|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 13. May 2006 09:51
Peter, let's take this one small step at a time. No giant leaps for mankind. I know that's very Darwinian of me, but that's how I like it.
quote:
You are so stuck in your own paradigms that you cannot understand there can be genes without selection.
I am willing to grant that there can be genes without selection. But if a mutation occurs to that gene, that mutation will have no fitness or selective value, either positive or negative.
You. otoh, are arguing that a neutral gene can receive a mutation and that the mutation will have a fitness or selective value (a negative one, is what you have been arguing).
If what you say is true, then the gene is not a neutral gene, it is not a gene without selection. It really is that simple.
[ 13. May 2006, 09:52: Message edited by: Scott ]
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 13. May 2006 10:35
PB you state: "I am willing to grant that there can be genes without selection. But if a mutation occurs to that gene, that mutation will have no fitness or selective value, either positive or negative.
You. otoh, are arguing that a neutral gene can receive a mutation and that the mutation will have a fitness or selective value (a negative one, is what you have been arguing).
If what you say is true, then the gene is not a neutral gene, it is not a gene without selection. It really is that simple."
What if, a circumstance is now newly available where that mutation has an effect on the organism?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. May 2006 11:47
Scott has a reading comprehension problem. I stated very plainly that the stimulus, in both ontogeny and phylogeny, can only release a latent endogenous potential.
That is all that the environment does now for ontogeny and all that it ever did for phylogeny which isn't going on any more anyway. In other words random mutation and natural selection never had anything whatsoever to do with progressive evolution, a phenomenon of the distant past.
Don't take my word for it. Consider the conviction of one of the greatest evolutionists of all time. Referring to both ontogeny amd phylogeny:
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. May 2006 11:54
Particulate genes and their alleles never had anything to do with evolution either.
How do you like them apples?
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 13. May 2006 13:21
quote:
What if, a circumstance is now newly available where that mutation has an effect on the organism?
What do you mean by "has an effect?"
Peter is arguing that a neutral gene can experience a mutation which is deleterious or detrimental. If the mutation is deleterious, the gene is undergoing selection, it is not "without selection," it is not therefore a neutral gene.
On top of that, Peter is arguing that evolution over great periods of time cannot be true, because random mutation would destroy redundant genes. At the same time he argues that mutations are not random. What's wrong with this picture?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. May 2006 14:27
Scott's lack of response is typical of what I evoke wherever I post. I simply do not exist. Neither do my sources just as they never have. It is so much easier for them that way - don't you know.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. May 2006 14:35
Evolution over millions of years is undeniable just as long as you realize that each discrete step was dramatic and without transitional forms. It is only a illusion that it was all recent just as it is also an illusion that it had an extrinsic cause. The entire Darwinian nightare is an illusion perpetuated by an atheist mind set that for congenital ideological reasons remains oblivious to the realities of the experimental laboratory and the fossil record. It is hard tbelieve isn't it?
"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."
Thomas Henry Huxley
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 14. May 2006 00:00
Peter Borger, I, like Scott, do not understand how on the one hand my "spare tire" metaphore can be in error, yet you can claim that the genes you are referring to are "neutral" and not being preserved by natural selection.
Scott, if my metaphore is correct, then you must surely see that a mutation in the "spare gene" would not be directly deleterious to the organism, not having a direct negitive impact, but costing the organism in the long run -- therefore the mutation is ultimately deleterious. Further, if there are genes sitting around as "redundants", if these genes are not protected by natural selection because they are neutral -- non-coding, then the fact that they have not been mushed by random mutation is puzzling.
scott: quote:
On top of that, Peter is arguing that evolution over great periods of time cannot be true, because random mutation would destroy redundant genes. At the same time he argues that mutations are not random. What's wrong with this picture?
As Peter has not spoken, let me suggest that you are viewing his perspective with over-simplification. If both random and non-random mutations happen, if the "good stuff" is non-random, then when an improvement in one organism over the other is analyzed, the analysis is of non-random mutations. However, that does not preclude that random mutations may still be floating around killing non-coding DNA, or creating diseases for that matter.
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 14. May 2006 02:18
quote:
Davison: Evolution over millions of years is undeniable just as long as you realize that each discrete step was dramatic and without transitional forms.
Uh huh. Dramatic like the step between the horse and donkey which you insist in another thread here are different species. Yeah, that's a real dramatic step alright. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 14. May 2006 06:07
Let the record show that David Springer believes that the horse and the donkey are the same species. I don't know of a single biologist anywhere on earth that could possibly agree with that position. I bet he will delete it although I sure hope he doesn't.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 14. May 2006 09:24
Don't put words in my mouth, Davison. I never said horses and donkeys are the same species. Neither did I state they were different species.
I think horses and donkeys are so closely related that they illustrate how blurry the distinction between different species can become. They are in rare cases able to produce a fertile hybrid. According to the biological definition of species doesn't that make them distant relatives of the same species? Almost separate but not quite or separate but almost not separate? Note the question mark means that is not a statement but a question. I realize accepting the reality of the situation that the species barrier is not the dramatic and stark line of demarcation you pretend it is in order to buttress your theory of saltation might cause you some discomfort. Too bad. Science isn't a bowl of cherries.
By the way, are you (a)unwilling or (b)unable to describe how one goes about acquiring amphibians known to be heterozygous for one or more chromosome reorganizations? Why won't you answer this valid question so important to your hypothetical evolutionary mechanism semi-meiosis?
[ 14. May 2006, 09:25: Message edited by: DaveScot ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 14. May 2006 11:39
David Springer
There is nothing blurry about two species which cannot produce fertile hybrids. Here is a little lesson for you. God knows you need one.
A mule is the product of a male donkey and a female horse. A male donkey is known as a Jack. A female horse is a mare.
A hinny is the product of male horse also known as a stallion and a female donkey also known as a jenny. Neither combination can produce a fertile hybrid which has been known for hundreds of years.
As for words put in your mouth, they were your words not mine and I hope you haven't already deleted them as you so often do. Others can revue the posts here and draw their own conclusions.I already have.
And please stop trying to interrogate me as I do not repond to those who have questioned my honesty, my integrity and my character as you have done for quite some time both here and at other blogs, all of which is fully documented.
What is most revealing is that my name is not to be mentioned at Uncommon Descent where you serve as blogczar. You must save your slander for other venues apparently.
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 14. May 2006 12:34
quote:
Scott's lack of response is typical of what I evoke wherever I post. I simply do not exist.
lol. Well, perhaps when you say something I disagree with I'll respond and you can then cease to not exist.
quote:
The entire Darwinian nightare is an illusion perpetuated by an atheist mind set that for congenital ideological reasons remains oblivious to the realities of the experimental laboratory and the fossil record.
ok, I don't believe it's congenital.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 14. May 2006, 12:35: Message edited by: Scott ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 14. May 2006 13:06
Hi Bruce,
1. The long term fate of "spare" DNA, not currently undergoing selection.
Certainly it is hypothetically possible that were these sequences ever to be expressed in some way, it could be in a way that is deleterious. But the converse is also true. But this is all hypothetical.
My only point in this regard has been to try to point out that if it is undergoing selection, it is not neutral. And if it is neutral, then any mutation is by definition neither beneficial nor deleterious.
So one cannot say that neutral genes would accumulate deleterious mutations. It's a non-sense statement.
2. Redundant genes.
I need to know more about these. How do we know they are redundant? How do we know they are not under selection?
I assume the answer to the first is knockout experiments.
Now, is the fact that we can knock out a gene and see no visible effect sufficient to establish that there is redundacy?
Is the fact that we can knock out a gene and see no visible effect sufficient to establish that there is no selection taking place wrt either the knocked out gene or it's counterpart?
I just don't know enough about this yet, but we can examine possibilities.
1. Only one of the genes is expressed.
2. Both genes are expressed all the time.
3. Both genes are expressed, but they alternate.
4. Neither gene is expressed.
1. Only one is expressed, if we knock it out the other then is expressed.
2/3. Both are expressed, if we knock out one the other continues to be expressed.
I think we would have to look and see what is going on. My intuition is that if there are redundant genes, it could be so that the rate of expression or the amount of product can be modified, and thus there would be potential for selection.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 14. May 2006 14:41
Sciott
I take it then that while you don't think Darwinism is congenital, you do agree it is an illusion? Sounds good to me. I'll buy that. The reason I say it is congenital is because of the high correlation that exists beween political liberalism and and Darwinian atheist zealousness. There are darn few conservative university professors. I know because I happen to be one.
Gilbert and Sullivan knew this in the 19th century:
"Every boy and every girl,
That is born into the world alive,
Is either a little liberal.
Or a little conservative."
Iolanthe
Some of us are slow learners. I am not one of them.
Thanks for posting.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
