|
Author
|
Topic: Peter Borger: Shared mutations: Common descent or common mechanism?
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 28. July 2006 20:12
Granted that mutations may be non-random, does that mean that such mutations were important in evolution?
IP: Logged
|
|
adhitthana
Member
Member # 2020
|
posted 31. July 2006 19:52
quote:
If non-random mutations is more common than random and if shared mutations does not indicate common decent, we would expect a chaotic phylogenetic relationship.
If the NRMs are a function of the whole organism, or even a larger part, possibly the surrounding DNA then one might still expect to see the phylogenetic tree that we now see.
Simlar organisms might generate, or retain, similar NRMs.
quote:
Indeed, you used the examples of drosophila in your paper to show that shared mutations has nothing to do with phylogenetic relationship. So, if you are correct, your thesis would predict a vastly different phylogenetic tree of species from the present tree or no tree at all.
However the different species of drosophila are still very simlar organisms. So if the NRM are a function of the whole organism or a greater part then this would explain the common NRMs without destroying PBs idea.
[ 31. July 2006, 19:55: Message edited by: adhitthana ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Mack G.
Member
Member # 2034
|
posted 02. August 2006 10:16
Hello Peter. You made a comment earlier that the fossil record does not give an indication of common descent. Could you explain why you say this.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 03. August 2006 03:42
Common descent requires a reproductive mechanims. There is no evidence for reproduction between seperate and distinct species in the fossil record. Extrapolation from what we observe for modern species, there is no reason to assume that the fossil record species came about through a reproductive mechanism. Unless you propose that there used to be two mechanims of reproduction, a semi-meiotic and a meiotic one. The semimeitoc may have whithered becasue it was more complex and as such it was redundant from the start. All that can be inferred from the fossil record is stasis and sudden changes. Whether they were produced through a reproducive mechanism is utter speculation.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 03. August 2006 19:22
Peter
The semi-meiotic mechanism predicts exactly what we see in the fossil record. We see distinctly different species succeeding one another with no evidence for gradual transitions. That is to be expected because when one alters the structure of one or more chromosomes one is bound to affect several characters simultaneously.
The horse series is a beautiful example. We can't even identify a certain lineage because each form differs from its predecessor in so many different characters that it had to be put in separate genus. The same can be said for our own ancestors. That does not mean we had none!
I am both shocked and disappointed that you would deny reproductive continuity. By so doing you have labeled yourself a fundamentalist creationist and are isolating yourself from the scientific evolutionary community. I can only hope you will recant because you are on the losing side if you persist. Trust me, but of course you probably won't!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 04. August 2006 04:32
Dear John,
thanks for your comments.
quote:
The semi-meiotic mechanism predicts exactly what we see in the fossil record. We see distinctly different species succeeding one another with no evidence for gradual transitions.
What is the difference wrt creation events? The problem is that your directed evolution involving semimeiotic origins is indistinguishable from creation events. That's why it will never be accepted by the naturalistic evo-community; even if you are right.
quote:
That is to be expected because when one alters the structure of one or more chromosomes one is bound to affect several characters simultaneously.
I agree, but there is more than merely chromosomal rearrangements. There is also novel genes and non random functional point mutations you have to explain.
quote:
The horse series is a beautiful example. We can't even identify a certain lineage because each form differs from its predecessor in so many different characters that it had to be put in separate genus. The same can be said for our own ancestors. That does not mean we had none!
And indicates that these species may probably not be linked through a reproductive mechanism. Of course you can hypothesize the semi-meiotic hypothesis produced in a single step new genera of species. But what then is the difference with creation? How would we be ble to distinguish between the mechanisms? It is not obvious from the fossil record.
quote:
I am both shocked and disappointed that you would deny reproductive continuity. By so doing you have labeled yourself a fundamentalist creationist and are isolating yourself from the scientific evolutionary community.
Do not misunderstand me. I say that from the fossil record we cannot conclude the species have originated through a reproductive mechanism. So, in fact there is no evidence for common descent in the fossil record. Common design, okay. But does it mean common descent? No, it is a non sequitur.
quote:
I can only hope you will recant because you are on the losing side if you persist. Trust me, but of course you probably won't!
What is there to loose?
peebee
[ 04. August 2006, 06:50: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 04. August 2006 11:20
Peter
There is plenty of difference between creationism and the notion of one or more front-loadings of information. For one thing the creator or creators don't have to be around any more.
There is also plenty to lose for anyone who denies reproductive continuity. I have no intention of making that mistake. The notion that man did not have primate ancestors is professional suicide if it were to be presented in a peer reviewed journal. I thought everybody knew that. Give it a try and see what happens.
Best regards and good luck!
John
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 05. August 2006 06:47
What we are now learning from the molecular biologists is in no way incompatible with reproductive continuity (evolution). Quite the contrary, it is showing that it was all planned and is now finished. Chance has disappeared as a cause for either ontgeny or phylogeny and is not even being mentioned any more except by some die hard ultraDarwinians like Richard Dawkins, Most of them are smart enough to keep their mouths shut in order to keep their feet out of them. It is the same old pattern. Darwinism is not allowed to have critics. We do not exist, especially in the peer reviewed literature as Peter and I both can testify. The only place the battle rages is on internet forums such as this one. Darwinism is a hoax and never had anyhing to do with evolution.
"Science commits suicide wheh she adopts a creed."
Thomas Henry Huxley
"Men are most apt to believe what they least understand."
Montaigne
"If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out."
Oscar Wilde
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Elkington
Member
Member # 120
|
posted 06. August 2006 21:17
John,
You say, "Darwinism is a hoax and never had anyhing to do with evolution".
I would have thought that to deny substantial adpatation due to environmental selection of heritable variations--i.e. Darwinism--would also amount to "professional suicide."
Regards,
Mark
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 07. August 2006 00:14
Mark
Not yet. I still manage to publish and I am still allowed to present my heresies on forums like this one and once again at Uncommon Descent. Besides, what transpires on internet forums has very little significance in the infinite scheme of things. All that matters is what is preserved in hard copy. I have no complaints.
"Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!"
Gregor Mendel
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. August 2006 06:23
Mark
I have never denied "substantial variation."
What I have questioned is whether it had anything to do with evolution. No one has ever exceeded even the species barrier through the most intensive of selection. I am not prepared to accept something that cannot be demonstrated experimentally, especially something as transparently testable as selection.
I also happen to agree with Leo Berg and Reginald C. Punnett that natural selection is entirely conservative, never creative.
It boils down to what I have explained elsewhere. The entire neoDarwinian model is based on a false initial assumption, namely, that evolution had an external cause. No such cause can be demonstrated because it does not now and never did exist. No such external cause is involved in the development of the individual either. Berg in particular was acutely aware of this when he proclaimed:
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Nomogenesis, page 134
The history of science demonstrates that it is very rare that an hypothesis can be patched up. The Phlogiston and the Ether are two examples. They simply don't exist. In my opinion neither did selection ever exist as an element in creative evolution. Without natural selection the entire Darwinian model collapses. It is the sine qua non of the Darwinian myth and it does not exist except to prevent rather than produce change.
Reginald C. Punnett clearly recognized this in his book "Mimicry in Butterflies."
"Natural selection is a real factor in connection with mimicry, but its function is to conserve and render preponderant an ALREADY EXISTENT LIKENESS, not to build up that likeness through the accumulation of small variations as is so generally assumed."
Quoted by Berg in Nomogenesis, page 314, my emphasis.
The "already existent likeness" is provided by the implications of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Unrelated butteflies tapped a common latent blueprint. This same interpretation serves to explain the similar morphology of saber-toothed marsupial and placental cats as well as countless other examples erroneously assumed to represent "convergent" evolution.
In my opinion EVERYTHING, in both the animate and inanimate world, was predetermined, just as Einstein claimed:
"Everything is determined...by forces over which we have no control."
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
I hope this helps to explain my position.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 08. August 2006 09:26
John,
I would like to know: who did the frontloading?
Space aliens? Gods? The God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob? Brahma? Homer Simpson?
Who did it? Who is the Great Omnipotent Designer?
Please your opinion, Thanks,
Peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. August 2006 15:30
Peter
"Who," or more likely "what," did the front-loading is of no consequence. It is only "that" it was done that matters.
"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
Albert Einstein
"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God."
ibid
IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Elkington
Member
Member # 120
|
posted 09. August 2006 08:22
Thanks for that enlargement on your position, John. I googled on “Leo Berg” from your post, and found your essay, “Ontogeny, Phylogeny and the Origin of Biological Information.” http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/ontogeny.htm
I too am sceptical about the ability of RM+NS to produce macroevolution. Nonetheless, watching the BBC series Planet Earth recently (and others like it), I am struck by the severity of some environments and the resulting knife-edge struggle for survival for both predator and prey. The sense of natural selection as a ruthless conservative force is palpable. Moreover, the high degree of specialisation and adaptation (often weird and other-worldly) found in these extreme environments give the appearance of large change, so much so that, prima facie at least, micro/macroevolution distinctions seem moot.
That said, I am persuaded that they remain valid and vital distinctions. As your essay mentions, a key issue then is genetic information and its source. You say this: “Accordingly, all significant change was produced presexually involving the first meiotic division... The first meiotic division is ideally suited to this form of reproduction as it can preserve the original karyotype and at the same time produce structural novelties instantaneously in homozygous form (Davison 1998).”
Are you claiming instantaneous de novo appearance of the majority of the information in mice and man at one (or several) presexual meiotic divisions?
And, given that the products of these events are “preadaptations”, i.e. not filtered or selected at all, are you saying this information is essentially pre-designed and front-loaded at this point?
Finally, you claim that subsequent evolution is governed by laws, not chance. Is this due to the regulating capacity of the information thus preloaded, or ongoing intelligent input, or something else?
My apologies if these questions are obtuse, I’m just wanting to clarify your position.
Mark
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic