|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 01. June 2006 11:25
quote:
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.
My belief in a young earth?
If you had followed my discussions you would have noted that I am not arguing against an old earth. I am argueing that biological systems as we know them cannot be hundred of millions years old.
The presented biological data show living system cannot be old, that's all. I am perfectly able to defend my thesis and I haven't seen it rebutted thus far. If you explain to me how genetic redundancies are retained in the genome during eons of time, be my guest. If not, it stands as evidence for a recent appearance of biology systems.
Whether or not the earth is old, I don't know. I am not a geologist and it is a matter of belief, I believe. I am a biologist and I believe what I experience.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 01. June 2006 11:41
PB: quote:
If you explain to me how genetic redundancies are retained in the genome during eons of time, be my guest.
PB, I do recognize the challenge of maintaining redundant systems over eons of time. To me there can be only two explanations:
1 - Redundant systems have not existed over eons of time. Now, the question then is 'when did the gene duplicate and become a redundant system, was that eons ago?" The other question which has been dabbled with, but not answered with authority is "just how long can a redundant gene (say the h1) survive?"
2 - There is an active mechanism that uses the multple redundant copies as an error correction system. By the time you have three redundant/identical genes a disciplined error correction system should easily reduce the mutation rate to all but nil. It should be quite reasonable to research whether such a mechanism is involved. However, as I have pointed out, such a mechanism would have negligable effect on the efficacy of any one organism, especially considering that the mechanism would initially work only with one gene. So such a mechanism would be all but unevolvable by NDE.
Either which way, PB, it looks like a strong case against NDE to me.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 01. June 2006 15:37
quote:
1 - Redundant systems have not existed over eons of time. Now, the question then is 'when did the gene duplicate and become a redundant system, was that eons ago?" The other question which has been dabbled with, but not answered with authority is "just how long can a redundant gene (say the h1) survive?"
First of all, it has been scientifically demonstrated that genetic redundancy is NOT associated with gene duplication.
If we assume the H1 genes are the result of gene duplication and an estimation of neutral mutation and the population size of all extant and extinct mammals (they all have 8 H1 genes) it cannot be hard to calculate in what time-frame they should be reasonably inactivated in at least one species. I leave this little exercise to the mathematicians among us.
quote:
2 - There is an active mechanism that uses the multple redundant copies as an error correction system. By the time you have three redundant/identical genes a disciplined error correction system should easily reduce the mutation rate to all but nil. It should be quite reasonable to research whether such a mechanism is involved. However, as I have pointed out, such a mechanism would have negligable effect on the efficacy of any one organism, especially considering that the mechanism would initially work only with one gene. So such a mechanism would be all but unevolvable by NDE.
And again shows: NDE RIP.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 01. June 2006 15:49
PB: "And again shows: NDE RIP"
You're right there. I think NDE is caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. The advantage of point 2 above, however, is that it would remove the need for a short time period from your thesis. Based upon a whole lot of evidence from other scientific fields, the short time period somehow cannot be correct.
All truth must be in unity. If there is disunity, there must be inaccuracy.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. June 2006 05:50
I believe that all evolutionary changes were instantaneous events just as every genetic alteration is instantaneous. That in no way suggests a short overall evolutionary time span. It is perfectly clear that evolution took place in spurts over millions of years. The frequency and magnitude of those spurts has steadily declined until today there is nothing going on except the trivial production of varieties and perhaps subspecies. I see no evidence that evolution will ever be renewed and I don't think anyone else does either. Exactly like ontogeny, phylogeny has been entirely internally regulated and self-terminating. The irreversible death of the individual is the equivalent of irreversible
and irreplacable extinction. Everything in the fossil record suports this picture.
"The period of great fecundity is over: present biological evolution appears as a weakened process, declining or nearing its end. Aren't we witnessing the remains of an immense phenomenon close to extinction? Aren't the small variations which are being recorded everywhere the tail end, the last oscillations of the evolutionary movement? Aren't our plants, our animals lacking some mechanisms which were present in the early flora and fauna?"
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 71.
I answer with a resounding yes to each of Grasse's three questions. What say others?
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 02. June 2006 10:27
Zachriel,
Reference 1. Genetic redundancy in evolving populations of simulated robots
This is a computer simulation. It is not the biological redundancy I discussed. Anyway, let’s have a closer inspection of this in silico experiment. Whereas the authors argued that an enhanced evolvability is a direct effect of genetic redundancy, the opposite is found in biological systems where genetic redundancy has been found to generate organismal robustness (Wagner A. Robustness against mutations in genetic networks of yeast. Nat Genet 2000, 24: 355-61). That is the exact opposite as evolvebility, and makes me wonder how the authors frontloaded their system and thus manipulated their outcome. Probably in the same way as the AVIDA simulations.
quote:
In our experiments, populations of robots with larger genotypes achieve systematically higher fitness than populations whose genotypes are smaller.
This type of in silico experiments give us an idea about how robots evolve applying some simple rules, but do NOT say anything about biological systems. The results are again exactly the opposite as what we see happening in replicating biological systems: the faster replicator will become to dominate the population at the expense of genetic information (Lenki's experiments).
This is computer modeling not biology. It is not even rudimentary biology.
Reference 2. Preservation of Duplicate Genes by Complementary, Degenerative Mutations.
This is computer modeling not biology. It is not even rudimentary biology.
Reference 3. Purifying Selection and Birth-and-death Evolution in the Histone H4 Gene Family
This is an article I am familiar with. I referred to it previously as it is inconsistent with common descent. As mentioned, the article shows that an analysis of the DNA sequences of histone H4 show that plants group together with birds; birds group with amoeba; and humans group with Drosophila. If we look at the H4 proteins we could also either be a worm, a trout or a chicken.
BTW if the genes are subject to purifying selection, the original H4 must have dropped out of the air, isn’t it? Purifying selection is a nice invention but doesn’t tell us anything about an evolutionary mechanisms. It tells us why a protein stays as it is.
peebee
[ 02. June 2006, 10:29: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 02. June 2006 10:37
quote:
Aren't we witnessing the remains of an immense phenomenon close to extinction?
yes, and we poeple do all we can to speed it up.
quote:
Aren't the small variations which are being recorded everywhere the tail end, the last oscillations of the evolutionary movement?
Why call predetermined evolution evolution? Why not simply call it creation?
quote:
Aren't our plants, our animals lacking some mechanisms which were present in the early flora and fauna?"
The mechanism lingers as genetic echo's in the genome. They are known as HERVs, LINEs and SINEs. As argued.
peebee
[ 02. June 2006, 10:39: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. June 2006 12:23
Peter
I hate to tell you but you can't speed up something that is no longer in existence. There is not a single bit of solid evidence that creative evolution is any longer even possible which is why my challenge remains unanswered. As for Natural Selection:
"Personally I have no hesitation in saying that while I have always been a convinced evolutionist I have never believed that Darwinism has been an agent of much importance. Natural Selection certainly eiiminates the unfit and establishes the fit, but in my opnion it has nothing whatever to do with the creation of the fit."
Robert Broom. Finding the Missing Link, page 104
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. June 2006 12:25
Avida is the joke of the century which is why no one even wants to talk about it any more.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 02. June 2006 12:44
peter borger: "the opposite is found in biological systems where genetic redundancy has been found to generate organismal robustness"
In complex systems, robustness and evolvability are often linked. If the system is too 'brittle' it can't evolve. Redundancy allows the reliable continuation of existing functions while allowing experimentation with new functions.
peter borger: "Reference 2. Preservation of Duplicate Genes by Complementary, Degenerative Mutations.
This is computer modeling not biology. It is not even rudimentary biology."
You must have referenced the wrong article. The article in question is biological. It points to problems with the classical model on redundancy, provides hypothetical solutions, and suggests specific biological research to resolve the issue.
peter borger: "BTW if the genes are subject to purifying selection, the original H4 must have dropped out of the air, isn’t it?"
The phyologenetic analysis indicates that they evolved before the diversification of eukaryotic kingdoms, and that eukaryotic genomes appear to be a chimera of eubacterial and archaebacterial genomes. Several phylogenetic trees are provided showing the basis of the conclusion. Synonymous mutations are near saturation, and the high level of synonymous differences suggests that H4 genes are subject to birth-and-death evolution at the DNA level. It also implies the generation of pseudo-genes, which have been observed.
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 02. June 2006 14:32
quote:
Why do we have to change chemistry and physics to adopt alleged long ages? Most likely the billions of years simply never existed.
Your only evidence against long ages comes, supposedly, from biology. However, biology tells us nothing about the age of the earth or of the universe. Physics and chemistry (and other fields) tell us that. So no one is changing chemistry and physics to adopt long ages. At most, you should be agnostic regarding age, not making statements regarding the likelihood of long ages. If one looks at the relevant data, it is highly likeley that long ages did exist.
Using biology to try to make judgments about the age of the universe and the earth is a fools errand. When people discover that you are basing your opinions about the age of the earth on evidence from biology it can only lead to scepticism regarding your other conclusions.
Remain agnostic if you must, better yet, educate yourself. But don't use biology to judge the age of non-biological systems.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 02. June 2006 16:20
quote:
I hate to tell you but you can't speed up something that is no longer in existence.
John, I thought you were referring to extinction.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 02. June 2006 16:26
quote:
Your only evidence against long ages comes, supposedly, from biology. However, biology tells us nothing about the age of the earth or of the universe. Physics and chemistry (and other fields) tell us that. So no one is changing chemistry and physics to adopt long ages. At most, you should be agnostic regarding age, not making statements regarding the likelihood of long ages. If one looks at the relevant data, it is highly likeley that long ages did exist.
Using biology to try to make judgments about the age of the universe and the earth is a fools errand. When people discover that you are basing your opinions about the age of the earth on evidence from biology it can only lead to scepticism regarding your other conclusions.
Remain agnostic if you must, better yet, educate yourself. But don't use biology to judge the age of non-biological systems.
Getting nervous? Please, try to keep it scientific.
As a biologists, when I talk about physics or chemistry I mean bio-physics and bio-chemistry. Why do we have to bring it in accord with long ages? Why do we have to abandon the uniformitarian principle w.r.t. mutations rates? Why do I have to embrace the long ages, when biology is not in accord with it?
Why don't you read my references? It would help you understand what I am talking about.
peebee
Darwin is dead, so is his theory. Better get used to it.
[ 02. June 2006, 16:30: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 02. June 2006 16:39
Zachriel,
You don't address my argument that what the models show is the opposite as what we observe in biology. Why is that?
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 02. June 2006 16:52
quote:
In complex systems, robustness and evolvability are often linked. If the system is too 'brittle' it can't evolve. Redundancy allows the reliable continuation of existing functions while allowing experimentation with new functions.
Robustness and evolvability are mutually exclusive. It could be that you mean adaptability. Organisms that readily adapt have specific genetic elements for that purpose. Some do not, such as the Wollemia nobilis and other living fossils. They went on unchanged for millions of years. Or the trapped 250 million years old halite bacteria: undistinguishable from their modern descendants. Not even neutral mutations present in their sequences.
Have alook into the human population. It is free to adapt into all niches of the earth. How come? Its genome is made of 20 percent of variation inducing elements. Evolution? No, adaptation due to preexisting genetic elements.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
