[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: "Cope's Rule" Put to the Test



In a message dated 97-01-25 03:06:16 EST, znc14@ttacs1.ttu.edu (Jonathan R.
Wagner) writes:

<< 4) Therefore, until these situations change, I claim the right to
 openly declare moot any evidence based on Cope's "Rule" used by George to
 support his BCF theory.>>

As usual, you thoroughly misunderstand what I'm saying, and it's getting
pretty tiresome. I do not, repeat, DO NOT "use Cope's Rule" to support BCF.
Rather, I say that BCF provides an instance of a phylogeny that >follows<
Cope's Rule and is not an exception to it. Inasmuch as most tetrapod groups
follow Cope's Rule rather than going against it, this is good for BCF.
Inasmuch as the "ground-up" BADD scenario goes against Cope's Rule, this is
bad for BADD.

Make no mistake: Cope's Rule works. It certainly doesn't work for bacteria,
it may not work for molluscs (see Jablonski's paper in the January 16
_Nature_), and it may not work at certain times and under certain
circumstances, but over the long run it works for lots and lots of tetrapod
groups.
 
         <<5) And I still think the idea of small, conservative groups
staying
 around not evolving, just waiting to sprout offshoots is muckity-muck. >>

As usual, you thoroughly misunderstand what I'm saying, and it's getting
pretty tiresome. The "small, conservative groups" that you say I talk about
were neither small nor conservative! They were highly diverse and
evolutionarily fecund: >tachytelic.< A wellspring of evolutionary change in
basic Bauplaene. They exist today as rodents and bats, passerine birds,
lizards, and frogs (to cover the four tetrapod classes). Read what I say
before flying off the handle.