Rates of evolution

From
Date
Dear paleonetters,
  Did anyone read the Reznick(sp?) et al. paper two weeks ago in Science
concerning the rapid evolution of certain Trinidadian fish? The paper lays
some claims against the measurement of similar rates using the fossil
record, as well as pointing out the alleged fallacies associated with
species recognition in the record. I was just wondering if anyone has given
these issues any further thought, and would care to comment. I find the
argument of rates particularly nonsensical. The notion of scale dependency
seems to conveniently escape minds when arguing rates of evolution. The
notion of calculating long term rates is an inherently flawed concept, as
best explained by Bookstein several years ago. Basically, it is a useless
comparison that should not be made. And what about species recognition? How
many folks out there today would utilize size as the sole criterion for
species recognition? Maybe I'm in for a surprise, but I am curious.
Peter Roopnarine

"We have no adequate framework for law in a historical science, and history
in a lawful science." Stuart Kauffman, At Home in The Universe.

Dr. Peter D. Roopnarine
Department of Biology
Southeast Missouri State University
Cape Girardeau MO 63701
Phone:(573)651-2365
email:proopnar@biology.semo.edu
web:http://biology.semo.edu


Dr. Kim Driver
Dept. of Biology
Southeast Missouri State University
One University Plaza
M/S 6200
Cape Girardeau MO 63701
e-mail kdriver@biology.semo.edu
web http://biology.semo.edu