|
Author
|
Topic: New molecular evidence against common descent
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 27. December 2006 11:33
Peter Borger, though I certainly recognize that the driving force of evolution is non-random, it has always appeared to me that randomness is happening as well. I have not seen any evidence that the randomness has done anything but produce destruction. But diseases, etc. seems to be caused by just such destruction.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 28. December 2006 23:06
Personally I believe that all Primates living and dead had a common ancestor. How much further this can be extended is still not certain.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 29. December 2006 04:28
quote:
Personally I believe that all Primates living and dead had a common ancestor. How much further this can be extended is still not certain.
Where did they get their unique genes, then? I believe the unigue genes disproof common descent, and if not, as you prefer to see, we lack some basic molecular biology on the formation of novel genes. If gene generating mechanisms are to be discovered, it would have a profound impact on our thinking, would be my guess.
IP: Logged
|
|
Albert de Roos
Member
Member # 1823
|
posted 29. December 2006 06:44
quote:
Where did they get their unique genes, then? I believe the unigue genes disproof common descent, and if not, as you prefer to see, we lack some basic molecular biology on the formation of novel genes. If gene generating mechanisms are to be discovered, it would have a profound impact on our thinking, would be my guess.
It could also be that the common ancestor had the full set of genes, and that many descendents had lost some genes. If for instance, homo sapiens retained a certain gene, it would appear to be a new, unique gene. I think the many examples of finding homologues of 'unique' genes in unrelated clades would support this.
A reduction or streamlining of the genome could also be the reason for the putative slow-down of evolution. There are just less posibilities to add complexity in a streamlined organism. It can thus also be argued that the most complex organisms retained the most ancient genes.
BTW, I liked the article. Evolutionary science needs to solve those paradoxes that you sketch.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 29. December 2006 10:35
Quote: Where did they get their unique genes, then?
It is not terribly difficult to compare actual observed gene patterns to the patterns produced by different hypothetical types of gene change processes. Specifically, it is relatively easy to compare actual observed gene patterns to patterns produced by random mutation and natural selection processes.
The evidence from such comparisons shows that actual gene changes processes can not involve random variation and natural selection. Actual gene change patterns are much closer to the patterns that result when engineers or computer programmers intelligently redesign products or programs.
I find it interesting that biologists have failed to pursue this type of analysis.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 29. December 2006 12:59
LifeEngineer: quote:
The evidence from such comparisons shows that actual gene changes processes can not involve random variation and natural selection. Actual gene change patterns are much closer to the patterns that result when engineers or computer programmers intelligently redesign products or programs.
As an outsider, I do not know what analysis of this nature is being done. Are you sure that it is not being done? Neo-Darwinism can not stand if genes are appearing without a reasonable mutation pattern to account for them.
Albert De Ruse: quote:
It could also be that the common ancestor had the full set of genes, and that many descendents had lost some genes.
So you are suggesting that at every branch of the phylogenic tree, organisms dump all genes that are unnecessary for their future development? That seems to be a lot of work on the part of the designer. It would make proving the hypothesis quite impossible.
Peter Borger: quote:
Where did they get their unique genes, then? I believe the unigue genes disproof common descent
Peter, I agree that unique genes prove agency. However, I wonder if they disprove common descent. If I, for instance, wanted to make, well, Mighty Mouse, I could start with any old mouse, add a gene, let it make babies, add a couple more genes to their offspring and so on. Eventually I would have produced Mighty Mouse ('sept that I don't know the first thing about adding a gene, but hey.) If I did so, the evidence of new genes would exist, but common descent still would exist.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 29. December 2006 17:13
Perhaps "unique" genes don't have to be formed. They may only have to be derepressed. They may have been there all the time. All of evolution may have been nothing more than the unmasking of potentialities. William Bateson thought as much and he was no slouch at least in my book. Leo Berg thought the same. So did Punnett with respect to butterfly mimicry. Incidentally, so do I.
"Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 30. December 2006, 04:19: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 31. December 2006 13:36
John Davison, "Perhaps "unique" genes don't have to be formed. They may only have to be derepressed."
