|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 08. June 2003 16:11
Justalayman, you are correct that in order for evolution be the result of tinkering that it requires a 'tinkerer' and I would argue that mutation and selection makes for an example of a natural tinkerer.
You ask: And why is it so important that evolution be true?
It's not that evolution is 'true' but rather that we observe how life 'evolved' from the data available to us. Fossil data provide us with essential historical information that shows how 3.5+ billion years of life preceded the appearance of the hominids for instance. How do we explain this? The theory of evolution is an attempt to provide the necessary explanations and mechanisms for what we observe.
Evolution is a fact as far as the observed historical data, as such it is important that we find plausible ways to explain.
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 08. June 2003 16:19
justalayman,
Brainstorms is not a general discussion board, and as such, we'd prefer that you not merely state your opinions on the matter, but that you provide well-constructed reasons for what you think.
Additionally, this is not a discussion board to simply make negative assertions ("such and such could not have happened"). We are not saying that such opinions are bad, just that they are not appropriate for this discussion board.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 08. June 2003 16:30
I don't think the age of the earth has much to do with evolution. I personally think that all macroevolutionary changes were virtually instantanous like all other genetic changes. There is nothing gradual about a mutation of any sort. As a matter of fact I have a paper entitled "The case for instant evolution" which will appear in the September issue of Rivista di Biologia. Terry Trainor has made it available in his documents section if anyone is interested. I must also agree that "tinkering" probably had little or nothing to do with evolution. Indeed, at the expense of waxing heretical, I agree with Leo Berg that there is no role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. I should say was rather than is for phylogeny however as I see no evidence for macroevolution at present. nosivad
[ 21. June 2007, 09:19: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 08. June 2003 16:33
pardon the typo. instantaneous
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 08. June 2003 16:38
Davison: There is nothing gradual about a mutation of any sort.
There are plenty of examples which show how mutations' effects can be quite 'gradual' but there are doubtlessly also mutations, especially in developmental genes such as hox genes for instance which may have more profound impacts.
As people have shown evidence of speciation is quite commonly available for all to observe and study. Similarly reducing ontogeny and phylogeny to chance alone misses the point.
Btw you can edit your existing postings. Please read the FAQ how to do so.
As far as the link to the article MSN discussion group link
too bad that they cannot be downloaded.
As far as Leo Berg is concerned his arguments are quite begging the question imho
quote:
Artificial and Natural Selection are two very different things. In the first, the intelligent will of man operates; in the second, blind chance. Man engaged in the improvement of his breed in a rational manner, crosses only what is useful, selecting from the offspring only the useful, removing all else [his emphasis throughout]. Nature can do nothing of the kind.
Source
Natural selection similarly selects the only difference is that artificial selection is goal oriented and natural selection isn't.
One cannot fault Leo for not being up to date with the facts though, 1969 is a long time ago.
Science has changed in these 35 years, an eternity in a young science such as evolutionary biology.
[ 08. June 2003, 16:52: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 08. June 2003 18:35
justalayman, I am a convinced evolutionist. The problem is how it took place. Darwinism (gradualism) simply doesn't work. It is very possible that my semi-meiotic hypothesis is wrong also. Schindewolf insisted that evolution was not an experimental science. Maybe he was right. I just don't know. The semi-meiotic hypothesis hasn't been rigorously tested yet and I don't really expect doctrinaire neo Darwinians to subject it to experiment. nosivad
IP: Logged
|
|
Alix Nenuphar
Member
Member # 686
|
posted 08. June 2003 21:51
Dr. Davison:
In the conclusion of your paper, you indicated that experiments were currently in progress to inhibit the second meiotic division in female animals that either are heterozygous for chromosome structural rearrangements or that bear oogonia that are.
Could you enumerate those studies?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 09. June 2003 07:13
Pim, Berg's Nomogenesis was published in 1922 and his views are as cogent now as then. Natural selection cannot be demonstrated to be a creative factor. Quite the contrary, as Berg and Punnett clearly indicated, it is a conservative element serving to prevent change. I do not understand what is meant by Berg's 'begging the question'. Please explain what that means. While it is true that much has been added to our knowledge since Berg's Nomogenesis was published, the central question of the origin of change remains unknown. By a process of elimination I have suggested that, as in ontogeny, evolution resulted (past tense) from the derepression of preformed genetic information. I use the word information for want of a better term. I also propose that the more we learn about the various gene families, the more reasonable this notion becomes. All living things are remarkably alike. Maybe the so-called "junk" DNA is largely repressed information that was expressed in the past but is now shut down. Three toed horses and other atavisms could find an explanation with this perspective. nosivad
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 09. June 2003 07:22
Alix, I am 75, retired and without a laboratory. I do notice however that no one, to my knowledge, has ventured to test the semi-meiotic hypothesis. I can only wonder why?
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 10. June 2003 00:58
Davison:
quote:
Pim, Berg's Nomogenesis was published in 1922 and his views are as cogent now as then. Natural selection cannot be demonstrated to be a creative factor. Quite the contrary, as Berg and Punnett clearly indicated, it is a conservative element serving to prevent change.
Not only is Berg's work very much dated but it seems to not have the opportunity to benefit from the amount of research since the publication. The idea that 'natural selection' cannot be a 'creative' factor is by itself somewhat vague since 'creative' is a poorly defined term. Natural selection of course is not creating change but rather selecting for changes that are advantageous. The origins of change are quite well understood as they include among others genetic drift, gene duplication, horizontal gene transfer, point and other DNA mutations. Your suggestion about Junk DNA is what is well explained by evolutionary theory, what was once useful has gotten repressed.
Can the meioticc hypothesis explain the observations?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 10. June 2003 06:04
Pim, I wish I could share your optimism about our understanding of the origin of change (evolution). If we really understood it we could create species, genera, and the higher categories in the laboratory. In considering what we have learned since Berg's day I see nothing that fundamentally undermines his conclusion that:
An organism is a stable system, in which a tendency towards variation is confined within certain limits by inheritance. This truth is self-evident. It would be impossible to conceive how such complex organs as the eye, the ear or the pituitary body could properly exercise their function, if they were the seat of an infinite number of variations, from which it would be left to chance to select the most efficient."
At the end of Nomogenesis he states:
"Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of preexisting rudiments."
I believe we have not scratched the surface of phylogeny. We have made far more progress in ontogeny which is why I, like Robert DeHaan, believe it is a useful model. I believe in both instances the information has been preformed as Berg had suggested. How, of course, remains a mystery. nosivad
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 10. June 2003 11:13
Nosivad: Pim, I wish I could share your optimism about our understanding of the origin of change (evolution). If we really understood it we could create species, genera, and the higher categories in the laboratory.
A bit of a strawman. Understanding how nuclear fusion works has still not enabled us to recreate the same in a laboratory. While certainly speciation in the laboratory and the wild has been achieved, genera and higher categories may take a bit more time.
Relying on old and outdated resources does not seem to help further our understandings in this area.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 10. June 2003 12:14
Pim, if we had relied on the conclusions of Berg, Broom, Bateson, Punnett, Grasse, Osborn, Schindewolf, Goldschmidt and the many other skeptics of the gradualist, Darwinian hypothesis, I would never have found it necessary to add my name to that long list of those who have recognized and revealed the total failure of the most tested hypothesis in the history of science. I regard them as among the greatest evolutionists of the twentieth century. However, if you choose to ignore their carefully considered conclusions simply because they are long dead, there is really nothing more I can offer. nosivad
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 10. June 2003 21:28
John Davison<< I have a paper entitled "The case for instant evolution" which will appear in the September issue of Rivista di Biologia. Terry Trainor has made it available in his documents section if anyone is interested.>>
Hi Dr. Davison,
Where exactly can I find this paper? I don't know
Terry Trainor or where his documents section is.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic