|
Author
|
Topic: Semi-Meiosis as an Evolutionary Mechanism
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 11. May 2006 16:13
Doctor Davison,
You said that testing the semi-meiotic hypothesis requires amphibians heterozygous for one or more chromosome rearrangements. You said you were unable to obtain such animals to test the semi-meiotic hypothesis.
Could you explain what would be involved in locating or otherwise acquiring these animals for the purpose of testing your hypothesis?
[ 12. May 2006, 03:54: Message edited by: DaveScot ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 11. May 2006 21:22
David Springer has come to this forum and has employed tactics reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition. He has demanded that I account for 16 years if my professional life. He has questioned my credentials as an Emeritus Professor of Biology. He as admitted that he purged my papers from Uncommon Descent for purely personal reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with my professional publications, which, curously enough, have always been in support of Intelligent Design.
Now this same person demands that I be censured for responding to his obviously prejudiced demands in a perfectly straigtforward fashion.
Not satisfied with my response he now demands that I explain why I did not get a grant and find those frogs hetreozygous for chromosome rearrangements. He feely attacks me not for what I did but for what I didn't do! I hope I am not alone in seeing the true nature of such an approach.
These are not the actions of a rational person. Now if the management of this forum is willing to let this sort of atrocious personal behavior continue, I will find another forum in which to present and discuss my science.
I have addressed David Springer's persistent, chronic, irratonal attacks against my integrity at the appropriate place which is my own blog:
newprescribedevolution.blogspot.com/
I have no intention of engaging him any further here at a thread specifically introduced ny Chris Beling for consideration by those who might see some merit in its presentation. Nor will I respond to any questions concerning my thesis until David Springer is muzzled from any further denigrations of my character or my integrity. I am disappointed that the management of this forum has allowed this frontal assault on a published scientist to ever take place. It is more in the character of Panda's Thumb, EvC, Pharyngula and, yes, Uncommon Descent. I have always regarded "Brainstorms" as a cut above those bastions of polarization. Have I been wrong? If he is allowed to continue you can be certain I will not respond. My several contributions to the great mystery of organic evolution are preserved in hard copy on the shelves if the world's libraries and I do need need to defend my demonstrated integrity in the ephemeral word of cyberspace, especially from the transparent, personally inspired, dictatorial, irrational machinations of David Springer.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 12. May 2006 00:03
Moderator, I am aware that some of the behavior in this thread has become painfully childish. However, I believe that it has become so in part because two people have used this forum to air their dirty laundry, but only one has been sensured.
Moderator, could you please remove all comments from this forum that are "off topic" whether they be from John A. Davison or DaveScot.
I fear that the rhetoric that has taken place here will cause the good scientific discussion to be seriously diminished.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 12. May 2006 02:29
I strongly recommend that everything that has been posted here remain as permanent testimony to the methods that have been implemented in an attempt to discredit me and my science. Words have meaning and they should always be allowed to stand. Alan Fox was banned from further participation for comments far less derogatory than those from David Springer. His comments remain and so should Springer's right next to my responses.
There is nothing childish about the degree to which the way we view the world has come to dominate internet exchange. It is meaningless, even cowardly, to delete comments once made. They reveal more than anything else the dominance of blind ideology over rational discussion. Springer began this purely personal attack and I for one am happy to have reponded to it. If the management of this forum finds his behavior acceptable as apparently it does, I say fine. If our comments are deleted so will be be my further participation.
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 12. May 2006 03:43
I voluntarily deleted my part in this. Whether or not Doctor Davison's papers appear on Uncommon Descent is irrelevant to the topic of this thread and I shouldn't have taken the bait when Davison asked why I removed them. My apologies.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 12. May 2006 03:46
Bear's story is just what it is: Science Fiction.
The URL you made a link to immediately starts with fiction.
quote:
Darwin's Radio is an eye-opening story that posits not only an interesting case for punctuated equilibrium over gradualism in evolution, but suggests that evolution itself could be controlled by a sort of genetic network that periodically reawakens long-dormant retroviruses — called HERVs, human endogenous retroviruses — that change the phenotype when the species as a whole faces threatening levels of stress.
The scientific problem here is that long dormant retroviruses are not subject to (purifying) selection. After long ages of dormancy they will certainly loose their activity due to the accumulation of mutations (The evidence is that most HERVs in the genome are dormant). They will be inactivated and will not play a role in presumed evolutionary processes unless you propose fast-track evolution and a young age of biology. Bear's vision cannot be right and differs from mine in the sense that I see a role for HERVs (and other genetic elements) in NON-RANDOM fast-track evolutionary changes. You cannot have it both ways, long aged evolution and HERV-mediated speciation.