This is an interesting hypothesis. However, if it were so, I would expect that if there is a derepressed gene in the human that is still repressed in the common ancestor of the chimp and human, then we should be able to find the repressed gene in the chimp.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 31. December 2006 19:03
How do you find repressed genes? The place to look for them is not in the adult but in the embryo. We may find them in embryonic chimps. They may no longer exist in the adult. Embryonic cells have far greater developmental potential than adult cells do which is why they are in such demand by researchers. Evolution has always involved the loss of potential just as ontogeny does.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 01. January 2007 11:57
Quote: It could also be that the common ancestor had the full set of genes, and that many descendents had lost some genes.
Genes or genetic material, as currently defined, don't contain anywhere near enough information to explain the development and operation of an existing individual. To suggest that some organism was front loaded with sufficient information to explain all future species is simply not supportable by the evidence.
People seem to forget or conveniently ignore that there are existing techniques for comparing the volume of information contained in a piece or DNA to the volume of information associated with an assembly process.
IP: Logged
|
|
Albert de Roos
Member
Member # 1823
|
posted 01. January 2007 13:59
quote:
Bruce Fast: So you are suggesting that at every branch of the phylogenic tree, organisms dump all genes that are unnecessary for their future development? That seems to be a lot of work on the part of the designer. It would make proving the hypothesis quite impossible.
It is difficult to make a distinction between retaining particular genes, or newly acquiring them. An (apparent) frontloading scenario would lead to the same result.
I suggest that the disposal of certain genes may in fact be the reason for their restricted evolution. Streamlining a genome may create direct fitness advantages (e.g. rate of reproduction), but also limits the possibilities for the development of extra complexity. So, there is no foresight needed that would 'get rid of genes that are not necessary for future development'.
quote:
LE: Genes or genetic material, as currently defined, don't contain anywhere near enough information to explain the development and operation of an existing individual. To suggest that some organism was front loaded with sufficient information to explain all future species is simply not supportable by the evidence.
Using a development method employed in object-orientation called inheritance, by we can create more specialized classes that inherit all attributes and methods of the superclass. In genetic terms, we can have a set of master genes for development, from which organisms can create more specialized versions that react to more subtle stimuli.
The initial overall complexity remains the same, the modules themselves have just be split into subsystems. Basic life architecture is than based into course modules such as movement, food acquisition and reproduction.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 02. January 2007 08:14
There is clearly enough information in genes to create and define descriptive classifications that distinguish one species from another. However, it the abscence of clear supportive scienitific and predictive evidence, there would not appear to be a sound justificication for hypothesizing any type of causal or developmental relationship between genes and species. I believe it is fair to conclude that the evidence currently available contradicts rather than supports any type of genetic determinism hypothesis.
The current evidence would suggest that genes are associated with different types of long term data storage. If genes simply involve long term data storage, then you would expect only a loose coorelation between common descent models and genetic data. This seems to be what the evidence shows.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 03. January 2007 07:53
quote:
I find it interesting that biologists have failed to pursue this type of analysis.
It's not "the biologist", but rather the neo-darwinians, who's belief it is all life is the result of a random process in conjunfction with selection. I have stressed elsewhere the pattern of mutations, in for instance in FOX2P or the HARF regions, cannot be the result of the Darwinian mode.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 03. January 2007 07:55
quote:
Peter, I agree that unique genes prove agency. However, I wonder if they disprove common descent. If I, for instance, wanted to make, well, Mighty Mouse, I could start with any old mouse, add a gene, let it make babies, add a couple more genes to their offspring and so on. Eventually I would have produced Mighty Mouse ('sept that I don't know the first thing about adding a gene, but hey.) If I did so, the evidence of new genes would exist, but common descent still would exist.
God as Genetic Engeneer?
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 03. January 2007 08:01
quote:
Perhaps "unique" genes don't have to be formed. They may only have to be derepressed. They may have been there all the time. All of evolution may have been nothing more than the unmasking of potentialities. William Bateson thought as much and he was no slouch at least in my book. Leo Berg thought the same. So did Punnett with respect to butterfly mimicry. Incidentally, so do I.
It is not that I do not like John's ideas, but rather the hypothesis of derepression of preexisting genes must rely on the same untestable assumptions as darwinian theory: the selective loss of genetic elements in seperate species. Untestable predictions and/or explanations are unscientifc I am not going to live with that.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic