|
Author
|
Topic: Support for PEH
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 16. May 2006 17:38
DaveScot, I like your "caused by poisonings" hypothesis. This makes a rather reasonable sense.
I find it intriguing that the normative mouse has the highest chromosome count. This would indicate that mice quite easily join two chromosomes to make one, but that it isn't so easy the other way around.
John Davison, "Polyploidy is common in plants but quite rare in animals." If polyploidy (hey, there's a name for the phenomenon) is "quite rare in animals" then it does happen in animals. If so, this tidbit of evidence will have to sit on my personal ledger in the NDE side. However, the mouse thing leave it as rather weak support.
I do wonder, however, if mice find it easy to join two chromosomes together, but not the other way around, would an increasing chromosome count (chromosome splitting) be more likely destructive than chromosome joining. I would presume that chromosome splitting would have to occur in a more controlled fashion, one could hardly split a chromosome right in the middle of a gene definition.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 16. May 2006 19:59
The important point is that chromososme breakage, rejoining, fusion and dissociation has never been a random (Darwinian) matter but has occurred at "preferred" loci in accord with the PEH. Randomness never had anything to do with creative evolution and neither did natural selection, allelic mutation or sexual reproduction. All significant evolution WAS purely emergent just is all of ontogeny still IS.
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Get used to it. Robert Broom did, Julian Huxley did, Pierre Grasse did and so did I. Some folks are just slow learners. They are known as Darwinians. The evolutionary world is crawling with them.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 17. May 2006 04:10
quote:
As to why there are so many chromosomal races of house mouse I wouldn't be surprised if it's the result of the poor damn things being the target of so many poisonings by humans. Toxic chemicals in non-toxic quantity can really cause the old mutation rate to skyrocket.
t is not only the mouse A similar tale can be told for the eight species of Asian deer of the genus Munjiacus. They live in an area ranging from the high mountains in the Himalaya to the lowland forests of Laos and Cambodia. Their chromosome number varies from a low of only three pairs to a high of twenty-three.
It is explained by Karyotypic Fission theory
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. May 2006 08:19
The Muntjack deer in their remote habitats have certainly not been the target of man-generated poisons. The sterility of Muntjack hybrids is due exclusively to the impossibility for them to undergo a normal meiosis. In other words for exactly the same reason that the mule is sterile. They also demonstrates beyond any doubt that forms which differ substantially by chromosome reorganizations of otherwise identical genetic material will invariably be sterile. It is all a matter of chromosome mechanics and has nothing whatsoever to do with allelic mutation. It is the chromosome, not the gene, that WAS the mediator of organic evolution.
As usual, don't take my word for it. Speaking of the mechanism for organic evolution:
"The genetical process which is involved consists of a repatterning of the chromosomes, which results in in a new genetical system."
Richard B. Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, page 396.
I would make only the following substitutions -
was for is, consisted for consists and resulted for results.
As near as I have been able to ascertain, Goldschmidt never considered the conclusions of Broom, Huxley and Grasse that evolution was no longer in progress, probably because he was unaware of their views. Only Broom, whom he did not reference, had published that conclusion prior to the publication of Goldschmidt's book. I don't believe Goldschmidt ever acknowledged that perspective. It is too bad because it is one of the many failures of the Darwinian model.
That is why I continue to proclaim to a stone deaf audience:
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic