|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 06. May 2006 03:53
Bruce, comparing consensus chimp and the consensus human cytochrome C genes we observe only one neutral mutation, which does not affect the aminoacid sequence of the protein. If you look into the annotated (50 or so) human cyt C gene sequences you will find tremendous variation, including many protein changing mutations. The sequence is therefore not subject to purifying selection as the evo's will most probably tell you to explain the only one neutral muation in the consensus of the genes. This shows, once more, biology cannot be reconciled with long ages. We should all put off the evo-glasses, as they are very much blinding us from seeing what is really going on on this planet. The PEH in conjunction with NRM explains all biology, and that is what is should be about in science. What we have currrently is paradigm-saving: the old dogma's are tried to be glued together by nonsensical story telling.
peebee
[ 06. May 2006, 03:55: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 06. May 2006 07:07
Evolution is most certainly in accordance with the millions and millions of years during which it took place. It is only that the individual steps all took place instantly and create the illusion of a short period of total time.
Just as ontogeny terminates so has evolution. Evolution has been a decelerating phenomenon until now all that we see are allele substitutions which have nothing to do with evolution anyway and never did have. Ontogeny is also a decelerating phenomenon. Someone once said:
"We age fastest when we are youngest."
I can't remember who that was but it is right on.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 06. May 2006 09:33
John, how were the sequences of redundant genes preserved during the alleged millions and millions of years of evolution? Now we know the sequences of the genomes of chimp and human we observe that they have independently lost many of the redundant genes. Even in human subpopulations we observe independent losses of genetic redundancies: ACTN3 and CCR5. Many genetic losses happened and still happen unnoticed as they do not give an apparent phenotype (you won't see the CCR5 'knockouts' in the hospital). How do you explain that? As argued, your PEH does not require long ages: it is instant evolution. It perfectly fits the view of recently created biology.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 06. May 2006 13:44
I have been following this discussion with some interest.
Bruce, I think that GUToB stands for the Grand Unified Theory of Biology, and it is a work by Peter which is still in progress. Peter, do I have that correct?
If so, has it been made available here on ISCID, or is it available on the web? A google of "Grand Unified Theory of Biology" turns up some interesting links, but when I add a requirement for Borger to the search Only one link comes up, and it's a comment on a forum.
My own opinion on the topic of the thread is that it is indeed possible to falsify some aspect of Darwinism, but the theory is so flexible that it does not take much effort to come up with an alternative "explanation," and thus the theory as a whole is not falsifiable.
At most it can be shown that the theory lacks coherence and is internally inconsistent. But apparently that is not sufficient for falsification.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 06. May 2006 17:14
I can't speak for anyone else but I am not prepared to challenge the fossil record which makes it very plain that evolution took place over many millions of years. The fossil record is the final arbiter of organic evolution and it is not to be either denied or seriously questioned at least by me. If others choose to I say good luck.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 06. May 2006 17:19
Scott
The whole Popperian nonsense about falsification is just that. Hypotheses are either supported or they are have failed. NeoDarwinism hasn't a leg to stand on and never did. It can explain only intraspecific varieties and nothing more.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 07. May 2006 15:37
Peter
What we see, especially in civilized societies, is a rapid degeneration of genetic fitness as natural selection is relaxed and medical intervention keeps alive people who should not be reproducing. I know this sounds like genocide but that is not my intention. We also may be degenerating genetically for other, internally driven, reasons. The dinosaurs apparently did and so did the Titanothore mammals. Large animals have been especially vulnerable to extinction. Leo Berg, for whom I have enormous respect, thought that extinction was often internally driven and it sure seems to fit the PEH so naturally I have no quarrel with it. 99.9 plus percent of all the species that ever existed became extinct. It is a normal process which seems to have finally run its course because that is all that we see today. In my opinion extinction is the price one pays for sexually mediated Mendelian reproduction. It is just not efficient at eliminating accumulating deleterious genes. Semi-meiotic reproduction is very efficient at purging the genome of deleterious genes as they are expressed as homozygotes in a single step. Homozygous deficiencies are of course lethal. Lethal gene homozygotes don't reproduce. Just some thoughts.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 08. May 2006 04:21
John, thanks for your thoughts.
There are three types of genes: essential, non-essential and redundant genes. When essential genes are mutated in such way that it changes the amino acid sequence the carriers immediately die or they are subject to severe negative selection. As a consequence, the mutant sequences will not be present in the gene pool of the next generation.
Non-essential genes are genes that are allowed to mutate and may thus contribute to allelic variations. As they produce non-lethal phenotypes they contribute to variation observed in populations. Mendelian variation (due to alleles) can usually be attributed to inactivated genes that are not lethal (for instance length- or shape determinants). To induce the (recessive) trait the alleles must usually be present twofold (homozygously), as the one active allele compensates for it (dominance).
Redundant genes have only recently been discovered. That is because their existence cannot be deduced from classsic genetic experiments (although some Mendelian genetics can be understood from redundancies). These genes are usually part of regulatory networks, and the peculiar thing is that they can be inactivated without any effect on reproductive success (=fitness). Genetic redundancy only became apparent when biologists interested in gene function developed gene-knockout strategies. With the remarkable observation that most knockouts do not have a phenotype.
Because there is NO association with gene duplication and genetic redundancy (this has been shown over and over in many organisms, now) this is the deathblow to any long-age evolutionary theory. Darwinian theory dramaticall fails on another front too: selection. Natural selection cannot explain the existance of back up systems, which is essentially what genetic redundacy is. Just like sexual reproduction, as you argue, genetic redundancy creates robustness of organisms, and provides another level of stability.
For humans we know approx 10'000 genetic diseases, while we have approx 23'000 genes. This means that 13'000 genes are either lethal and prenatally selected (spontaneous abortions) or redundant as you will not find a phenotype when the are knocked out (inactivated by mutations). The germ line cells of poeple harbour many, many inactivated redundant genes, and they don't even know it. Did you notice how many inactivated genes have been reported in the HUGO project? Hundreds. CCR5 and ACTN3 are only a few and make up old mutations that spread ages ago, long before the advent of medical societies with relaxed natural selection we live in today.
The phenomenon of genetic redundancy in combination with a very high incidence of mutations (when the one chimp of further entirely human studies is left out we get the actual biological mutations rates, and not the darwinian mutations rates) eliminate all evolutionary theories that lean upon long ages. When I started to realise this a few years ago, I also started to realise the YEC have a very strong biological case.
Considering the biological facts, the alignment of mutations we observe between species can only be the result of non-random mutations. GUToB explains it all.
peebee
[ 08. May 2006, 09:47: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 08. May 2006 07:34
John A. Davison: "What we see, especially in civilized societies, is a rapid degeneration of genetic fitness as natural selection is relaxed and medical intervention keeps alive people who should not be reproducing."
Gee whiz. Natural selection is alive and well. You can observe natural selection at any high school dance as the most fit members of the species get to choose from a variety of mates; basing their selections on physical fitness, sexually dimorphic attractors, social graces, and sometimes for less tangible features such as loyalty and constancy.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 08. May 2006 08:28
Zachriel, in the evo-jargon fitness is equivalent to reproductive success. The fittest members of a species are those that leave the most offspring. The differential rate of reproduction gives the impression of selection. There hasn't been been selected anything, however, as the faster reproducers simply overgrow the slower ones. Reproduction is all that matters in biology. It is a biological law that can easily be mathematically supported.
You can also not know upfront which organisms are the fittest. Only retrospectively you can say that or that organism left so many offspring. In other words we do not know who is going to contribute most to the next generation's gene pool.
Natural selection is not being denied as it is recognised as a 'force' to preserve the wild type. NS is irrelevant for speciation, however, which is rather the resultof innate redundant genetic traits that can easily become inactive.
peebee
[ 08. May 2006, 08:36: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 08. May 2006 08:35
peter borger: "Zachriel, in the evo-jargon fitness is equivalent to reproductive success. The fittest members of a species are those that leave the most offspring."
The ones that leave the most offspring — in the long run.
peter borger: "The differential rate of reproduction gives the impression of selection. There hasn't been been selected anything, however, the faster producer simply overgrowth the slower ones. Reproduction is all that matters in biology. It is a biological law that can easily be mathematically backed up."
If faster reproduction leaves more viable offspring in the long run, and if that faster reproduction is due to heritable differences, then it is selection.
The human population has exploded over the last few centuries. However, this is only temporary. That humans tend to care for one another is an important adaptation, but sexual selection will remain. And as any observer of human behavior can confirm, it is a very powerful force.
You guys need to get out more.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 08. May 2006 08:38
It is a powerful force but irrelevant for the arrival of new species.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 08. May 2006 12:04
Zachriel: quote:
Gee whiz. Natural selection is alive and well. You can observe natural selection at any high school dance as the most fit members of the species get to choose from a variety of mates; basing their selections on physical fitness, sexually dimorphic attractors, social graces, and sometimes for less tangible features such as loyalty and constancy.
What baffles me about the above statement is that its the scientist left sitting on the bench.
In truth, watching and studying human mating practices have left me uncompelled by the sexual selection argument.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 08. May 2006 12:33
Peter Borger, quote:
When I started to realise this a few years ago, I also started to realise the YEC have a very strong biological case.
Peter, you are saying that your study of biology has moved you from an old earth to a young earth view, is this correct? If so you will be the first scientist I have encountered who came to a young earth view based upon his scientific, rather than theological, studies.
John Davison, you said that you are compelled to an old earth view by "the fossil record". Does your own studies, does your PEH, require an old earth, or is it merely compatible with an old earth -- conceivably compatible with a young earth as well?
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 08. May 2006 13:11
We can only understand the biological discoveries of the last decade from the perspective of recent creational events (genetic redundancy with no association with gene duplication, rapid deterioration of genomes, high mutations rates within species, soft tissue recovery from dinosaurs, etc). I cannot judge the geologists' long-age claims as geology is not my field. Biology, however, is my expertise and with its recent findings in mind we cannot escape the conclusion that the systems that make life going cannot have not been around for millions-billions of years. The molecular genetic data must therefore by reinterpreted, i.e. the alignment of mutations we observe in phylogenetic analyses are not the result of common descent but rather that of a non-random mutational mechanism. The reason that many scientist converted to long ages is because Darwinism, which requires millions-billions of years, is the officially accepted account of life.
Fast-track evolutionary schemes as proposed by Davison are okay, as they do not necessary require long ages, but it may be impossible to distinguish between such processes and a creational event. Personally, I belief that socalled multipurpose genomes were created not so long ago with an built-in flexability to rapidly procude new species. This might have been established by a semi-meiotic mechanism or by karyotype fission. Nobody knows, but the mechanism was not a random one. A random mechanism would never produce the required "hopeful monsters". Schindewolfs "monsters" were generated instantly as is was guided by genetic elements, and as such qualify as instant creations from the multipurpose genome.
peebee
[ 08. May 2006, 14:08: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
