|
Author
|
Topic: The role of chance in biological evolution
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 03. June 2006 20:58
Bruce
The facts to which you refer have all been published and are a touch of your mouse away. If you choose not to read as apparenty you do, do not expect any sympapthy from me because you are not going to get it. For a pretty good overview I recommend my unpublished Manifesto which is right here at "brainstorms" along with several other of my published papers. Every one of my papers is available on the internet somewhere often with plenty of commentary, mostly derogatory, much to my delight.
"You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot maKe him read it."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 03. June 2006 21:14
Jack
Ask them for the answer to your very important question. In fact I dare you, just to see if your question will survive their very effective filters. I am willing to bet that your question will never appear at either of the forums you mention. ARN won't even let me view their proceedings. Actually in that case I am flattered. I am also banned at Pharyngula and Panda's Thumb. Try your question there as well.
Thanks for bringing up this significant issue. Follow through please. I want to know the answer too but being banned I cannot ask. It is of some interest that EvC has recently granted me limited posting rights at what they call the "Showcase" forum where I am having a great time promoting the PEH. Drop in and participate. The more the merrier I always say.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 04. June 2006 10:48
Zachriel, "Most mutations are neutral."
Bruce Fast: "I challenge this statement."
There are synonymous mutations. There are mutations that don't effect the protein folding itself. There are changes in proteins that have only insignificant effects on phenotype. And there are mutations to non-coding DNA that has little or no selective effect.
Bruce Fast: "My simple conjecture is this, if a particular gene's molecular clock ticks at 0.1% mutations per mil (still a fast tick) then 90% of the mutations to hit that gene were rejected, 90% were deleterious."
It's been known for some time that some genes are more conserved than others. Think scale-invariance. Even synonymous substitutions do not fixate at the same rate for different genes: The mechanisms for replication of highly replicated sequences are more optimized so as to require a higher degree of sequence fidelity. We can predict that such genes generally correlate with an early appearance in the phylogenetic tree.
Bruce Fast: "One also must recognize that the hystone H4 gene all but does not tick at all."
Histones are subject to selectively neutral synonymous substitions. In any case, there may simply be gaps in knowledge. It is a rather new area of study. Neutral theory is still fraught with difficulties. (That is not the same as saying it is not a valid scientific theory.)
I don't think that this assertion is required for Scott's line of argument. I will provisionally modify the statement to "many mutations are selectively neutral".
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 04. June 2006 18:35
Randomly generated mutations never had anything to do with evolution beyond producing ultimate extinction for most forms. In that sense only they were indispensable. The only mutations that ever mattered were ordered proprogrammed ones. Show me a single series of mutations that ever resulted in a new species. It can't be done because that is not the way new species ever arose. It is just one more facet of the Darwinian unwarranted assumption that evolution WAS the result of external causes. Those causes cannot be discovered because they never existed. Phylogeny WAS no more the result of external causes than ontogeny IS now. In other words, to answer the question raised by the title of this thread, the role of chance WAS and IS zero!
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 04. June 2006 21:29
John, I am not suggesting that random mutation has anything to do with positive evolution. I have only been suggesting that random mutations, when they happen in coding DNA are most usually sufficiently destructive to be removed from the code by natural selection. You do agree that natural selection does play a role, albiet an imperfect one, in ridding DNA of deleterious mutations, do you not?
[ 04. June 2006, 21:55: Message edited by: Bruce Fast ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 05. June 2006 06:57
I agree entirely with Leo Berg that natural selection has nothing to do with a creative evolution and that its sole purpose now and always was to maintain the status quo. I hope that answers your question.
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic