|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 16. May 2006 03:43
quote:
A "dormant" or a "redundant" non-working gene can be the result of a deleterious mutation (most likely) - but this does not mean it cannot just be waiting there for action - if the need arizes. Its a kind of resource that the organism has at its disposal.
You still don't get it. Dormant genes are NOT Redundant genes, and redundnat genes are NOT equivalent to NON-working genes. This is what GUToB says:
quote:
In a simple non-linear biological system – presented in figure 9.1 – with nodes A through E, A may cause B, but A also causes D independent of B and C. This very simple network of only five nodes demonstrates robustness due to redundancy of B and C. If A fails to make the link with D, there are still B and C to make the connection.
Extended networks composed of hundreds of interconnected proteins ensure that, would one of them become inactivated by a mutation, essential pathways are not shut down immediately. A network of cooperating proteins that can substitute for or by-pass each other’s functions provide robustness to an organism. It is hard to imagine how selection acts on individual nodes of a scale-free, redundant system. Complex engeneered systems rely on scale-free networks that can incorporate small failures in order to withstand larger failures. Scale-free networks provide the robustness. Scale-free genetic networks are an intrinsic built-in characteristic of genomes.
peebee
[ 16. May 2006, 06:04: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 16. May 2006 03:55
The histone that doesn't mutate is also not Histon H4. H4 is allowed to accumulate neutral mutations and has done so, indeed.
Comparing the DNA sequences of histone H4, we observe that plants group together with birds; birds group with amoeba; and humans group with Drosophila. If we look at the H4 proteins we, humans, could either be a worm, a trout or a chicken.
Can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified? Surely! Common descent, for instance, if we look at H4.
peebee
GUToB makes biology easy.
[ 16. May 2006, 03:56: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 16. May 2006 05:31
Where are the Darwinians to defend their untenable position, anyway?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 16. May 2006 07:35
One of the great virtues of the PEH lies in its flexibiity. If we assume that all evolving forms shared a common latent initial information pool (which is the fundamental premise of the PEH), then any combination could be expressed in any emergent new life forms. That in no way argues against common descent and is perfectly compatible with what Peter has presented. This also offers an explanation for the remarkable parallels that evolved independently in marsupial and placental mammals. The presumed "convergent evolution" of the Darwinian model is pure fiction with no basis from the fossil record. Similar morphologies arose independently from distantly related forms because they both shared the same latent blueprints.
The saber-toothed marsupial and placental cats appeared in locations thousands of miles apart spatially and millions of years apart temporally. I refer you to my "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis" paper for a picture of the skulls of those cats and I especially call your attention to Otto Schindewolf's comments that those morphologies were "designed." If the figure is not available online it can be found in Schindewolf's book "Basic Questions in Paleontology" as well as in the published paper.
I will never accept the interpretation that these remarkable similarities ever arose through Darwinian means. Such an assumption is absurd. It is just one more manifestation of the refusal of the Darwinian atheist mindset to accept purpose, design and determination in the living world.
"Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406
"EVERYTHING is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.
Einstein's word "determined" is equivalent to my "prescribed" and so is Berg's word "pre-existing."
We three stand in complete agreement with that which the atheist Darwinian mentality is quite incapable of recognizing. I am quite content with my intellectual companions. The Darwinian inability to see what we have seen is apparently "prescribed" as well. We are all victims of our fates. Some of us have been luckier than others.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 16. May 2006 07:58
John, my questions would be:
Where do the 1183 novel genes come from? Were these genes prescribed as well and latently present in the genome? What about retaining them in the genome without selection acting? Why don't they succumb to mutational pressure? Why don't we see the remnants of the novel genes in the genomes of organisms that allegedly diverged before 70-100 million years BP?
In my opinion evolution must have been fast; the PEH does not require long ages as it is instant evolution.
What is your objection against fast-track (say a few millenia) evolution? If they are for uniformitarian reasons, then why was that principle recently abandoned by evolutionists?
(the word is now that in prehistoric, ancient times the mutation-incidence was very low and now in historic recent times it has dramatically increased).
Thanks,
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 16. May 2006 11:03
Peter
Just because all real evolution was instantaneous (saltational), does not mean that it all took place recently. Quite the contrary, the most rapid evolutionary changes took place very early and subsequent history has been one of a steady deceleration in the rate of change until today it has apparently reached a standstill. To deny the testimony of the fossil record is unthinkable and the earth is very very old. It is the final arbiter of evolutionary reality and it cannot be dismissed no matter what anyone believes.
Robert Broom believed that the long periods of stasis in the past were necessary to preserve the balance of nature until the next spurt in progress could take place right on schedule. I like that idea as it is in concert with what the fossil record presents. Broom used the capitalized word "Plan" and the Darwinians have never forgiven him for it. It is a scandal because he was right on. So were Berg, Grasse, Mivart and Bateson. Darwinism remains the most failed hypothesis in the history of science. It dwarfs the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics and it should have been abandoned in the 19th century right about the same time the Ether was and for the same reasons. Its reality could not be demonstrated. It is a disgrace! It is hard to believe isn't it?
"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."
Thomas Henry Huxley and the sole frontispiece to Berg's Nomogenesis.
A decelerating rate of change also characterizes ontogeny until it reaches zero with the adult, followed by the death of the individual. The death of the individual corresponds to the extinction of the species which is all that can be seen at present. To deny a contemporary mass extinction is insane and intellectually dangerous. Ontogeny is a nearly perfect model for phylogeny and, as Berg claimed, there is no room for chance in either.
I also don't know what you mean by "mutation pressure." living systems are very good at correcting mutational errors as you are well aware. The only thing that "mutational pressure" eventually did and still does accomplish is the extinction of the species which is the story of the fossil record. Incidentally, the Semi-meiotic mechanism instantly exposes all lethal genes as homozygotes and purges the genome every time it takes place. This may explain why newly evolved forms have typically flourished for some time before finally languishing and becoming extinct. Sexual reproduction is very inefficient at eliminating lethal and deleterious genes. It has been estimated that the average human being is carrying a dozen or so lethal genes in heterozygous form. No one is carrying them as homozygotes. The extinction of species is a wonderful way to get rid of deletrious genes. It works every time! Incidentally inbreeding or selfing is also a very efficient way to purge the genome of its lethal genes. Horticulurists and animal breeders do it often to rejuvenate their stocks and to disclose new recessive mutants.
All living things are remarkably similar at the gene level. What we observe when we compare different oganisms is which of those universal gene families are turned on and which turned off or perhaps just temporarily silenced. Just shifting the chromosome structure with respect to distance from the telomere can have profound effects on gene expression. Gene families once thought to be of mammalian origin turn out to be present in some of the most primitive of animals - the coelenterates. I briefly mentioned some of that research in my 2005 paper in Rivista - "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis."
As Goldschmidt claimed, it is the chromosome, not the gene, that is the instrument of evoluionary change. I would only substitute was for is.
Everything that is now being disclosed points to a system which was always present and which was expressed as various combinations of pre-existing potentialities exactly as Leo Berg and William Bateson had predicted. The thing that must be emphasized is that evolution is no longer in progress. Once that is accepted I am convinced all will fall in place. One of these decades we will be discussing Bergian rather than Darwnian evolution. Darwinian evolution was always an illusion and always will be.
"A past evolution is undeniable. A present evolution is undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 16. May 2006 12:14
PB: "I have also argued a similar mechanism for the 8 tRNA(tyr) genes in Saccharomyces. They are identical (except..."
This is intriguing. (I think the biological community needs to seriously recognize us software developers. We can seriously help out with issues like this.) Talk about an irreduceabley complex system.
It is clear that we are proposing that a mechanism exists which compares eight identical copies of a gene as a mechanism for removing mutations. To introduce a mutation into such a system, the identical mutation would have to occur in four separate genes within the same organism. That will not happen! It's WAY beyond UPB! These things will not randomly mutate at all!!
However, lets consider how such a mechanism could possibly have developed via NDE. Some gene must have duplicated itself at least twice. (It requires at least 3 copies of a gene to set up a voting system of error correction.) Then a specific mechanism must have developed which scans these three identical copies and fixes the "odd one out." (*) This whole process is limited to about a 1 million year window because beyond that, the three copies would cease to be sufficiently "the same". This mechanism must then be able to accomodate more than 3 copies of the genes. For some reason in multiple cases it seems to want to settle on 8. For NDE to have pulled this of is, in my opinion, highly unlikely.
(* such a mechanism could theoretically be adapted from a 2 gene copier that works something like this: lets have two identical genes. Lets have a mechanism that makes the two "the same". If they are different, lets randomly choose one or the other, and use it as the "presumed correct", and make the other to match. This mechanism, however, though it might offer some value, offers very little value.)
Now, the issue seems to get worse. If one applies the principals of natural selection to this mechanism, one hits a quandry. I have two organisms, one has one copy of a gene, the other has three copies plus an "odd one out" algorithm functioning. Within the lifespan of any one organism, what possible advantage does the more advanced mechanism offer. The only advantage that the organism imediately gets from such a mechanism is that every once in a while (for this gene, about once per million organism per year) an organism will hook a bad mutation and be killed off.
I propose that error correction, therefore, offers very little by way of advantage in the day to day world of organisms. Therefore it is difficult for natural selection to offer help in developing such mechanisms. DNA copy precision, however, (which is improved by error correction) determines the maximum genetic complexity that can be developed in the organism.
This is kind of an obligation to front-loading. Precision copying offers the long-term advantage of allowing for more complex genomes to exist. Precision copying offers virtually nothing else to the organism. Therefore, precision copying must preceed (front-load) the genomic complexity that it permits.
PB, Dr. Davison says "Darwinian evolution didn't happen," from the way I think, you are proving it in a most profound way! Let me suggest, however, that if you challenge the old-earth paradyme your evidence has got to be extremely compelling (so far it hasn't been by me) or your position is going to be ignored by all but a very small community. In that community, you will have to shrink the time-scales down to about 10,000 years, or they too will close their ears. You may seek a way of presenting your compelling data without tackling the age of biology issue.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 16. May 2006 12:40
quote:
PB, Dr. Davison says "Darwinian evolution didn't happen," from the way I think, you are proving it in a most profound way!
I know, to set up a new paradigm the old one has to be overturned.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 16. May 2006 13:51
I accept an old earth and it has absolutely nothing to do with the PEH which can deal with it it very nicely. The only thing I have challenged is the biggest, most long-lived hoax in the history of science, evolution by chance. The only reason to consider a young earth is Biblical and that has no place in science. The geological record, like the fossil record, is not subject to much interpretation. It is self-evident.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 16. May 2006 14:31
Peter,
Could you give a reference for the observation that there are 1184 new genes recently created?
One thing about the Darwinina theory that its proponents are very proud of is its simplicity. The theory can be expressed in a couple of sentences. Can you give us a preview of your GUToB in abstract form, expressing its central idea in a few sentences?
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 16. May 2006 15:05
John A. Davison, "The only reason to consider a young earth is Biblical and that has no place in science. The geological record, like the fossil record, is not subject to much interpretation. It is self-evident."
John, I wholeheartedly agree with you that considering Biblical authority has no place in science. I als agree with you that there is enormous evidence for an old earth, and the evidence comes from a variety of sources. (I personally am very fond of big bang cosmology for religous reasons. Of course, big bang cosmology is an old-earth cosmology.)
I would suggest, however, that there are bits of evidence that are rather determined not to fit into the old earth paradyme. I note the recent discovery of soft tissue in T-Rex fossils. I also have noted that some company is manufacturing oil out of slaughter house scraps. They use heat and pressure, but they do not need the enormous time that has theoretically been required. Lastly, there seems to be some compelling cave art that is easy to interpret as man conflicting with dinosaurs. Though I agree with you that PB would do better to figure out how his discoveries can make sense in an old-earth paradyme, and though I agree with you that "the Bible says so" is stupid science, I do think that the above scraps of data are a challenge that needs to be addressed by the scientific community.
I have found it puzzling that the scientific community seems to be scared of the T-Rex soft-tissue, rather than being excited that there is something unknown to be explored. This seems to be a knee-jerk "let's protect our pet paradyme" approach, which, as far as I am concerned, has no more place in science than "the Bible says so" does. Truth does not disagree with itself. If T-Rex's died out 65 mil ago, then there must be some fossilization mechanism that preserves soft tissue for that long, or there must be something about this evidence that appears awfully like soft tissue. In either case, it should be exciting, not scary.
I personally see a strong parallel between the scientific community "protecting the paradyme" with reguards to T-Rex soft tissue and the community "protecting the paradyme" with reguards to NDE.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 16. May 2006 16:34
I would like to know what happens to the presumed "soft tissue from T. rex" when it is exposed to atmospheric air. Does it rapidly disappear as ordinary tissue does? If it doesn't it is probably an optical or procedural artifact. For some reason I smell a hoax but that is just me.
When I was a graduate student a half century ago we had what was called the "triple test."
This meant that an unusual report was not accepted until it had been verified independently by two other laboratories. Has that been done yet? I have not followed this business.
I am not competent to consider the Big Bang but getting something from nothing is pretty mind-boggling even if it is Biblical. It sure has a lot of supporters but then so does neoDarwinism!
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 17. May 2006 03:19
Dear Shi,
quote:
Could you give a reference for the observation that there are 1184 new genes recently created?
Of course I can. It was a Sanger's Institute press release two years ago. Ramarkably not picked up by any type of media.
The Sanger Institute, Press release 20th October 2004.
URL = http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Info/Press/2004/041020.shtml
peebee
[ 17. May 2006, 05:58: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 17. May 2006 03:37
John,
quote:
A decelerating rate of change also characterizes ontogeny until it reaches zero with the adult, followed by the death of the individual. The death of the individual corresponds to the extinction of the species which is all that can be seen at present. To deny a contemporary mass extinction is insane and intellectually dangerous. Ontogeny is a nearly perfect model for phylogeny and, as Berg claimed, there is no room for chance in either.
With the proposed recent "decreased incidence of mutations" is not meant a decelarating rate of organismal change (as we can understand that from intragenomeic reshuffling, PEH) but it refers to the rate of point mutations. It is an artificial, long aged evolutionary trick to get the molecular genetic data in line with long ages. If we were to extrapolate the current rates of mutations, life couldn't have been around: it would have demised long ago.
quote:
I also don't know what you mean by "mutation pressure." living systems are very good at correcting mutational errors as you are well aware. The only thing that "mutational pressure" eventually did and still does accomplish is the extinction of the species which is the story of the fossil record.
Any DNA sequence ist subject to mutational pressure; it is a natural phenomenon and due to the fact that the DNA is an thermodynamically instable molecule and the repair systems are not watertight. If the gene is an essential gene natural selection will act to preserve it in the organism's genome. If selective constraints are weak, or non-existing as for genes that has to be in the genome for million (possibly billions) of years, they would surely succumb to this mutational pressure.
peebee
[ 17. May 2006, 03:39: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 17. May 2006 03:54
quote:
non-coding DNA seems to take on mutations in mammals at a rate of 1% of nucleotides per million years.
How was the 1% number calculated, do you think?
Indeed, by interspecies comparisons!!!!
As argued before:
"If you look at the sequences of chimpanzee and human Cytochrome C they are identical except for one neutral mutation. The sequence is about 300 nucleotides so that makes approx 0.3 percent. This percentage we can also easily observe, and higher, with the annotated human sequences.
Conclusion: If we calculate the mutation rate within one single species the rate is much, much higher. The interspecies comparisons give us false data. Darwin started this non-sense. Now, in order to understand biology, we must get rid of it.
The whole Darwinain assumption that all organisms have a common ancestor is non-sense and troubles our biological understanding!
As argued, the molecular genetic alignment of (or shared) mutations are equally well explained by non-random mutations. That is GUToB. GUToB explains all biological phenomena.
Try to get Darwin's invention of common decent out of your head, and you will start to understand what is really going on in the genomes.
I am talking about a paradigm shift here...
peebee
[ 17. May 2006, 06:08: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
