tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post3902150999793630231..comments2023-10-29T08:04:00.488-07:00Comments on Quintessence of Dust: How to evolve a new protein in (about) 8 easy stepsStephen Mathesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05057004085073574659noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-53068073471181334472007-11-18T02:14:00.000-07:002007-11-18T02:14:00.000-07:00Another solid post. Thanks.Another solid post. Thanks.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-55985451774361705172007-10-18T14:52:00.000-07:002007-10-18T14:52:00.000-07:00Excellent post! This, I think, is a good example o...Excellent post! This, I think, is a good example of what happens when someone seriously engages with minority dissenting opinions. For many, it seems, a few "good enough" explanations are sufficient to allay any fears of serious challenge to a paradigmatic theory. But for those of us who are interested in the actual arguments being made on BOTH sides, nuanced handling of the 'opposing view' like this is very helpful.Agnosis00https://www.blogger.com/profile/14811257507910103970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-42718880976509336992007-10-17T07:04:00.000-07:002007-10-17T07:04:00.000-07:00Great post, Steve (which I linked to on my blog).G...Great post, Steve (which I linked to on my blog).<BR/><BR/>Gordon, have you read Simon Conway Morris' book, Life's Solution? He makes a pretty good case (in my opinion) for convergence down through several of the branches of the tree of life.John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-89799062528221230342007-10-16T05:20:00.000-07:002007-10-16T05:20:00.000-07:00Absolutely Fascinating! I'm really looking forward...Absolutely Fascinating! <BR/><BR/>I'm really looking forward to you unpacking the issue of contingency vs. determinism in all of this. I've often wondered about the "rewind the tape and play again" scenario.<BR/><BR/>It just seems so strange that no matter where on earth you look, even in the most geographically isolated places, there seems to always be similar species filling similar niches. <BR/><BR/>This is by no means universal (nothing seemed to fill the large mammalian carnivore niche in Austrailia for instance - and I think some funky bird filled this niche in South America), but if evolution were completely contingent, why should we expect any similaries between say the "diversity" of species on Australia vs. the "diversity" of species in South Africa? <BR/><BR/>Or why do the fish populations in two lakes that became isolated from on another both evolve from the common population along nearly identical trajectories? When examined, fish that evolved to fill similar niches in each lake are clearly only distant cousins with their more anatomically similar counterparts in the other lake, but they are amazingly more closely related to a common ancestor of the body of water they inhabit. Wierd. <BR/><BR/>All of this would seem to suggest that both contingency and determinism both play a role in guiding natural history. But I'm looking forward to your perspective.<BR/><BR/>-GJGGordon J. Gloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05775671718952764368noreply@blogger.com