|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 30. June 2007 05:42
"A cluster of facts makes it very plain that Mendelian, allelomorphic mutation plays no part in creative evolution. It is, as it were, a more or less pathological fluctuation in the genetic code. It is an accident on the 'magnetic tape' on which the primary information for the species is recorded."
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Species, page 243
"Any system that purports to account for evolution must invoke a mechanism not mutational and aleatory."
ibid, page 245
The only role for mutation is to provide for extinction if all else fails. Most organsims were preprogrammed for extinction anyway and would have become extinct under any conditions.
I believe that there is not a single large terrestrial animal that will not eventually become extinct and Homo sapiens is definitely on the large size. Extinction is clearly coupled with obligatory sexual reproduction, a reproductive device much too conservative to allow creative evolution, a phenomenon of the distant past.
One of the virtues of the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) is that every time it acted it automatically revealed all defective genes as homozygotes, thus purging the genome of all the deleterious genes it had accumulated. This explains why all newly formed species began with great vigor, "apparently" appearing as if from nowhere. Please note my use of the past tense.
"We might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed."
Otto Schindewolf
Referring to ontogeny and phylogeny -
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance,"
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 04. July 2007, 11:15: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 03. July 2007 09:43
"Thomas Henry Huxley said something like that. Incidentally, mutation rate never had anything to do with evolution either. If you think the earth is young I say good for you."
John, this is not a scientific response to my scientific comment. Don't do what the Darwinian are better at doing.
My comment is that genetic redundancy is a prerequisite for the PEH, but would never be genetically stable for millions/billions of years. So, how do you solve this discrepancy?
Peter
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 03. July 2007 11:14
[ 03. July 2007, 11:16: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 03. July 2007 11:34
Peter
How do you know that information might not be stable for millions of years? Also how do you know that evolutionary information might not be updated during that same period? You know none of these things. The PEH is based on solid data which cannot be denied out of hand as you are doing. Also do not accuse me of being unscientific and comparing me in any way with the Darwinians. That is a cheap shot and only makes yourself look bad. It is bad enough that you have apparently become a special creationist by denying that man has a common ancestor with other primates. That makes you the unscientific one, not I. You also seem to believe in a young earth.
I will be happy to abandon the PEH as soon as there is reason to do so and not a moment before. Do me a favor and publish your critique of the PEH in a refereed journal. No one else has and you won't either.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 03. July 2007, 11:37: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 04. July 2007 04:09
"How do you know that information might not be stable for millions of years?"
John, that's genetics. Mutation is an ongoing process. It never stops. Without selective constraints there will be a continuous input of debilitating mutations in functional DNA sequences. Selection is a conservative "force", and genetic redundacies will not be conserved, because they are not constrained. PEH depends on genetic redundancy and thus PEH can only hold over a relative short period of time, say maximally a few (hundred) thousand years.
"Also how do you know that evolutionary information might not be updated during that same period? You know none of these things."
We indeed find proofreading mechanisms for DNA and RNA. But they are not so accurate, we know their inaccuracy, that they can maintain unused information for milion and/or billions of years.
"That is a cheap shot and only makes yourself look bad. It is bad enough that you have apparently become a special creationist by denying that man has a common ancestor with other primates."
If you had followed the news a bit, it is becomming increasingly evident man does not have a common ancestor with primates. Last week, Science had to officially adjust the percentage DNA difference between man and chimp from 1% to 6.4%. And they only compared the 2.4 billion nucleotides (80%) that both organisms have in "conserved". A better figure would thus be around 20%. Also, man has many unique miRNA genes not present in any of the primates. These recently discovered genes regulate thousand of other genes. The new biology data show we do not have a common ancestor with primates.
However, I do not think you have to abandone your PEH. Rather. I believe you better convert to YEC. In a YEC setting your PEH ideas make perfect sense to explain subspecies. Leave the old earth for what it is, and read a bit in how YEC explain the observations that are usually interpreted as long ages. Starlight and so on. You admire Einstein, don't you? Well it is Einstein's mathematics to understand the YEC universe. Read the book by Dr John Hartnett ("dismantling the bigbang"). Then you will understand.
Cheers mate,
Peter
[ 04. July 2007, 04:19: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 04. July 2007 05:02
Peter
Thanks for the lesson. I'm not ready for either a young earth or special creation. Sorry to disappoint you.
Cheers mate!
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 05. July 2007 06:25
John,
I am not disappointed. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion.
Cheers mate,
Peter
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 05. July 2007 09:54
Peter Borger
quote:
John, that's genetics. Mutation is an ongoing process. It never stops. Without selective constraints there will be a continuous input of debilitating mutations in functional DNA sequences. Selection is a conservative "force", and genetic redundacies will not be conserved, because they are not constrained. PEH depends on genetic redundancy and thus PEH can only hold over a relative short period of time, say maximally a few (hundred) thousand years.
Isn't it possible that some gene can be part of other gene or that the gene overlaps with many other genes? Let say we have genes A, B, C (which are expressed) and a gene Y could be part of gene A, part of gene B and part of gene C (and is not expressed). After some rearrangements those part are connected and new gene could be expressed. In such case natural selection would purify any harmful mutations.
I have read that some genes code for many proteins. It is important which method is used for reading, on "reading frame". Some genes could be read from beginning or from end giving different results (like some sentences in Hebrew Bible. Reading a question backwards we get the answer). In such case genes could have been preserved without any harmful mutations over long periods too.
Just questions.
[ 05. July 2007, 09:56: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 05. July 2007 10:39
Somebody at AtBC deleted my post. Arden Chatfield is very offended by the fact that somebody have written lies about Mr. Elsberry on Wikipedia. Arden Chatfield is brownnosing Mr. Elsberry and is very upset by the lies. But he denigrated and used abuses and lied about me and John Davisons as well. When I noticed these facts as well as Kristine depicable behaviour darwinists at AtBC become offended and deleted my post. What a noble people they are.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 05. July 2007 11:05
Pigs is pigs.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 05. July 2007 11:21
Peter.
Subspecies don't need any explanation. They are not new species and never will be. If they were they wouldn't be subspecies would they? They are evolutionary dead ends just as are the species of which they are mere varieties. Creative evolution is over. Get used to it. Julian Huxley did, Robert Broom did, Pierre Grasse did and so did I, quite some time ago. Only the Darwinians see evolution everywhere they look, yet they refuse to test their convictions for fear of the results. Atheist cowards are like that don't you know. When did either P.Z Myers or Richard Dawkins ever do an experiment to test their infantile assumptions?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 09. July 2007 09:42
Dear Martin,
"Isn't it possible that some gene can be part of other gene or that the gene overlaps with many other genes?."
We see modules or domains, indeed. Usually it is a motif with a specific function, for instance DNA binding.
"Let say we have genes A, B, C (which are expressed) and a gene Y could be part of gene A, part of gene B and part of gene C (and is not expressed)."
Are they expressed and subject to selection, or just expressed? In order to be retained they must be subject to selection.
"After some rearrangements those part are connected and new gene could be expressed. In such case natural selection would purify any harmful mutations."
To be stable the gene must be subjected to selection. There are plenty of functional genes that reside in the genome without detectable selective contraint. In my opinion, this is strong evidence such systems cannot be as old as claimed.
"I have read that some genes code for many proteins."
Altrenative splicing is a generral mechanism for organisms to produce several proteins from one gene. Frameshifts can also result in alternative proteins but almost never have fundtions. I know of only a handful of genes that can be alternatively translated into distinct proteins due to altrenative translation initiation sites. It is not a common mechanism.
"It is important which method is used for reading, on "reading frame". Some genes could be read from beginning or from end giving different results (like some sentences in Hebrew Bible. Reading a question backwards we get the answer). In such case genes could have been preserved without any harmful mutations over long periods too."
I don't see how? Preservation of genes must involve mechanisms of proofreading, error correction through a voting mechanism or selective constraints. Still, we should be able to track back remnants of the genetic debris. I know of one example that can be interpreted as frontloading: cytochrome c pseudogene copies in man (as discussed on p33 in "Can any aspect of Darwinism be falsified").
Although PEH is superior to Darwinism it has its own paradoxes.
Peter
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 09. July 2007 09:55
"How do we know that unused DNA degenerate? Especially if the Earth is only 6.000 years old? And if the Earth is older - why are scientists trying to restore DNA that is more than 70 millions years old from soft tissues or eggs of dinosuarus? Are we to believe that DNA degenerate only in living cells where also repairing mechanisms are present, but somehow DNA is stable in dead tissues?"
Before the discovery of intact DNA in dinosaur bones, it was generally accepted DNA is readily degraded (by oxidation, foto- & radiolysis, etc). Think about what happens to a plastic cup buried under ground and scientist retrieve it after 100 years? The material has become brittle and instable. What if you bury it for 1000 years? It is almost no longer recognizable as plastic cup. It has desintegrated and is rapidly falling into smaller and smaller pieces. After 1000 x 1000 years? Or 70 x 1000 x 1000 years? There is not a polymer to be found anymore. It all degraded into molecules.
Like the cup, DNA is made of a comparable polymer. Do you want me to believe this DNA polymer is stable during 70 x 1000 x 1000 years?
The thing about fossils used to be that they were of minerals. Organic matter had turned to stone. Now it appears there is almost intact DNA in Dinosaur bones. It cannot be possible. The evolutionary thinking must be seriously flawed, in particular the long ages. It was the Darwinist who invented them. Now, genetic systems as found in reproducing organisms show they cannot be as old as claimed. Certainly not millions of years. It should be realized PEH does not require long ages.
Peter
[ 09. July 2007, 10:04: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
