|
Author
|
Topic: Reply to mark
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. August 2006 14:58
Mark
I came to the Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) as the only conceivable alternative to the Mendelian, sexual mode of reproduction which has not been demonstrated to be an evolutionary device. I have abandoned it as a meaningful evolutionary force. The SMH will remain viable at least until it has been tested experimentally with the appropriate material which I did not have at my disposal prior to my retirement. It is obvious to anyone competent in cytogenetics and experimental embryology how to test it.
The problem has always been how to produce the new chromosome homozygote. Goldschmidt made that very clear. I have suggested a means by which that can be done and that method has not been tested. Until it is I will continue to believe that ALL significant evolutionary progress was produced through those means.
When chromosmes are reorganized, genes once silent can become activated as well as the reverse. Since the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis assumes that the chromosome is the source of all evolutionary information, the restructuring of those chromosome pairs becomes the key event in the formation of new life forms. I will adhere to this model until it can be proven to be invalid. That may not even be possible since, as near as I can determine, creative evolution is no longer in progress.
I hope this serves to answer your question.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. August 2006 15:02
I did not intend to create a new thread but inadvertantly did so! Sorry about that.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Elkington
Member
Member # 120
|
posted 09. August 2006 21:28
John, here's one question that I'm interested in.
At precisely what point and by what mechanism does the designer add information?
It's a question of the source of new DNA. Irrespective of whether we are dealing with chromosomes or another grouping, it seems to me you must be saying that a major copying/transcription/division "anomaly" occurs. In that event, the designer overrides the natural laws of physics, chemistry, and/or probability, and injects large new quantities of DNA and information into the genome.
If more DNA is not added at this "miracle" event, then at least an intervention occurs which results in a reordering of existing DNA, such that the probability of the product is so low as to be "impossible" (i.e. < 10^-50, or whatever your favourite bound is).
Either way, it’s a hands-on manipulation of the molecules, forcing them to go where they would never go if left to their own devices.
Is that what you are saying? If not, what then?
Mark
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 10. August 2006 02:13
Mark
The answer to your question is I don't know. This much we do know. All of Primate evolution can possibly be explained as a reordering of what seems to be a common block of information. I don't think it was necessary to introduce new information in that process. To what extent this can be extended remains problematical. No one knows how many front-loadings took place, where they took place, when they took place or how many Big Front Loaders (BFLs) were involved. In fact, nobody knows whether my PEH is even remotely accurate. That includes me.
What I am certain of is that neither ontogeny nor phylogeny resulted from undirected processes.
I have been profoundly influenced by my sources, especially Leo Berg, Otto Schindewolf, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Robert Broom, William Bateson and Pierre Grasse. That has necessitated a complete rejection of the Darwinian model. I am convinced it never had anything to do with evolution beyond the production of intraspecific varieties which is all that can be established experimentally.
All I have attempted is to provide a framework which remains in concert with what we can establish in the experimental laboratory as well as what is revealed in the fossil record. I feel the PEH acomplishes that end.
"A dwarf standing on the shouders of a giant may see farther than a giant himself."
Robert Burton
The giants I have listed and I am the dwarf.
"No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."
Thomas Carlyle
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
The origin of life and its subsequent evolution WERE, for all practical purposes, miraculous events and miracles have a way of resisting explanation. I hope this helps.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 10. August 2006 02:35
I am not at all certain that new DNA was required. Is new DNA required in ontogeny? No. I also don't feel any "hands on" manipulation was necessarily required. That is pure mysticism which I reject. The highest forms of life, the mammals and the insects have relatively small amounts of DNA per cell. I even entertain the possibility that evolution has resulted from the progressive loss of information rather than its gain. Ontogeny results from the progressive loss of developmental potency until the final cell types are produced. Ontogeny remains a powerful model for phylogeny.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 10. August 2006 03:35
quote:
I am not at all certain that new DNA was required.
John, as pointed out earlier humans have three dozen genes not found in chimp. I do not know whether these genes are required for humaness, but still there is the observation.
peebee
[ 10. August 2006, 03:38: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Elkington
Member
Member # 120
|
posted 11. August 2006 02:52
John, that does help, thanks.
Are there just three options here then:
1. No intellegent designer, NS created the information in genomes.
2. No manipulation of the molecules, genomic information front loaded at the Big Bang.
3. Manipulation of the molecules, genomic information front loaded after the Big Bang
Also, you say, "the restructuring of those chromosome pairs becomes the key event in the formation of new life forms." I believe you are saying that this restructuring is not random, but law-driven. I assume you mean the laws themselves are encoded into this "mother" DNA, as a kind of restructuring regulation program.
My question here is, what triggers this restructuring and when?
Mark
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 11. August 2006 03:09
Two points of concern with frontloading and PEH:
1) frontloaded speciation elements qualify as genetic redundacies (as argued in "Can any aspect of Darwinism be falsified"). They are not subject to natural selection and will be degraded over time. The speciation elements linger as genetic echo's in the genomes: VIGEs (variation inducing genetic elements), normally referred to as LINE, SINE, Alu and the like. Some of these genetic elements have been shown to still have the ability to swap and reshuffle chromosomes.
2)One of the key results of the sequencing projects of the past decade was the identification of the 'birth' of 1183 novel genes in the last evolutionary 60-100 million years and the 'death' of only 83 in the same time period. The scientific facts are clear: there has been an addition of genes. It cannot be only reshuffling.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 11. August 2006 18:54
It has alreaday been establshed that chromosome reorganizations are not random. I cited those papers in the PEH paper.
I don't think one can say that new genes have been "created" unless you demonstrate how that creation took place. How does one know that they weren't always there and just previously silenced or maybe just new combinations of old genes? Where do these new genes come from and how? Until those questions can be answered I will stick to the more conservative view that evolution required little or no new information from the environment. I further believe that the only role for selection was to prevent evolution and ensure extinction. It has and had nothing whatsoever to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny. Both were determined (prescribed) from beginning to end. The end is now.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic