|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 27. May 2006 16:42
The problem with the Darwinian version of convergence is the absence of gradual transitional forms. The key word is "gradual." I am convinced that ALL of evolution was saltational. Schindewolf put it this way and again I paraphrase:
"We might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed."
and
"The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg."
Both quotes from Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, page 395.
One of the most remarkable features of the evolutionary literature is the way Schindewolf, a paleontologist, and Goldschmidt, a geneticist, reached identical conclusions, both regarding evolution as largely preadaptive in nature. I don't believe they ever met.
I regard "preadapted" as synonymous with "prescribed."
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 28. May 2006 12:44
The problem with the Darwinian version of convergence is we don't find it where we would expect to. As such, it becomes an ad hoc "explanation."
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 28. May 2006 22:12
Zach,
I have some more questions for you with regard to reproductive isolation. I have posted them on another thread [Prof. Davison's Challenge to NDE] if you are interested.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 29. May 2006 06:21
The reason I posted some of my ideas here is to show that natural selection is not driving biology. Biology is driven by an innate drive to reproduce. Natural selection is the byproduct of reproducing systems: the faster the replicator the stronger the selection. When an organisms managed to reproduce faster by only a fraction (simply loose some genetic elements required for cell cycle control is particularly valuable to microorganims), it will make up the entire population after sufficient rounds of replication. This also explains the "evolution" of resistence to antibiotics, herbicides and insecticides. The organism that are able to reproduce in a particular environment will make up and add to the next generation. One can easily demonstrate this mathematically. That is what Darwinians do all the time: link reproduction rate to increased complexity. The math works, but it is not biology.
I also note here that the Darwinians have the tendency to confuse allele frequency with evolution. But that is population genetics. To me it is crystal clear that evolution from microbe to man is not equivalent to population genetics.
The genetic redundancies present in all genomes proof natural selection is irrelevant to explain species and speciation, unless you also postulate neutral selection (which I have already read between the lines in Svente Pääbo's work).
peebee
[ 29. May 2006, 06:44: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 29. May 2006 06:40
quote:
A knock out mouse may behave the same as the wild type when kept in a cage but may not survive the same if free in the wild. So, none of the present lab cage experiments can really show that a gene is redundant. So, the redundancy argument may not falsify Darwinism until true redundancy can be established.
Agree, this is the Darwinian "explanation" (Although it is not much of an explanation but rather the usual explaining-away mode, similar to how Darwin explained away the gaps: wait and we will find them).
However, there is more to my "genetic redundancy falsifies Darwinian theory argument":
1)Genetic redundacy is NOT associated with gene duplication,
2) Redundant genes do not change ("evolve") faster than essential genes,
3) There are "natural knockouts" in many populations of organism.
Together these argumenst are so strong that they completely obliterate Darwin's main principle to explain evolution. The observation of genetic redundancy by rights should terminate Darwin's era. Why it has not happened can only be understood from a phylosophical point, not from a scientific one.
peebee
[ 29. May 2006, 06:41: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 29. May 2006 07:04
quote:
I agree Scott; According to Kimura's neutral theory the rate of fixation is the same as the rate of mutation, and (amazingly) this is independent of population size.
And (amazingly) it has been emperically shown that fixation depends on mutational input, something which was not predicted from neutral theory [Wyckoff G et al. A highly unexpected strong correlation between fixation probability of nonsynonymous mutations and mutation rate. Trends Genet 2005; 21: 381-5.] and may be explained by NRM (= GUToB).
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 29. May 2006 13:36
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.
I do not regard insecticide resistance as evolution. That is simply fine tuning within a very limited range, a range with is within the animals genome in the first place. Otherwise it would not exist. Allelic mutation has virtually nothing to do with evolution now as in the past.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 31. May 2006 08:00
quote:
I do not regard insecticide resistance as evolution.
Me neither. It can simply be understood from genetic losses at the cost of reproduction rate.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 31. May 2006 11:45
PB: quote:
However, there is more to my "genetic redundancy falsifies Darwinian theory argument"
PB, I know that we have only been given a taste of your full GUToB, but I already find your case to be compelling. I have considered the redundancy dilemma based upon what I know of biology, and software (a tight analogy to DNA). With this as my foundation, I agree with you that enduring redundant genes is not conceivable under NDE. Further, as I discussed earlier, even the development of useful redundancy (beyond "we have an unused copy lying around") seems difficult to imagine under NDE.
However, some clear arguments have been presented here by Zachriel, and by Chris. I would hope that you have seriously examined their case, if only to assure the robustness of your theory. You have not commented about them in a direct way here, however.
I am waiting with baited breath for a release, or prerelease of your GUToB.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 01. June 2006 06:32
quote:
However, some clear arguments have been presented here by Zachriel, and by Chris. I would hope that you have seriously examined their case, if only to assure the robustness of your theory. You have not commented about them in a direct way here, however.
I've been oversees for a while. I think I missed these comments and would like to know where to find them. Thanks in advance,
Peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 01. June 2006 07:06
Think I found it:
quote:
So what are the options:
(i) That RM has been operational but for a much shorter time than geology says causing no deleterious effect
This is most likely. Not only because the omnipresence of genetic redundancy, but I also believe this from other biological observations:
(FROM: Borger's GUToB, p136)
quote:
Ernst Mayer postulated in the 1960s that we shouldn’t expect too much sequence identity between distantly related species; a Neodarwinian postulate that since has been shown wrong many times. Bacteria trapped in ancient halite crystals dated hundreds of millions years old have been revived and consistently show almost no divergence of sequences by comparison with their modern counterparts. The most scrupulous and well-documented procedures designed to rule out any chance of contamination with modern sources of DNA has shown an alleged 250 million years old bacteria sample known as "2-9-3" to be almost identical to modern day Salibacillus marismortui at RNA and protein coding genes.
"Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels" [quoted from: Maughan H et al, Mol Biol Evol 2002; 19:1637-9].
If we shouldn’t expect too much sequence identity between distantly related species, why do we find almost identical DNA sequences in microorganisms that are 250 millions years apart? A period of 250 million years is sufficient to mutate all nucleotides of the complete bacterial chromosome, yet the ancient crystal-trapped species are 99 percent identical to their known modern cousin. This remarkable observation has prompted some mainstream researchers to propose that the modern cousins of ancient bacteria have also been dormant for the same time. This option can only hold if they also assume that all bacterial groups they compared with ancient sources to have had the same dormancy. All bacterial species went through a Cinderella stage that lasted hundreds of millions of years? This is quite unbelievable and beyond reasonable hypothesis .
And there is of course the isolation of soft tissue from dinosaurs, which suppose to be over 65 million years old. And the DNA from mammoths that is almost identical to that of indian elephants. Why was it not degraded as it was reported only ten years ago (Lindahl T, Nature 1993). Why do we have to change chemistry and physics to adopt alleged long ages? Most likely the billions of years simply never existed.
quote:
So what are the options:
(ii) That there is an efficient repair mechanism keeping all the H1 subtypes in pristine condition.
Unlikely. This mechanism could be responsible for the 8 identical tRNA genes in yeast as previously argued. Here I think it is unlikely, as the genes are not identical and do apparently not communicate transchromosomally.
quote:
So what are the options:
(iii) That because H1 is not a very specific protein – many mutations have occurred but have not degraded the protein function (the 8 subtypes could be variations from an original wildtype – via neutral mutations?) – remember the functionality of H1a and H1b has not been checked! What do you say? rgds. Chris
If so, how can all mammals have the 8 functional H1 genes? Their primitive ancestor must have had the 8 genes and it supposed to have lived around 250 million years ago. The evolutionary dating cannot be correct as the individual genes are redundant (although two subtypes have not been checked). I believe that molecular biology provides the evidence that something is severely wrong with the billions of years evolutionary schemes.
peebee
[ 01. June 2006, 07:32: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
christopher humphrey
Member
Member # 1377
|
posted 01. June 2006 07:35
Posted by Shi
I believe that both the designer and man have free will but neither knows the exact outcome of the future. The designer's future plan could be foiled by man and vice versa. The designer operate just like human mind. She designs based on what she knows from previous events and her knowledge increases as time evovles .
Hi Shi,
According to the fundamental laws of physics there is no distinction between past and future. Time is our experience as a temporal observer.
One of those question that I see asked over and over, is how can there be highly complex life without some prior highly complex agent to create it.
Here’s the truth of the matter, the complexity we observe developing is only a temporal view of a cognitive system that contains a duality, one of temporal time and one outside the field of time. This duality giving the other its contextual meaning.
Complexity in its final form does not exist as a prior form, but as an eternal form. A singularity.
These singularities or attractors are inevitable points of order that seem to the temporal observer to manifest over time, but actually exist as pre-existing possibilities inherent in the eternal aspect that is beyond the realm of time and our experience.
The creator of the universe exist as the end point that emit these laws of creation.
Stars form around these laws, the periodic table of elements form around these laws, as do DNA, cells and morphology.
What we observe as time and movement between a simple ordered state and higher ordered state is merely a cognitive movement between the two aspects of time. One of eternity, Were all things are complete whole forms and the temporal state of becoming that form.
This scenario is counter intuitive because it is diametrically opposed to how we believe the universe operates.
The two forces of gravity and cognition seem to emanate from a central source, creating what we perceive as time and movement between past and future.
Now, you may ask, Were is the creator in this equation ? how does man fit into it all ? consider the following.
Since god represents the eternal aspect of consciousness,
man representing the temporal aspect of this same consciousness,
And considering that all fundamental forces contain a duality, it stands to reason we are all part of god and god is a part of us. An inseparable relationship one giving the other its contextual meaning.
[ 01. June 2006, 07:39: Message edited by: christopher humphrey ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Sandor Szabados
Member
Member # 1969
|
posted 01. June 2006 09:25
Christopher,
quote:
These singularities or attractors are inevitable points of order that seem to the temporal observer to manifest over time,
The Mandelbrot Set is called the island molecule. What do you think its relationship is to god?
quote:
we are all part of god and god is a part of us
Can you elaborate?
Sandor
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 01. June 2006 10:26
quote:
Most likely the billions of years simply never existed.
It is even more likely that you are looking at only a small portion of the data. If one considers all the available data, it is more likely that the earth, and the universe, are significantly older than a few thousand years.
Closing your eyes to this data in order to retain your belief in a young earth will only lead people to disregard you as a credible scientist, and rightly so.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