It is well known that non-dormant HERVs are active during a short time only, to be precise during meisosis. This shows they are the remnants of specialy designed genetic elements that rapidly produced variability in offspring (probably in a controlled way), which we now observe all around us. As these elements are not contributing to fitness (as argued before) they can easily be lost or inactivated. That is what happens all the time, and explains why we see so many "dormant" in the genome. Up to 15 percent of the human genome are dormant HERVs and related sequences. They are not dormant, however, they are dead.
I predict that the major differences between isolated subpopulations of humans will be found at this level and at the level of genetic redundancy. GUToB makes biology easy.
peebee
[ 12. May 2006, 04:18: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 12. May 2006 04:27
Peter
Today's science fiction is often tomorrow's science fact.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to google up much about GUToB other than it stands for General Universal Theory of Biology or General Uniting Theory of Biology which sounds quite ambitious. In the interest of not judging books by their covers, are there any resources you can point me to where I can learn more about it?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 12. May 2006 05:22
Since the management here has allowed David Springer to freely impugn both my character and my integrity, I see no reason to further participate in any discussion on this thread. Just as he purged all my papers from further discussion at Uncommon Descent, he has now been allowed to achieve the same result here by the management of "brainstorms."
Any further participation by me with respect to this paper, which I published twenty-two years ago, will not occur on this thread.
I hold the management of "brainstorms" directly responsible for permitting this unparalleled demonstration of professional incompetence and deliberate character assassination. If anyone chooses to discuss my paper in an objective unprejudiced way they may do so via email or on my blog:
newprescribedevolution.blogspot.com/
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 12. May 2006 05:30
Dear Dave,
I am GUToB. Peter Borger = GUToB. It used to be only in my mind, but I have written it down over the past two years, and soon, I hope, available in the bookshops. There used to be a thread on the EvC forum called GUToB (it may still be available), where I summarized the rules of life and explained how biological systems work. Before I was able to finish it, I was banned for no specific reason as far as I can remember, but probably because GUToB included too many falsifications of long aged evolution and Darwinism.
quote:
Today's science fiction is often tomorrow's science fact.
Not so for genetic embellishment.
peebee
[ 12. May 2006, 07:35: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 12. May 2006 05:44
O yeah, I have written several scientific papers which I have recently submitted to evo-journals for review. In these papers I proof NON-RANDOM mutations beyond any doubt, and show that we can understand the alignmnet of mutations from the stance of a common mechanism. In fact, GUToB says: we cannot distinguish between common descent and a common mechanism. With this I am introducing the "GUToB's uncertainty principle of bio-inheritance systems".
I can already reveal that Mark Kreitman, editor of the J Mol Evol, has rejected the first paper based on conclusions made by other evolutionists (he didn't realise I was citing them), although the paper has been recommended as "an interesting paper for the readers of JME" by his coeditor. I don't mind, I have time and will get it in the scientific literature anyway, as I am strongly determined.
(Maybe I should have said: strongly predetermined)
peebee
[ 12. May 2006, 05:55: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 12. May 2006 09:45
Peter
I read the thread in EvC and was hoping there was a completed version somewhere. I'm agreeable with many points as I believe the best and most likely explanation for evolution is that life on this planet did not originate here but was seeded from an unknown source early in the planet's history. The seed contained an uber-genome preprogrammed to unfold into all the diversity we see today and in the fossil record. I coined the term "phylogenetic stem cell" to describe this hypothetical seed.
I can't find any empirical evidence whatsoever contrary with the above and none that does not perfectly fit with it. The usual objection is that unexpressed genetic material doesn't survive for long but as a computer design engineer I can easily describe techniques that assure faithful reproduction of digital information that can be implemented in organic systems to preserve DNA. Another common objection is the size of the genome required but there are extant organisms (amoeba dubia is the current record holder) with genomes hundreds of times the size of the human genome. This is living proof that genomes of sufficient size can be carried around by living organisms. In fact my first post in this forum in January 2005 was to point out the size of dubia's genome in a prescribed evolution thread.
In reading about GUToB on EvC the questions that came immediately to mind was how it accounts for the fossil record and how it accounts for the commonality of the protein synthesis mechanism (DNA and ribosomes) found in every living cell so far examined. I believe common descent from a single ancestor over a period of some billions of years is scientifically irrefutable just as I believe that evolution via random mutation and natural selection is unsupportable.
[ 12. May 2006, 09:47: Message edited by: DaveScot ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 12. May 2006 10:29
You folks at this thread, a thread presumably dedicated to a paper I wrote 22 years ago have allowed David Springer to impugn my honesty and question my credentials without ever opening your mouths. I will return to this thread when he has been properly rewarded for his unprofessional and purely personally motivated heinous behavior. I do not post on forums where I have been accused of being a liar. You all allowed that to take place with the blessing of the management. I should have anticipated this when the management steadfastly refused to present my paper for discussion. They sure never had this problem in the past. While I am gratefull that Chris Beling presented my paper, I am not impressed with his willingness to quietly let this sort of hideous treatent of a published scientist transpire. Alan Fox was banned for far less.
David Springer has a long history of iron-fisted, vicious, rabid treatment of those with whom he has differences. I suspect that is why Dembski named him blog czar at Uncommon Descent. He has been banned from nearly every forum at which he has surfaced.
To tell the truth I really don't care what you all do. I have better things to do than absorb abuse from unpublished, unprincipled, uncivilized lightweights like David Springer.
The remarkable thing is that you let it happen.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 12. May 2006 14:17
Dave,
quote:
The seed contained an uber-genome preprogrammed to unfold into all the diversity we see today and in the fossil record. I coined the term "phylogenetic stem cell" to describe this hypothetical seed.
Primordial stemcell, MPG, LUCA, whatever. As far as we know now LUCA must have been a wonderful organism that had multiple pathways for all biochemical processes. In other words, it was loaded with redundancies, which could not have been preserved for long ages. LUCA must have differentiated fast. Whatever you say, you cannot escape fast-track evolution.
quote:
The usual objection is that unexpressed genetic material doesn't survive for long but as a computer design engineer I can easily describe techniques that assure faithful reproduction of digital information that can be implemented in organic systems to preserve DNA.
Apparently the one who preprogrammed the über-genome -- presumably the Great Omnipotent Designer -- did not have the knowledge you have as we see unused sequences become inactivated all the time.
Amoeba dubia: apparently something went wrong distributing the genome over daughter cells. Wonder how long all the redundancies will be stable in the genome. As soon as you subject it to a selective constraint, the one who reduces it genome most efficiently will become to dominate. This will certainly happen as it is a biological law: selection acts on reproduction rate (From: GUToB)
The fossil record does not have to be old, necessary.
There is probably only one way to protein synthesis, with only minor deviations. The DNA embedded protein code is the best there is, anyway, so why not use it in all life forms. It is evidence of design (just like genetic redundancy is).
quote:
I believe common descent from a single ancestor over a period of some billions of years is scientifically irrefutable just as I believe that evolution via random mutation and natural selection is unsupportable
You're entitled to have your beliefs. Belief systems aren't scientific, however, and it is beyond the scope of my discussion.
peebee
[ 12. May 2006, 14:20: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 12. May 2006 15:08
Peter
No, it's incorrect to say that genomic information cannot be preserved for long periods of time. Presumably you meant aside from positive selection pressure as the genetic code appears to have been preserved almost 100% intact across all living things since the first life on this planet billions of years ago.
In a designed information storage system (presumably we're talking design, not abiogenesis) any number of algorithms can be used to assure faithful duplication. It has been my experience so far that no algorithms man has devised are beyond what resides in the machinery of life and certainly something as simple as error detection and correction is not beyond the scope of cellular machinery. Far, far more complex stuff is contained there.
The inability to conceive of ways to insure data integrity to any degree necessary to meet design specs seems to be a blind spot that non-information specialists have. You might just have to trust me. One of my patents is in the area of error detection and correction algorithms. If you prefer we can get a second opinion on information integrity from the founder and executive director of ISCID, Bill Dembski, just in case you don't want to take my word for it.
As far as genome size you might want to peruse this database. There are very many organisms, especially so-called living fossils, that have very large genomes scores of times the size of the human genome. We can speculate all we want about what these monster genomes hold but until they've been sequenced and we understand what all the code does it will remain speculative. If evolution is indeed finished, which it might very well be, there may only be remnants of the uber-genome left to discover. But since only the tiniest fraction of genomes have been fully sequenced, and we understand only a tiny fraction of what we've sequenced, most of what's there is still undiscovered country.
The link above is the animal database. The plant database can be located from there (see the links section). Interestingly, some pine trees and water lillies have monster genomes. The size and complexity of the organism has little correlation with genome size and complexity. This has come to be known as the c-value paradox or c-value enigma.
[ 12. May 2006, 15:23: Message edited by: DaveScot ]
IP: Logged
|
|
ujala
Member
Member # 1961
|
posted 12. May 2006 15:16
to peter borger
you gave a lot of emphasis to adaptive recombination being a non random event..on what basis do you say so?kindly elaborate..
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic