|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 17. May 2006 07:01
quote:
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?
GUToB says:
Biology was created in the form of several multipurpose genomes (MPG) with an intrinsic ability to adapt (speciate) due to prespecified non-random mutation (NRM) mechanisms.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. May 2006 07:32
Would someone please inform me what role random mutations (base pair substitutions) have ever played im the evolutionary process? I am anxious to know, especially the role they are playing at present. I am going to place an arbitrary time limit on the response - 8:00 AM EST May 18th.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 17. May 2006 07:39
John,
They did not, do not and never will play a role. Some may give increased fitness (=reproductive advantage) within species and within an environment that provides a negative constraint on reproduction rate (antibiotics, herbicides, insecticides). The mutations reflect the redundant character of the affected genes.
peebee
[ 17. May 2006, 07:47: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. May 2006 10:46
Well Peter, that is your response and I agree with it entirely, especially the part about mutational change being limited entirely to within the species. Darwinian natural selection is like the fine tuning knob on a short-wave receiver. It can only slightly refine what is there and never produce a new station (species).
Just for fun, how do you feel about my conviction that speciation and the formation of any higher categories is no longer in progress or even possible through sexual means?
You don't have to answer. I am just looking for a little support. As you may have gathered, I regard sexual reproduction as entirely anti-evolutionary now as in the past. If it can't be demonstrated today, there is no reason to assume that it ever did play a role in creative evolution. Allelic mutation, natural selection and sexual reproduction are all anti-evolutionary, serving only to maintain the status quo for as long as possible and nearly always failing in the long run. Homo sapiens will prove to be no exception especially since we are obviously bent on it.
It's hard tp believe isn't it?
Thanks for the prompt response. Who is next?
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 17. May 2006 11:47
Peter, I don't think you have to postulate short timescales. Let me argue this not from the fossil record (which like John I think needs to be taken seriously) but on the basis of mutation rates alone.
Regarding time scales Bruce says:
quote:
Again, if I understand correctly, non-coding DNA seems to take on mutations in mammals at a rate of 1% of nucleotides per million years. This number already factors in all "generalist" DNA repair mechanisms. By generalist, I mean those mechanisms that act on all DNA, as opposed to specific mechanisms.
I am happy with the idea that the mutation rate factors in "generalist" DNA repair mechanisms (i.e. that the mutation rate would be very much higher if no repair mechanisms were operating). However I have come to worry about this number of 1% of nucleotides per million years. Where to you guys get this number from - I can't find it in my sources. What I have is for man and mouse (perhaps mammals in general):
MR=1e-9/bp/gen [Denton EATIC p299]
MR=1e-10/bp/gen [Spetner NBC p92, Hoyle MOE p92]
Based on these numbers one finds (for man with at generation time of - 10 year (from Denton)?)
MR=0.1 -0.01/cistron/Myr
where the cistron is 1000bp = 1gene. So we can say on this reckoning that the probability of a lethal or deleterious strike on a H4/Myr is 1%-10%. [This may be where your 1%/Myr comes in - but note that here we are dealing with a 1% strike per gene - not per nucleotide!]
Starting now with N0 (=8) pristine H4 genes at t=0 the number surviving without mutation at time "t" will be:
N(t)=N0*Exp[-MR*t]
Taking N(t)=6 - i.e. we at present have (2 duds and 6 operational) one gets:
either 6=8*Exp[-1e-2*t] or 6=8*Exp[-1e-1*t]
where t is in My. Solving one gets t= 29My or 2.9My . [Similar time scales 10Myr are obtained by Hoyle using the genalized genome degration formula; Genome Fitness = Exp [-MR*G/2N], where the MR is in /Chromosome set/gen, G is the number of generations and N the population size - this gives added confidence in this genome degradation time through mutational pressure]
You will no doubt think I am agreeing with you and affirming a recent creation in the millenia (My) realm. No I don't agree. These calculations were done with average rates across the whole genome - the H4 gene being so important for the maintenance of cellular reproduction will almost certainly have a more robust repair mechanism and a slower mutation rate. A mutation rate of:
MR=1e-11/bp/gen
i.e. only 10 times slower than the Hoyle/Spetner value will put the time of genetic creation back to 300My . This is quite reasonable and would fit the geological timescale (which I am not saying is sacrosanct - I believe the radiodating that is presently done may be in some error - but not by more than 20%).
BTW I really have some difficulty in calling these "dud" H4 genes "redundant" (or "back-up") genes. They are surely just pseudogenes that have not been deleted by natural selection because the H4 function is being covered by 6 other working genes (that make the essential H4 protein for the exacting nucleosome structure).
Looking forward to your critique. Chris
PS: where can I read more about the GUToB?
[ 17. May 2006, 21:21: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 17. May 2006 11:59
PB: quote:
GUToB says:
Biology was created in the form of several multipurpose genomes (MPG) with an intrinsic ability to adapt (speciate) due to prespecified non-random mutation (NRM) mechanisms.
This sounds very much like Dr. Davisons PEH. However, it seems like you are proposing a very specific mechanism. I find your hypothesis very exciting. PB, you have us all waiting with bated breath for your GUToB.
John A. Davison:
quote:
Darwinian natural selection is like the fine tuning knob on a short-wave receiver. It can only slightly refine what is there.
That's about how I see natural selection as well. However, a well tuned short-wave receiver is a whole lot more effective than an out of tune one. Though I would hardly place natural selection on a totem and worship it as the NDE crowd does, I still consider it a very useful invention.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. May 2006 15:03
Bruce
If you think natural selection is a useful tool to explain evolution, you must be able to present an example.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. May 2006 15:07
I say piffle to mutation rates. They never had anything to do with evolution. If they did evolution would be going faster than ever right now.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 17. May 2006 16:01
John A. Davison: quote:
Bruce
If you think natural selection is a useful tool to explain evolution, you must be able to present an example.
Other than in keeping the tree of life pruned, I do not see natural selection as a useful tool to explain evolution. I do, however, see natural selection as a useful tool in population balancing, in the development of sub-species with allele mixes suited for certain conditions, that sort of thing. As you said, its great at fine-tuning. I do not see natural selection or random mutation as a creative/inventive mechanism worth noting.
While I do see the above value in natural selection, I see only destruction in random mutation. I think that lucky "beneficial" random mutations are so few and far between as to be superfluous. I fully agree with you that NDE doesn't work. I am not quite ready to buy your position that evolution has come to a complete halt, but I fully buy your evidence that evolution was happening and that it has slowed to a crawl at best.
There hasn't been a new domain for about 1.5 By.
There hasn't been a new kindom for about 0.6 By,
There hasn't been a new phylum for about 400 My,
There hasn't been a new class for about 250 My,
There hasn't been a new order for about 100 My,
There hasn't been a new family for about 35 My,
There hasn't been a new genus for about 10 My,
There hasn't been a new species for about 100 Ky.
(please feel free to edit my years, this is just off the top of my head.)
I agree with you, evolution is grinding (has grinded?) to a halt. What more need be said.
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 17. May 2006 18:25
quote:
There hasn't been a new genus for about 10 My,
A new species of monkey was recently discovered which was assigned to its own genus. I don't know how far back the origin of that genus has been dated.
Aren't humans in their own genus? Do humans go back 10Myr?
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 17. May 2006 19:25
If an inteligent creator is behind evolution or all of nature, we can try to guess what is her purpose. It is obvious that creation (of novel things) is the most fundamental feature of evolution. Evolution is nothing without creation. So, it is obvious that creation itself may be the major purpose of the creator. This is similar to concluding, based on the novel art works of an artist, that the purpose of the artist is to create.
If creation is the goal, we will inevitably observe two opposite but complimentary yin and yang manifestations of a single creation phenomenon: creation is both stoped and endless. Creation is stoped in the sense when a creation is the ultimate and absolute perfection and will be used as building blocks for future creations. The creation of an earth like planet stoped 5 billion years ago. The creation of life from inanimate matters stopped 3.5 billion years ago. One can go down the laundry list of stopped creations as Bruce did. The stop of past creation is essential for subsequent creations to go on.
But creation is also endless. The adavncement in the level of consciousness in the natural world has been steadily progressing. If creating a new species means creation to the creator, then creating a new mind is no less a creation to the creator. Only at the mind level, can creation be truely endless since the mind is capable of endless imaginations. The mind is a machine designed for creation.
So, if the goal of the creator is endless creation, the mind must be the final stage of evolution where the game of creation can go on forever. The creator will take credit for most major creations of the mind, in the same subtle way as she has done in creating the diversity of life on earth or converting monkey to man.
So, John, to say that evolution has stoped is missing the point or goal of evolution. Evolution is not about creating a particular earth or species but is about creation itself. Evolution is nothing without creation and creation cannot go on without evolution. If creation has not stopped, neither has evolution. The creator is merely shifting focus now on the mind, just like she has done repeatedly in the past, shifting focus from phylum down to species.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. May 2006 19:26
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of new species are DISCOVERED each year. I repeat my ignored challenge. Choose any two species, living or fossil and provide evidence from any quarter that one is the parent of the other. We do not see evolution in action but rather the products of a past evolution.
Now it may very well be that there are species around one of which was parental to the other. The point is, with saltational evolution, the only kind that ever was, that will probably not be evident because the daughter species will differ in many characters from the parent form.
The best example of this is given by the horse series. Every member of that so-called series differs so much from its predecessor in the fossil record that it must be assigned to a separate genus. That is exactly what is to be expected from a system proceeding through chromosome reorganization. Many features are bound to be affected as a whole new reaction system is establised with each major chromosomal reorganization. Furthermore there is no compelling reason to believe that these transformations involved any input from the environment in the way of new genes, mutations and certainly not natural selection. Natural selection is an imaginary figment required by an atheist mentality that apparemntly can never accept the notion that organic evolution was planned from beginning to end. That is the substance of the Prescibed Evolutionary Hypothesis and I intend to stick to it until it is proven to be in error.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 17. May 2006 20:39
Shi you say: quote:
So, if the goal of the creator is endless creation, the mind must be the final stage of evolution where the game of creation can go on forever. The creator will take credit for most major creations of the mind, in the same subtle way as she has done in creating the diversity of life on earth or converting monkey to man.
Here you are arguing inductively from what has happened in the past, and in extrapolation from the past. And yet at the same time you are saying that phylogenic evolution is over, and we must only look for evolution within the God created mind? Have you thought about the possibility that God created with man (and women!) as the end goal! This is what all the great theistic religions believe - i.e. religions that believe in a creative God. Listen to the great Christian theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer:
quote:
We become drawn into God's plan, as it were, an by this we become attentive to the fact that something new, something that has never yet been, something quite extrordinary is about to happen.
"The God said, " Let us make man in our image, after our likeness "
Man shall proceed from God as his ultimate, his new work, and as the image of God in his creation, There is no transition here from somewhere or other, there is new creation. This has nothing to do with Darwinism; quite independenly of this man remains the new free, undetermined work of God
So man is the end goal, and the creative freedom of our minds is nothing but a God given faculty - that I am sure will not be replaced by any new and better creation. [Note also the amazing feature of the text - that "God said" - ie. there is speaking- communication of information - very much in line with ID!]
What sayest thou?: Chris
Moderator : please accept me straying into religion, but Shi asked a question regarding the purpose of the Designer. Bonhoeffer took his authority from the Bible (Gen 1) which in today's culture is seen as "unscientific" or certainly against the prevailing "modus operandi". Well I agree - and also that we must argue from the basis of empirical fact (definition of modern science) - if we are to be held credible. Nevertheless I point out that we are quite happy in the case of the PEH and the GUToB to talk about the downloading of pre-existing rudiments (information). In this respect I think we should also be open to the Designer downloading information in the written language of men particularly since the only creature that would need to comprehend the purpose of creation is man. Genesis 1 is held by all the theistic religions (i.e. Jews, Muslims, and Christians) that premise on a transcendent intelligent Designer (i.e which have a highly ID compatible metatheory) - is it by chance? I have marvelled for many years and the extreme congruence between the ordering of events in Gen 1 and modern origins science - again is it by chance? I am heartened that God is impartial, and does not just reveal things about the past just to those with scientific credentials. Sorry for rambling. Sorry for talking theologically - but others have strayed too.
[ 17. May 2006, 22:46: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 17. May 2006 20:59
John, quote:
I say piffle to mutation rates. They never had anything to do with evolution. If they did evolution would be going faster than ever right now.
I agree that mutation rates had nothing to do with evolutionary advance - that there are no such things as positive mutations and no leading to absolute increases in fitness through mutation. Thats not the point. They have something however to do with that automatic frequency control "tune in" on the short wave receiver - analogy of Bruce. If deleterious mutations occur they are removed and to a great extent maintain the integrity of the genome and species survival is maintained for reasonably long times in an entropic (decaying) universe where perfect repair mechanism are not possible. Moreover as Bruce points out they also allow some sub-species variations which in the long term also preserve species. All clever design!
With regard to the H4 histone and the variation of mutation rates in different proteins I want to quote Denton to stimulated discussion:
quote:
The proteins that evolve most slowly are supposed to have the highest proportion of sites at which the functional constraints are particularly severe. According to this view, nearly every mutation that could occur in the gene for hstone 4 would be deleterious to the function of that histone.
Here Denton is not speaking himself but quoting Alan Wilson who is an expert in this field [EATIC p299].
I think this is neat, but I see it only applying if there were one H4 per genome - that if knocked out would mean certain death. Perhaps the fact that there are eight H4s in mammals is simply that a great deal of H4 protein needs to be manufactured in mitosis and meiosis? Do selection arguments seem to be breaking down in this case? - I would sure appreciate some help in understanding this.
The reason I talk about mutation rates is that there is some suggestion on this thread that observed mutation rates predice a shorter time scale for biological evolution than that observed in the fossil record. Chris
[ 17. May 2006, 21:20: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. May 2006 23:17
Chris
There is no evolution in progress and hasn't been for a very long time. That is my position and it was the opinion of Pierre Grasse, Robert Broom and, of all people, Julian Huxley who coined the ultra-Darwinian term "Modern Synthesis." First you agree with us and then you bring up mutation rates again as regulating evolutionary frequency. You can't have it both ways. Do you believe creative evolution is finished or do you not? If you think it is still going on, I ask for the evidence. I do not think you can provide it.
I repeat my contention that the only role for the environment was to unleash a purely endogenous, "prescribed" potential. That is all it does in ontogeny and that is all that it ever did with phylogeny. Both phenomena are auto-terminating and, as far as I am able to ascertain, only ontogeny continues. To postulate a future evolution is pure speculation and has no basis either experimentally or historically. Every attempt has failed and there is nothing in the fossil record to suggest otherwise.
There are more mutagens in today's world than ever before and all that we can see is extinction which is exactly what one can expect.
I recommend you read once more that revealimg paragraph from Huxley's book that I have quoted so many times and ask yourself the question - was he right? Then do the same with Grasse and Broom as well.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
