The Nature of Mutations

I think Futuyma and the rest of the evolutionary biologists out there would be surprised to learn that population genetics has nothing to do with evolution

Hi FK,
Part of the problems is that the definition of evolution held by creationists such as PLG, Peter Borger, and others is that it excludes population genetics. By doing this, there is no logical way for speciation to occur since heritable mutations have no way of being passed on from one generation to the next. Darwin was aware of transmission of traits in populations. Population geneticists have been at this for decades and population biology has always been the core of evolutionary theory. If you exclude genetics from evolution then well...there is no basis for any biological sciece.I have to assume that defining evolution as having nothing to do with pop gen is a debating tactic, misinformation campaign, whatever propagated by specific widely read creationists sites as a strawman argument since exactly the same mis-definition appears so often.I doubt this is the last time we will see this arguement here.cheers,
M

There are now two threads for you to post in...one in this forum called "there goes this freakin thread"...and one in the Free for All called "for salty"...show some class and let Phospho speak for himself..he is far more engaging and willing to debate than you.

Re: Mutations deleterious based on environment?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Finally it comes down to it: Argument for sudden design by irreducible complexity.
If even one of these parts is nonfunctional, the whole organ is nonfunctional (you know, irreducibly complex).Not in dispute. I never claimed that any particular part of a living organism was without function, only without purpose.If you use a screwdriver to pound a nail, it has the function of a hammer. That doesn't mean that it has the purpose of a hammer. There's no way to connect function and purpose, without assuming that the purpose and function of something are the same. But, that's just an assumption. What you have yet to prove is that purpose can be reliably inferred from function. If you'll look closely you'll see this is the crux of your argument.Anyway, irreducable complexity is child's-play to refute. Consider a stone arch - irreducibly complex in that the removal of any stone will topple the arch. Ergo, it could not have been built stone by stone, right?Wrong, obviously. Arches are built stone by stone. How does this work? We put up a scaffold to support the arch as we build it. Is the scaffold as efficient or useful as the arch? No, not at all. But the scaffold is sufficiently simple that it can be built piece by piece, used to construct the "irreducibly complex" arch, and then taken away, leaving only the beautifully efficient arch.Then you have to consider that the male and female organ fit together perfectly, as most of us can well attest too!!!Perfectly? Have you talked to women about this? The clitoris is located outside of the vagina, where it becomes rather hard to stimulate with the penis. I wouldn't call that a perfect fit. In fact I'd say it's just good enough to perpetuate the species, which - surprise! - is exactly what the theory evolution would predict.How is it that, in a world prevously of asexual organs only, could sexual organs ever even get a start, and most importantly, why?Because sexual reproduction is great for the adaptation of species. It confers an enormous resitance against disease, for instance (through so-called "Hybrid vigor" and other effects). It maximises the selection of beneficial traits.Why do you assume that human genitals are some unique structure? All vertebrates and most invertibrates have genitals - and the rest usually have gonads, at least. Bacteria exchange genetic information before dividing. It's clear that sexual reproduction arose to the unicellular level. Genitals just evolved to match. They wouldn't have to have evolved from scratch for any animal, much less humans. They simply would have decended with modification, like anything else.Does this stuff really stump you? A minute of thinking "how could this confer a survival advantage?" is generally enough to debunk all your so-called "argument for design."[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 05-13-2003]

Re: Now for phase II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Greetings PLG,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLG ultimately does not want to concede that mutations can confer any benefit but he ignores the meaning of beneficial in the context of natural selection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is not so, please read my posts again.M: I have and this is my interpretation..I will elaborate belowPLG: More side-tracking. The issue is not one outweighing the other, the issue is not so much even the effects of the mutation. Although they do play a part in this because the catagories of mutation are specified by their neutral or deleterious affects. The issue is the NATURE of mutations...what they are, and what they are not.Again, some, very rare deleterious mutations have proven that they can, in certain environments, confer some amount of beneficial side-affects to their bearer. But then again, this is not what I am arguing.M: wrong, the entire issue is the effect of the mutation. If a C to T transition in the Dloop of mitochondria has absolutely no effect on mtDNA replication, mitochondrial gene expression, etc. then the mutation is irrelevant as it has no effect on the organism. It is neutral with regards to evolution. However, any mutation that under a specific environmental condition ehances and indivduals chance at reproduction has a better chance of becoming more frequent. So not all mutations are deleterious...what does it matter if a pseudogene has a C or a T at a given position?PLG:Is this your reasoning for accepting that variation arises from mutation? If so, it is poor reasoning...no insult intended. We are not clones because we did not all come from the same egg. As for other arguments along that line, even identical twins have differences in expressed variant alleles...in short, no one is exactly identical. Even twins have different finger prints, this much I can attest to.M: You are confused PLG, you are talking about non-heritable variation during developement which is responsible for differences among twins. We are not clones because of heritable genetic variation. Thus, the source of heritable variation IS genetic. That is not a strictly evolutionary concept as all genetics relies on this.PLG:
Not so, evolutionary theory needs variation, otherwise it goes no where. There are plenty of top evolutionists that disagree with you, Mayr, for one. As for genetic drift, another false play by evolutionary theorists of the last century, has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. It has to do with population genetics, which also has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.M: You are completely wrong on two fronts. First, I said one does not need endless variation for evolution to occur..not that variaition is uneccessary..Please read my posts more carefully as I was addressing your statement.Population genetics and evolution are the same thing. That you deny this suggests you are either poorly informed about evolutionary biology or someone has purposefully mislead you...Here..from a basic biology textbook for your edification"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986PLGopulation genetics only traces the differences in expressed variant alleles within populations, and that is all.M: Wrong again, population genetics does not trace differences in "expressed" variant alleles. The majority of population genetic markers are non-expressed. Are you sure you know anything about pop gen? Just asking..have you ever taken a course? Read a textbook? Primary literature? I ask because you are making definitive statements that are completely false.PLG:
Evolutionary theory is not about variation, it is about speciation (and with that we open up another can of worms).M: Uh, you have not read Darwin either it seems. Evolutionary theory is exceptionally pre-occupied with variation and how said variation is acted upon by selection resulting in (mostly extinction actually) but also speciation.PLG:
This was my first clue that something was amiss with the theory, everytime I came up to a pivotal point in one portion of evolutionary explanations for proving evolution true, there came a road block. At that roadblock, there magically formed an assumption to overthrow that blockade...answer this, please...M: Because that is how science works. All theories, gravity and relativity for example are tentative. They are constantly being tested and modified as novel discoveries are made. A theory can be overthrown. Evolution is the best supported theory in biological science but is still tentative. You will no more "prove" evolution as you will "prove" the theory of gravity. Assumptins are not magically formed by the way...at least nobody has ever accused me of performing magic in the lab..especially when I drop my tube rack on the floor...doh!PLG:
Pure beneficial mutations are assumed, why? Because without mutations you have no variant alleles. Why does evolution need variant alleles? Because variants are differences between organisms.M: You were doing a bit better up to this point...PLG: But variation does not give rise speciation...since when has one creature ever been observed to change into another creature?M: one creature does not turn into another....Lamark was wrong.However, variation in populations does give rise to new species and this has been observed in the case of bacteria, cichlids, and in various plants among other things.PLG:
So, we have to come up with a definition of speciation that demonstrates evolution is a reality, and so Mayr has...in his own mind, anyway. However, none of these examples change one creature into another, they only demonstrate variation.M: Again, your logic is flawed and also demonstrates you have no grasp of the scientific method.PLG:
We have come up against another wall, so we assume that with enough micro variation, we will eventually observe macro variation...speciation. This is not the case. We have now jumped over what the factual data will allow with invalid and unwarranted assumptions four times, and it is interesting to me that at every wall is when these assumptions are called upon. Then we call upon another one, the assumption that evolution is simply change, this way we can call upon population genetics to demonstrate evolution, but does it really?M: Firs n genetics demonstrates evolution very well in fact..here are just two examples of manySchliewen UK, Tautz D, Paabo S. Sympatric speciation suggested by monophyly of crater lake cichlids.
Nature. 1994 Apr 14;368(6472):629-32.Lenski RE, Winkworth CL, Riley MA.
Rates of DNA Sequence Evolution in Experimental Populations of Escherichia coli During 20,000 Generations.
J Mol Evol. 2003 Apr;56(4):498-508.PLG:
No. It does not demonstrate nor observe one creature turning into another, it only documents variational differences. If we reduce the theory of evolution to what some call micro-evolution, changes within organisms'expressed allelic gene versions, then I agree. But until it can be demonstrated that we have one organism turning into another, there is no evolutionper say. Darwin did not give a thesis on trying to explain variation, but on the divergence between a modern dog and its ancestors. Between a modern elephant and its ancestors, etc.M: This is a typical creationist rant that one organism turning into another which evolution and genetics do not propose. This is neo-Lamarkian thinking and is thus a strawman arguement against evolution.
Find a definition by an evolutionary biologist or geneticist that claims one organism turns into another...your are describing the typical cartoonish version of science uneducated creationsists adhere to.PLG:In short, unless you have a genetic mechanism that can add to a single celled organism, that in time will build blue-prints for arms, legs, sex organs, other organs, a head, mouth, fingers, etc....M: Actually there is...they are called Hox genes...I can't believe you have never heard of thisPLG:
you have no evolution. My argument is this, that there is no such mechanism.M: Your argument is refuted by developmental genesPLG:
All of the supposed "mutations" that I have read in papers have to do with variation adaptation to nylon, or mosquito resistance to DDT are not true mutations. They are only genetic changes induced in one way or another by the organisms cellular or sub-cellular systems. They are not mutations by nature.M: You clearly do not know what a mutation is. So genetic changes leading to an altered phenotype is not mutation?...that will be news to the entire scientific community....please cite the papers you have read by the way so that we can discuss these supposed cellular or sub cellular system changes you claim there is evidence for.PLG:My whole argument, boiled down, I guess, is that what scientists are calling as mutations today are fabrications and mis-callings based upon what the evolutionary theorists of yester-year propagandized the to be in their efforts at keeping the theory alive. What needs to be done is this, these areas need to be looked at again, from the very beginning, identifying these assumptions that are holding the theory together (many and unfounded are they), and test them. But for now, there are just too many, even by science's standards [Kitcher], for the theory of evolution to be considered a valid theory.M: Sorry that my tone is turning snide but you apparently have no background in biology and yet are attempting to make difinitive statements about biological phenomenon.So, your argument boils down to what a geneticisit calls a mutation is a lie propagated by the scientific community to mislead people like you? That is a weak and frankly a paranoid argument.I am not convinced you have any knowledge of what a mutation is or what evolution is..Please define what you think is the scientific and generally accepted (in the scientific community) definition of
1. Mutation. Please provide supporting references for your definition
2. Evolution. Also provide supporting references and in addition please demonstrate how the definition I provided by Futuyma is false and is not accepted by scientists.This should be an easy task considering you claim to be an authority on mutation and evolution.Looking forward to it...Cheers,
M

I described population genetics as a "smokescreen" in the Manifesto, a position I still hold. All genetic changes originate in single cells in single organisms. Get used to it!. saltyM....and mutations in the germ cells of individuals who reproduce are spread in the population i.e. population genetics (unless you believe you are unrelated to your parents) and all mutations in an individuals somatic cells are irrelevant as they will not be passed on...selection acts on mutations that confer a benefit or decrease fitness...learn about it!..it's called genetics...oh yeah, forgot that you claim you don't read....your entire Manifesto is a "smokescreen" for your incredible ignorance...By the way salty, you now hold the record for the most posts with no content I have ever seen on any forum on any subject...do you actually have anything to say or are you just addicted to seeing your words in type?cheers,
M

Hi Admin
Please feel absolutely free to delete all my posts to salty in this thread...but please leave my replies to Phospho as I would like to continue the debate with him. Thanks.cheers,
M

Though this thread has ground to a halt..here is a spanking new article on the nature of some mutations:Published online before print April 25, 2003, 10.1073/pnas.0931463100;
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 100, Issue 10, 5873-5878, May 13, 2003
Evolution
Adaptive evolution of cytochrome c oxidase subunit VIII in anthropoid primates
Allon Goldberg*,, Derek E. Wildman*, Timothy R. Schmidt*, Maik Httemann*, Morris Goodman*,, Mark L. Weiss, and Lawrence I. Grossman*,
* Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics and Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI 48201; Department of Anthropology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202; and National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA 22230Contributed by Morris Goodman, March 12, 2003Cytochrome c oxidase (COX) is a 13-subunit protein complex that catalyzes the last step in mitochondrial electron transfer in mammals. Of the 10 subunits encoded by nuclear DNA (three are mtDNA products), some are expressed as tissue- and/or development-specific isoforms. For COX subunit VIII, previous work showed that expression of the contractile muscle-specific isoform gene, COX8H, is absent in humans and Old World monkeys, and the other isoform gene, COX8L, is expressed ubiquitously. Here, we show that COX8H is transcribed in most primate clades, but its expression is absent in catarrhines, that is, in Old World monkeys and hominids (apes, including humans), having become a pseudogene in the stem of the catarrhines. The ubiquitously expressed isoform, COX8L, underwent nonsynonymous rate acceleration and elevation in the ratio of nonsynonymous/synonymous changes in the stem of anthropoid primates (New World monkeys and catarrhines), possibly setting the stage for loss of the heart-type (H) isoform. The most rapidly evolving region of VIII-L is one that interacts with COX I, suggesting that the changes are functionally coadaptive. Because accelerated rates of nonsynonymous substitutions in anthropoids such as observed for COX8L are also shown by genes for at least 13 other electron transport chain components, these encoded amino acid replacements may be viewed as part of a series of coadaptive changes that optimized the anthropoid biochemical machinery for aerobic energy metabolism. We argue that these changes were linked to the evolution of an expanded neocortex in anthropoid primates.

Didnt you work with Goodman i.e. you published with him?I predict (if he comes back) PLG will say that none of this indicates beneficial mutations or evolution.

I am not a supporter of anyone's "ideas", I am a supporter of the facts. And the facts dictate what is and what is not. A genetic change is not a mutation if it is mediated by the organism. Period.M: Then please be so kind as to show the experimenteal evidence for this if you are a supporter of the facts....there are at least 3 people posting here with Ph.D.'s in molecular biology who do not agree with your so called definition of mutation and it is thus required of you to show the "factual" evidence that you are correct and we wrong...assertions are not evidence.

Variation, as far as I have always read and understood it to be, is the difference between a valley goat and a mountain goat. They are both goats, but the valley specimen has small hooves and a short coat, while its mountain cousin sports larger and wider hooves and a longer coat to deal with the weather at the higher elevations, for example.M: That is phenotypic variation. However, genetic variation is more akin to things likeNature 2000 Dec 7;408(6813):708-13Erratum in:
Nature 2001 Mar 29;410(6828):611Comment in:
Nature. 2000 Dec 7;408(6813):652-3.Mitochondrial genome variation and the origin of modern humans.Ingman M, Kaessmann H, Paabo S, Gyllensten U.Department of Genetics and Pathology, Section of Medical Genetics, University of Uppsala, Sweden.The analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) has been a potent tool in our understanding of human evolution, owing to characteristics such as high copy number, apparent lack of recombination, high substitution rate and maternal mode of inheritance. However, almost all studies of human evolution based on mtDNA sequencing have been confined to the control region, which constitutes less than 7% of the mitochondrial genome. These studies are complicated by the extreme variation in substitution rate between sites, and the consequence of parallel mutations causing difficulties in the estimation of genetic distance and making phylogenetic inferences questionable. Most comprehensive studies of the human mitochondrial molecule have been carried out through restriction-fragment length polymorphism analysis, providing data that are ill suited to estimations of mutation rate and therefore the timing of evolutionary events. Here, to improve the information obtained from the mitochondrial molecule for studies of human evolution, we describe the global mtDNA diversity in humans based on analyses of the complete mtDNA sequence of 53 humans of diverse origins. Our mtDNA data, in comparison with those of a parallel study of the Xq13.3 region in the same individuals, provide a concurrent view on human evolution with respect to the age of modern humans.Can you please demonstrate which of these mutations were mediated by the organism? And all of this variation is due to mutation. Please note, the frequency of these haplotypes vary among populations and vary over time as some human haplotypes have become extinct:Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001 Jan 16;98(2):537-42 Related Articles, LinksErratum in:
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002 Jan 8;99(1):541Comment in:
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Jan 16;98(2):390-1.Mitochondrial DNA sequences in ancient Australians: Implications for modern human origins.Adcock GJ, Dennis ES, Easteal S, Huttley GA, Jermiin LS, Peacock WJ, Thorne A.Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies and John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia.DNA from ancient human remains provides perspectives on the origin of our species and the relationship between molecular and morphological variation. We report analysis of mtDNA from the remains of 10 ancient Australians. These include the morphologically gracile Lake Mungo 3 [ approximately 60 thousand years (ka) before present] and three other gracile individuals from Holocene deposits at Willandra Lakes (

Sorry Nosy....I missed your post.Basically, you have a loss of function of one component COX8H preceded by accelerated mutation in another componenet COX8L. This allows for the loss of COX8H in a specific group as the COX8L function compensates for the loss and in addition, allows for adaptive change in a specific phenotypic trait. The accelerated rate of COX8L evolution (i.e. higher mutation rate) was a source of beneficial mutations.

Hi Phospho,I see this thread is getting extremely long and it becoming difficult to follow the various conversations others are having with you so I will focus only on posts I have addressed to you and you to me to simplify our interaction.Regarding your question about accessing the journal materials, the only way you can access the journals via the web is if your library has an online subscription. I would ask at the front desk if they get Nature and Science online and I will do my best to only refer to articles that are commonly available though it may not always be possible. In those cases I will summarize the authors conclusions and how they arrived at them....let me know if this is ok for you.Second, thank you for admitting that you have not had a biology education. I do not take issue with that but do take issue with you making definitive pronouncements about what science and scientists do i.e. you entire conspiratorial view of molecular biologists trying to promote false definitions of life on others as a practice....I will let you in on a little secret...about 99% of scientists don't give a damn about the public view of their work or have a desire to interact with the public the way I do, Taz does, SLPx does (if I am missing any other practicing scientist please feel free to rip into me .Now to your post:PLG: If I am understanding you correctly, you are talling about a neutral substitution, correct? In which case, it has no effect, and therefore I have no argument against this. My argument is against mutations that do have an affect.M: But you do have an argument against this. You originally stood by the concept that ALL mutations are deleterios....the real FACT is that most mutations are neutral or slightly deleterious and a small fraction are beneficial.PLG:
I agree. I must also state that variation is not an evolutionary concept at all. It was adopted by evolutionary theorists in an attempt to save their theory, but not even that has helped them except to the non-thinking masses (not directed at you).M: I encourage you to then actually read Darwin's Origin of Species as the entire theory and most of Darwin's writings were focused on variation. All evolutionary theorists including those pre-dating Darwin were drawing their conclusions based on observed variation within and among species....evolution is the study of variation over time.PLG: Again, if we define evolution simply as "change", then yes, population genetics is "evolution". But evolution is not simply change (playing word games again), it is about speciation. One organism giving rise to another different kind of organism altogether, and this has never been demonstrated as even a possibility. Every time this is addressed, it is addressed as speculation, and most often in "matter-of-fact" wording when the fact is not codified, nor can be.M: You are actually both playing with words and demonstrating a fatal misconception about evolution. First, if speciation is not change then what is your definition of change? Fixation of a specific allele in a population is as much a part of change as is speciation. Second, and this is one of the oldest creationist claims I have seen...that one organism has to turn into another...this is exactly what evolution says does NOT happen..at least not Darwinian....that is what Lamark and others proposed. Observed speciation events have been observed both in laboratory settings and in the wild:Schliewen UK, Tautz D, Paabo S. Related Articles, Links
Sympatric speciation suggested by monophyly of crater lake cichlids.
Nature. 1994 Apr 14;368(6472):629-32.My earlier post on bacteria also showed evolution over 20,000 generations.Savolainen R, Vepsalainen K. Related Articles, Links
Sympatric speciation through intraspecific social parasitism.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 May 9 [epub ahead of print]in den Bosch HA, Odierna G, Aprea G, Barucca M, Canapa A, Capriglione T, Olmo E.
Karyological and genetic variation in Middle Eastern lacertid lizards, Lacerta laevis and the Lacerta kulzeri complex: a case of chromosomal allopatric speciation.
Chromosome Res. 2003;11(2):165-78.There are many many more examples.But evolutionary theory DOES NOT hypothesize that your cat will turn into a dog.PLG:
What I meant was that the gene pool of a species has boundaries which the species cannot go beyond. This has been known and understood now for nearly 5,000 - 10,000 years of animal husbandry and breeding. As I understood from one of Mayr's books (I can't remember which one right off the top of my head), he acknowledged this fact and then went on to say that mutation originates variation which can push the species over the old gene pool limitations, opening the way for speciation and evolutionary furtherance.To date, I have not read any articles demonstrating that variation can add novelties to a species gene pool that can take it beyond those limits. Do you know of any?M: There are thousands of examples...however, you will have to show real evidence of a limit to the gene pool...this is just plain wrong..what is the limit then? How can that limit explain the old C value paradox? There appears to be no limits on variation in the gene pool that I have ever heard of or been aware of...as to novelties..there are thousands of examples but I will list one of my favorites:Mi S, Lee X, Li X, Veldman GM, Finnerty H, Racie L, LaVallie E, Tang XY, Edouard P, Howes S, Keith JC Jr, McCoy JM. Links
Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein involved in human placental morphogenesis.
Nature. 2000 Feb 17;403(6771):785-9.This retroviral gene entered the primate gene pool and took over the function of syncitiotrophoblast formation and thus is largely responsible for proper placenta formation.Other examples are the tranmission of antibiotic resistance genes among bacteria by conjugation....It is actually rather hard to answer your questions as the premise is incorrect, there are no limits so I am not sure what you actually then mean by novelties beyond those limits..PLG:
OK, so here we go. The bacteria was still a bacteria, was it not? Then it did not speciate. Same goes for cichlids and all of the plants that have been shown to me thus far. The criteria on which the so-called "speciation" must be examined, and in most cases there are so many special circumstances as to warrant a "recall" in my mind.And when I say one species turning into another, I mean one species giving rise to another. I know one animal does not turn into another, so please do not insult my intelligence. This is the problem with evolutionary theory in general. Generalities are spoken when the issue is to avoid the specifics, and specifics are spoken when the issue is to avoid the generalites. Darwin did not wirte a thesis on change for change's sake, but in addressing speciation, therefore addressing evolution as speciation, not change. So why do modern evolutionists cling to "change" being evolution, when evolution is supposed to be all about explaining the origin of species? Genetic change does not give credence to evolution without definite, one-sided evidence, which it does not have.M: On the one hand, you say the bacteria are still bacteria...on the other hand you claim I am insulting your intelligence by claiming you think one organism does not turn into another and also make a completely incomrehensible statement like "And when I say one species turning into another, I mean one species giving rise to another. "Again, why is speciation not change? Do you expect a cichlid to speciate into a non-fish? That seems to be your definition of evolution. Loxodonta africana and Elephas maximus (African and Asian elephants respectively) are both elephants...they are genetically very similar, there was even one successful birth of a hybrid..well sort of successful..it died after 10 days...both are a different species...different genus in fact...if they were to speciate again they would not turn into cichlids..in fact, it has been discovered that the forest elephant, Loxodonta cyclotis, is genetically very different from the savanah elephants Loxodonta africana. They can interbreed but even when presented the opportunity they do not. Morhologically, the forest elephants are adapted to forest life to a mild degree...they are so genetically distinct that they are now given species level distinction..thus, a population of savanah elephants have adapted to the forest and have become genetically and morphologically distinct...this is how evolution works...not the an elephant species giving rise to a dog.PLG: Not so. I was saying that Mayr went outside the scientific method, I am saying that he was not doing science, but making up stories to suit his percieved needs in order to keep the theory alive.M: This is mere assertion..please support it...and while you are at it please show that you know how the scientific method works before you make such foolish assertions.PLG: I have heard of it, and you are missing one small detail. You cannot claim hox genes unless you are going to give some kind of evidence that they, too, can come about from nothing down the evolutionary pathway. This is typical, "matter-of-fact" statements such as the claw of this certain crab was modified from mouth parts in its ancestors. This is not a scientific explanation of anything, it is, instead, a matter-of-fact statement based upon the opinion of the writer, based upon the unconfirmed assumption that evolution is a fact of nature.M: This is a complete logical fallacy. First of all, you are muddling up abiogenesis with evolution because you are stating I have to know what the last common ancester Hox gene was to study Hox genes now which is just plain stupid. Second, I can trace the evolution of Hox genes from simple organisms to complex with the observed increase in complexity of the pathway...look up amphioxous for example..it has a relatively primitive Hox cluster and has a simple segmentation routine and compare to more complex organisms Hox clusters..this does not a priori assume evolution as you state. In the comparison the most parsimonious answer is common ancestry i.e. identity by descent i.e. evolution.....one does not a priori assume evolution is true and then bend the data to fit it...that is why you clearly have a warped and incorrect view of science and the scientific method.PLG:
I will say it again, and then I have to go for now. What needs to be done is the assumption of evolution needs to be dropped from science altogether - every reference to evolutionary theory - and then begin again from scratch. From step one, and then have the process heavily monitored so that it only sticks with the facts. New terminology would undoubtedly be developed, and some old terminology would undoubtedly be dropped.M: No, you have to drop your childish assumption that the big bad scientific establishment is out to get you personally. What you describe as the scientific method is absolutely ass backwards and actually fits much better with how relgious apologetics works...The theory of evolution was developed as the best explanation for the natural variation of life on the planet. It is supported by evidence from multiple varied disciplines from biology to paleontology...it is a theory because it is one of the best tested falsfiable hypotheses in the history of science..it is constantly being challenged by scientists today and revised accordingly..it has a more solid foundation than the theory of gravity or relativity. Thus, until their is a scientific reason presented in the form of data i.e. the genome sequence of a cichlid is more similar to marsupials than other fish would do a good job of killing off evolution..and genetic for that matter...there is no reason to revise science as you would have it.I am still waiting for you to describe how the scientific method works..in attempting your definiton could you include definitions for1: hypothesis
2: theory
3: fact
4: evolutionThroughout your posts to me and to others it is very clear to me that you may be confused about the meanings of each of these. I will be happy to discuss each one with you when you get the time.As to your lack of time and long pauses between posts, don't worry about it..I think everyone here understands that you cannot post here 24 hours a day. I personally would prefer a longer pause and a solid effort to address my questions and rebuttals than a quick response with less content...thus far you seem to be making an honest effort even though I completey disagree with you on most issues so I commend you for it.cheers,
M

[As I said back in Message 169, I'll be deleting non-substantive posts in this thread from now on. That includes off-topic posts, too.

​

Non-substantive or off-topic post deleted. --Admin]

[This message has been edited by Admin, 05-21-2003]

Could this topic please return to topic? I have bumped the last round of posts to Phospholipidgen (most not all posts) past the latest needless repetition of this same dumb diversion.Admin's, I thought only substantive and on topic posts from a certain as-salt-ing personality were to be tolerated in this thread?cheers,M