|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. May 2006 14:14
Frankly, I don't know what you people are talking bout. First, the only mtations that result in lethality are those that effect the active site of the enzymes or regulatory genes involved.
Second, natural selection never had anything to do with evolution. Quite the contrary it has always been completely anti-evolutionary and so has sexual reproduction.
The PEH is compatible both with an ancient earth and instantaneous evolution (saltation). The earth is not young and a new genus has not appeared in the last 2 million years, not a single new species in recorded history. Evolution is no longer going on because contemporary organisms are not capable of it. If a new species does appear you can be certain that neither allelic mutation nor natural selection ever had anything to do with it. Phylogeny has been exactly like ontogeny. Changes occurred most rapidly in the beginning, steadily decelerated and finally came to a screeching halt, all generated from within those forms that could evolve until now they are no longer around. The death of the individual is the counterpart of extinction which is all that we now see.
I realize this unacceptable to many but it represents my present view. I welcome any demonstration that it is incorrect.
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 08. May 2006 14:29
quote:
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 produce new species.
Fast-track evolutionary schemes are not ok, at least not under current evolutionary thoery. I don't know that John considers his PEH a fast-track theory. The reason fast-track evolutionary schemes are not ok can be found in cost theory.
Peter, how can your belief in multi-purpose genomes and rapid production of new species be tested? Isn't this just another "hopeful-monster" hypothesis?
In any event, we're moving from "can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified," to "can some aspect of recent creation be falsified," lol!
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. May 2006 19:47
DARWINIAN MYSTICISM IN ALL ITS MANY FORMS IS THE MOST FAILED HYPOTHESIS IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE. IT HAS NEVER ACOMMODATED ANYTHING MORE THAN THE PRODUCTION OF VARIETIES AND SUBSPECEIS. MANY LIFE FORMS CAN NOT EVEN EXHIBIT THAT.
Soren Lovtrup called it a deceit. I call it a hoax.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 08. May 2006 20:52
Dear All.
I know in principle young earth cannot be ruled out on general scientific philosophy terms because of the problem all historians have - namely the problem of indirect access. However, we do have an obligation as scientists to put together the most likely theory - and young earth is certainly not in this category. I believe there are biological reasons for affirming an old earth, but the primary reasons come from Cosmology, Stellar physics, Geology and nuclear physics. In cosmology the Hubble constant tells us that the universe has been around for 15 billion years. Geology tells us coupled with radioactive decay of uranium and thorium compounds that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. In Stellar physics - we know that the weak interaction limits the sun to burn slowly with a lifetime of 10 billion years - and we fortunately live in its mid-life. It is not just these facts in themselves - but their inherent interconnectivenes (irreducible complexity?) that allows us to know with fair certitude that we do have these long time scales in the past. The fossils of the Cambrian explosion are dated aroun 540 million years ago (although I doubt the accuracy of the dating method - it cannot be too far out). Of course, one can say this vast body of evidence was planted to give the apparition of old age, but I think one has to be very cautious in overthrowing so much theory and evidence just to accommodate one finding in evolutionary biology. Rather let one look with great care at that finding and see if there be alternative explanations.
quote:
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.
If evolutionary advance (speciation) was a result of non-random processes (which I tend with you to believe) then it does not imply this should have happened necessarily quickly - one step following on the tail of the previous one in rapid succession. I think there is a very real possibility that organisms when they sense a new environment (ecological or physical) can undergo a genomic switching [perhaps through the triggering of the SMH mechanism]. This being the case then evolutionary advance would be "locked-in" or synchronized with geological development. Moreover can one not hold to BOTH "non-random" and "common descent" - as John Davison is proposing (with evidences) in his Semi-Meiotic speciation (see that thread).
quote:
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.
I would hope this were not the case. It may have been the case in Darwin's day. But I would hope that scientists today would not argue in such a circular way.
Pee bee - I think you must consider the possibility that decay in the genome can be programmed to occur faster at the end of a species (fossil) lineage. Isnt the human DNA in an individual programmed to distruction by the wittering away at the telomeres? If one looks at the paleontological work of Schindewolf one sees that fossil lineages go through a period of growth (childhood) of rapid size increase,- then through a period of "typostasis" (middle age) and finally into "typolysis" (old age - where gigantism, overspialization and morphological distortions take place) - finally extinction [see John's Evolutionary Manifesto, of Schindewolfs book - Basic Questions in Paleontology]. I would like to suggest that what you are seeing in the recent genome studies is the more rapid degeneration of mid-life to old-age. From this one cannot extrapolate backwards. Moreover in the SMH mechanism (if I am right) old DNA that has "run its course" can be deleted and new DNA that has not yet been in action - can possible be brought into play. Could you buy this? Chris
[ 08. May 2006, 21:19: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 08. May 2006 22:34
Peter
Fascinated by your discussion of redundant genes and backup systems. I have set up a new thread to explore this further from the positive ID theory side:
Redundant Genes & Backup Systems
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. May 2006 23:48
Apparently Schindewolf believed that evolution was endlessly cyclic. That is where I differ with him as Broom, Huxley and Grasse did as well. There is absolutely no evidence for creative evolution at present.
What is remarkable is the fact that the Darwinians have completely ignored one of their most prominent spokespersons, Julian Huxley, who with Robert Broom claimed in no uncertain terms that evolution was finished. I discussed the whole matter in detail in the Manifesto. Evolution is finished for the same reason that the development of the individual finishes. The front-loaded endogenous information has been all read and expressed. Both scenarios have been driven exclusively from within. I will stick to this until it is proven to be in error.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 09. May 2006 04:30
Dear Chris, you say:
quote:
However, we do have an obligation as scientists to put together the most likely theory - and young earth is certainly not in this category.
I am talking about biological systems, here. The new biology shows that biological systems cannot be old. Whether or not the earth is old, I cannot judge, since I don't have the tools or knowledge to measure it. I do have the tools and knowldegde to measure life, though, and the data tell me it cannot be as old as the darwininas claim it is. The high mutations rate observed within modern organism have forced evolutionists to abandon the unformitation principle, wrt mutations rates: they now claim very low rates in incient times and very high rates in recent times. Non-sense of course, as the physio-cahemiocal properties of the DNA never changed. I think we shouldn't do any more concessions to their claims.
quote:
I believe there are biological reasons for affirming an old earth, but the primary reasons come from Cosmology, Stellar physics, Geology and nuclear physics.
I am interested to know one biological reason that holds in the light of the new biology. Cosmological and physical reasons may be many, but may probably be solved independent of long ages. Nuclear physics shows anomalies we cannot explain using long ages (Polonium halo's, for isntance).
quote:
If evolutionary advance (speciation) was a result of non-random processes (which I tend with you to believe) then it does not imply this should have happened necessarily quickly
Yes, it must have been quickly. All genetic changes are instant events, and the rearrangement of genomes is also an instant event. The PEH is instant evolution, and as such doe NOT require long ages. It is not an accumulation of small selectable advantages as Darwinians propose for their ideas of organismal change, it is immediate. The biological phenomena I presented earlier speak against an old age of living systems (genetic redundancy, high mutations rates, soft tissue recovery from fossils alleged to be millions of years, etc.). Life depends on genetic redundancy, if we wouldn't have geneomes containing these back up systems we would have become extinct a long time ago (because muations rates are so high). This holds for all organisms.
If we would have sudden saltational changes as the PEH postulates, the genes (DNA sequences) of the previous organisms are transduced as they are, only the new genomic rearrangement determines the new species. If the new organism inherits the genes of species that were subject to selection for ages (millions of years, as it is claimed) it would inherit inferior genes because they already had ample opportunity to accumulate mutations in non-essential and redundant genes. You cannot say we have a sudden speciation event and then expect that it took millions of years between these events: mutation rates and redundnacy do not allow for it. Therefore, any viable evolutionary theory must be a saltational one and be completed within reasonable time.
quote:
I think there is a very real possibility that organisms when they sense a new environment (ecological or physical) can undergo a genomic switching [perhaps through the triggering of the SMH mechanism]. This being the case then evolutionary advance would be "locked-in" or synchronized with geological development.
If you have evidence for this, it falsifies the entire neodarwinian theory. I think there is evidence for this stance: adaptive phenotypes in bacteria. It is however, not as straightforward in microorganisms as we wish to see. Adaptive phenotypes are often generated due to SI elemenst that resuffle the (circular) genome of bacteria and the position effects may give the organism a reproductive advantage (=increased fitness in Lenski's experiments). In addition, microorganism have additional DNA polymerases that are more error prone and can thus increase their muation frequency, hoping for adaptive phenotypes. This is however not exactly what is required for directed genetic change, which is preprogrammed in the genome. But, I believe this trait used to be present in the genomes as DNA elements that look like retroelements. They do NOT contribute to fitness of a species; that is because they produce new species, they cannot contribute to the fitness of the old species. Therefore, these elements qualify as genetic redundancy and deteriorate readily as selection does not act on them. Their echos can still be found in the genomes of all living organisms.
quote:
Pee bee - I think you must consider the possibility that decay in the genome can be programmed to occur faster at the end of a species (fossil) lineage. Isnt the human DNA in an individual programmed to distruction by the wittering away at the telomeres?
If a program oprates to induce mutations we might expect to act non-random. Preprogrammed mutation is fine with me, as it would fit my ideas of non-random mutations.
I believe that, originally, all organisms had controlled telomerase gene expression in all cell types; it contributed to their longevity. Cells that divide all the time, such as the germ cells and stem cells cannot do without telomerase. As telomerase is not immediately required for reproductive succes many cells can do without. This means that for telomerase gene expression selective constraints are weak, and many cells lost the controlled expression of the protein: aging occurse. It was not prprogrammed howver, it is becasue the telomerase has a high level of redundacy. In several model organisms telomerase has been knocked out without immediate fitness effects. After a few generations the offspring are boecoming less viable only. Nature must have anticipated when it invented truncated chromosomes and telomerase for maintenance.
quote:
If one looks at the paleontological work of Schindewolf one sees that fossil lineages go through a period of growth (childhood) of rapid size increase,- then through a period of "typostasis" (middle age) and finally into "typolysis" (old age - where gigantism, overspialization and morphological distortions take place) - finally extinction [see John's Evolutionary Manifesto, of Schindewolfs book - Basic Questions in Paleontology]. I would like to suggest that what you are seeing in the recent genome studies is the more rapid degeneration of mid-life to old-age. From this one cannot extrapolate backwards. Moreover in the SMH mechanism (if I am right) old DNA that has "run its course" can be deleted and new DNA that has not yet been in action - can possible be brought into play. Could you buy this?
Sounds great, but cannot be so. DNA that is not used qualifies as redundancy and purifying selection does not act on it to keep it as information in the genome. The result is that it will decay away.
Biological systems do not like long ages
peebee.
[ 09. May 2006, 05:21: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 09. May 2006 06:17
quote:
Frankly, I don't know what you people are talking bout. First, the only mtations that result in lethality are those that effect the active site of the enzymes or regulatory genes involved.
John,
what we are talking about is the unpredicted, highly remarkable phenomonon of non-phenotype knock-outs. Over the past decade researchers have tried to elucidate gene function by gene-inactivating strategies. It was expected that the phenotypes would reveal something about the function of the gene product. The surprise was that there are almost no informative knockouts (for Arabidosis 98% of the genes could be individually erased from the genome without any or only minor effects), demonstrating that most genes are part of networks that back each other up. The remarkable thing is that there is no association with duplication as would be predicted by Ohno's theory: Evolution by gene duplication.
Implications: natural selection does not act on these genes and is irrelevant for evolution (something you already know). Redundant genes suppose to rapidly mutate, which they don't do and therefore they are the deathblow to both natural selection and long-age evolutionary theories. That is why I like your theory so much: it is instant evolution and does not need millions of years.
The PEH may be compatible both with an ancient earth and instantaneous evolution (saltation), but the new biology demonstrates that living systems cannot be old.
Evolution is no longer going on because contemporary organisms are not capable of it, because the genetic elements that caused it are genetic redundancies and have whithered away during the past thousands of years.
If a new species does appear you can be certain that neither allelic mutation nor natural selection ever had anything to do with it, but you can also be certain that it involved a rearrangement of the genome. Changes occurred most rapidly in the beginning, steadily decelerated and finally came to a screeching halt, because the elements that induce speciation were created at the start, accumulated mutations rapidly and became inactive or recombined out of the genome. These elemenst are not subject to purifying selection, and therefore will decay very fast and speciation (which was an built-in trait) will also come to a halt. As argued before:
SPECIATION IS A REDUNDANT GENETIC TRAIT.
peebee
I realize this unacceptable to many but it represents my present view. I welcome any demonstration that it is incorrect.
[ 09. May 2006, 06:32: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. May 2006 06:42
Peter
Why oh why must you insist on a young earth? That is unthinkable and is my only real problem. Just because all real evolution was instantaneous, just like every other genetic change still is, can in no way alter the reality of the fossil record. Evolution took place over spans of millions of years but the changes all took place in spurts leaving no gradual intermediate forms as fosils. The fossil record cannot be denied. It was also goal directed even though there were many side tracks that never survived. Robert Broom once speculated that the various long periods of stasis were necessary to maintain the balance of nature so the next step could take place when the time came. I like that idea as it makes sense. He made the hideous mistake of suggesting that here had been a Plan, a word he capitalized. I agree which is why the Darwinians want nothing to do with either of us! That suits me just fine.
I am not certain that the "prescibed information" has "withered away". I think it may very well be possible to recreate our own ancestors be reconstituting their karyotypes under controlled conditions. That has already been observed with yeast ad I see no reason why it could not be possible with any plant or animal.
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 09. May 2006 09:08
quote:
I am interested to know one biological reason that holds in the light of the new biology.
Fossils.
The alternative is to deny that fossils are biological.
Peter, just for clarification. Are you saying that you are not claiming a young earth but rather are agnostic on the age of the earth?
quote:
Redundant genes suppose to rapidly mutate, which they don't do and therefore they are the deathblow to both natural selection and long-age evolutionary theories.
How so? It would seem rather that the lack of mutations in these genes falsifies your hypotheses that evolution cannot occur over long periods of time. Your position only makes sense if mutations are random, and yet you hold to a view which allows for non-random mutation.
My problem with your line of reasoning is that you hold a position that mutations are not random, and yet argue that they are random in order to conclude against long-term evolution. The position is inconsistent to say the least. If mutations are not random, what does that do to your argument against life being ancient?
[ 09. May 2006, 09:23: Message edited by: Scott ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. May 2006 09:56
Allelic mutations never had anything to do with evolution although they may have played a large role in extinction. All experimental attempts at creative evolution through the most intense artificial selection imaginable have failed. The last serious attempt was by Theodosius Dobzhansky decades ago with Drosophila. To his credit he admitted failure but remained a devout Darwinian nevertheless! It is hard to believe isn't it?
Artificial selection invariably leads to loss of fitness. The sole role of natural selection is and always was to preserve the status quo for as long as possible. That is why every wild creature looks just like every other one of that species. The only exceptions have been produced through domestication.
"The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406
The great age of the earth and its contained extinct fossils is not to be denied either by this investigator or any of his sources. To postulate a young earth is pure mysticism without a shred of support. It stems directly from Christian Fundamentalism which has no place in any scientific inquiry and never did have.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 09. May 2006 10:24
Why, I wonder, are fossils interpreted as evidence for long ages? Because they are of stone?
The new biological facts are that scientists are (almost routinely now) extracting soft tissue from dinosaurs bones. Nobody anticipated on this (why would highly unstable biomolecules be stable for 65 million years) and it was tacitly assumed impossible a decade ago. That's why nobody tried it before.
Why, I wonder, do we have to contineously adjust previous biological truths to accomodate long ages. Why do we have to make consessions to long-age evolutionary theories while the biological data plead against it.
Why do we have to believe that mutations frequencies were low in organisms that lived millions of years ago and high in modern organisms?
I don't see a reason to keep up a long aged paradigm when it is not in accord with biology as we observe it.
If paradigms fail they should be overturned.
peebee
[ 09. May 2006, 10:26: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 09. May 2006 11:00
quote:
It would seem rather that the lack of mutations in these genes falsifies your hypotheses that evolution cannot occur over long periods of time. Your position only makes sense if mutations are random, and yet you hold to a view which allows for non-random mutation.
Lack of mutations means that long ages are disputable, or you must introduce selection of neutral positions (which I have already observed in the evo-literature). As you know the redundancy in the genetic code allows for many, many neutral mutations that do not affect the protein sequence. For genetic redundancy long ages means that they had amply opportunity to accumulate mutations, and not only on neutral positions. Still, these genes do not change faster or slower than essential genes (this has been demonstrated in several studies. For a review read: Tautz, D, A genetic uncertainty problem, Trends Genet, 2000)
quote:
My problem with your line of reasoning is that you hold a position that mutations are not random, and yet argue that they are random in order to conclude against long-term evolution. The position is inconsistent to say the least. If mutations are not random, what does that do to your argument against life being
ancient?
My point is that the evo-literature is full of contradictions that can be solved by the introduction of non-random mutations (for instance, linkage disequilibrium, convergent evolution and the recent observation that selection appears not to act on genes with a high mutation rate). The uncertainty we introduce then is that we cannot discriminate between a common mechanism that introduced the non-random mutations and common descent, and this will never be accepted by evolutionists.
Genetic redundancy (GR) is the situation in which a gene is selectively neutral. The problem with neutral genes is that they are not subject to (purifying) selection and would rapidly accumulate deleterious mutations. The robustness of living system relies on genetic redundancy and because we see GR everywhere, living systems that make use of GR cannot be millions of years old. (Unless mutations are predetermined, of course, and the sequences keep their function independent of natural selection.) How do you preserve a sequence in the genome during millions of years without selective constraints acting on it? I don't know.
peebee
[ 09. May 2006, 11:03: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 09. May 2006 11:06
John,
I am not per definition insisting on a young earth, but the new biological facts are evidence of a recent origin of biological systems.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
