly well understood at this point. Studies of fossils, field studies, genetic analyses, and experimentation show evolution at work on all time scales.

As I remind my students every semester: if you wish to discard natural selection as an operating mechanism, then those of you interested in the daily practices of plant or animal breeding, crop selection, hybridization, genomics, veterinary or human medicine, or biology in general have missed the reality boat; drown happy, while praying for nothing! If you wish to discount natural selection, fine, but you must then discount every aspect of human societal development involving domestication of plants and animals. Everything in eating and surviving for the last 15 000 years, from bringing bread and cheese to the urbanites that think food comes from China via Wal-Mart to contemporary advances in medical science are premised on the fact of innate variability and selectability, naturally or anthropogenically, of various biological components and attributes at the molecular, tissue and organismal levels.

Unfortunately plants leave fewer fossils than animals, so paleobotany gives few clues about the origins of Orchids, . . .

The first part of this assertion may be accurate if we exclude fossils of marine organisms. In comparison to non-marine animals, plants have a rich, diverse, and lengthy fossil record. Indeed, orchid fossils are scarce or unknown. But that is also true for the vast majority of organisms. To become fossilized an organism must be in the right place at the right time under environmental circumstances that are conducive to fossilization; this is Paleo 101. Orchids, as we know them now anyway, simply do not generally live in situations that are amenable to providing fossilization opportunities. The simple statistical probabilities of an individual becoming fossilized are amazing, and then try to calculate the probability the informative sexual organs of an orchid getting fossils in a manner that would provide unequivocal information! Then, there is also the problem of paleobotanists not yet having found a good spot; witness the recent discoveries of new dino's, fish, birds, etc., based on excavations at new sites in northwest China! Nevertheless, orchids have long been subjects of natural history intrigue, be they fertility rights or phylogenetic methodology.

Now, I really must get back to preparing for the former Saturnalia usurped in the late 3rd century.

<x-tad-bigger>"I would rather be the offspring of two apes than be a man and afraid to face the truth."
Henry Huxley to Archbishop Wilberforce, 30 June 1860.

</x-tad-bigger>
Paul

_______________________________________________
the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com