|
Author
|
Topic: Speciation
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 16. May 2004 07:11
I think that a "speciation event" has already found an explanation, one that Kerr and all the other Darwinians choose to completely ignore. Species were formed when the restructuring of the chromosome resulted in the sudden expression of preexisting latent information, a process in which he environment, including natural selection, played, at best, a minor role. Please note the past tense. The Semi-meiotic Hypothesis provides the cytological framework to test this alternative to the Darwinian scheme. One thing is for sure. Since the Darwinians no longer test their own hypothesis, they certainly aren't going to test one that could reduce their already precarious position to oblivion in a single experimental stroke.
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 16. May 2004 15:49
quote:
Since the Darwinians no longer test their own hypothesis
The statement above is false. I showed examples of tests in this very thread. You had no substantive arguments as to why they were not tests, and you have offered no explanation for why the comments you did make are consistent with scientific methodology in fields where direct extensive experimentation is difficult.
The statement about chromosomal restructuring may be part of the story--and that's not an unDarwinian mechanism as long as the genes that are derepressed were created by mutation and selection and rearrangement/duplication and such and were repressed by a chromosomal restructuring--but it's unlikely to be more than part given the examples that I posted in this thread.
[ 16. May 2004, 15:53: Message edited by: Rex Kerr ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 16. May 2004 18:07
There is no evidence that the restructuring of chromosomes involves in any way the introduction of new information into the genome. Until that evidence is forthcoming, I will continue to assume that the necessary information was preformed and latent just as it is in ontogeny which also proceeds completely independent of the environment. In short there is no obvious role for mutation or selection or any other neoDarwinian device in this model for evolutionary change. Why postulate something for which there is no apparent role or need? That is bad science. Besides, the only demonstrable effects of mutation are either neutral or more often deleterious. Personally, I am inclined to the view that evolution proceeded largely through the loss of heritable potential rather than through its gain, again offering a clear parallel with ontogeny which also proceeds through the progressive loss of potential resulting finally in, again like evolution, the differentiated, immutable and typically irreversible state.
It is interesting that many urodele amphibians, which contain much more DNA per cell than any of the anuran amphibia, reptiles, birds or mammals, also have retained the capacity for limb regeneration which has been lost in all the other taxa. They also have retained a very generalized primitive vertebrate morphology. These features render them ideal subjects for an experimental evolution mediated through chromosomal restructuring. In any event, the role of all that excess DNA awaits an explanation which as yet has not been forthcoming. I doubt it is "junk".
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
