Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9191 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: edwest325
Post Volume: Total: 919,058 Year: 6,315/9,624 Month: 163/240 Week: 10/96 Day: 6/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwin in the Genome
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 185 (28745)
01-09-2003 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by peter borger
12-30-2002 6:50 PM


Hi Peter,
Could you explain (in layman's terms hopefully) why "non-random" mutations bring down NDT?
Thanks
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by peter borger, posted 12-30-2002 6:50 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by peter borger, posted 01-09-2003 6:31 PM Primordial Egg has replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 185 (28787)
01-10-2003 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by peter borger
01-09-2003 6:31 PM


Peter,
quote:
Essentially, Neodarwinian theory holds that evolution = random mutation plus natural selection. If these pillars cannot hold than the theory of evolution has no foundation, and all explanations that rely on it are invalid.
I was under the impression that the Neo-Darwinian synthesis was about the marriage of evolution (natural selection with variation) and genetics. I haven't been able to find a definition which states that random mutation at the level of the genome is essential for NDT, maybe you could point me to a definition (see qu 1 below)?
Indeed, from looking at Dr Carporale's comments on this thread, and the synopsis of the book it seems to suggest to me that there are deeper level natural selection mechanisms working on the genome itself, which, if anything, seems to strengthen the Darwinian paradigm.
(From the synopsis:
It appears that genomes tend to endure when their most likely mutations create effective responses to their most likely challenges. Thus frequent mutation in the area of the genome that encodes the immune system, for example, is likely to be beneficial, whereas changes that encode for "housekeeping" functions of the organism, such as respiration, can quickly be fatal. The ability to focus mutation in certain parts of the genome and keep it away from other parts enables the organism to "pre-adapt" to forthcoming changes in its environment, greatly accelerating its evolution. In fact, all of these molecular strategies are powerful drivers of evolution, as natural selection operates upon them, spurring organisms to become more efficient at evolving. Thus genome structure emerges from seeming randomness. Caporale explains all these mechanisms dynamically with rigor and clarity. She also spells out their greater implications, including the importance of diversity for survival (our own diversity, plus general biodiversity), the possibility of new types of targets for medicine (attacking the "strategies" of microbes and tumors), and the need for caution in the face of proposals to "fix" "errors" in a human genome. Most importantly, by exploring the genome and its evolutionary strategies in wonderful detail, Caporale disperses the nagging doubt that natural selection could have produced human life unassisted. Indeed, the exciting work going on right now in this area opens our minds to this possibility and strengthens the Darwinian paradigm.
)
...and I'm guessing here, but from the very title of the book and the synopsis / Dr C's website (looks to be down at the minute - it was fine yesterday) that evolutionary (NS + variation) pressures are detected in the mutations themselves, suggesting some kind of higher order darwinian process going on - analagous to the fact that evolution itself is not a random process, but arises as a result of random mutations and selection. In the same way, "non-random" mutations in themselves arise from random mechanisms + variation (can someone correct me if I've misunderstood anything here?), via mechanisms which I gather are discussed in the book.
So a few questions to clarify my understanding:
1) What is the reasoning / background behind your assertion that NDT requires random mutations at the level of the genome?
2) If non-random mutations were an emergent property of random processes + NS occuring at a different scale (for want of a better word) then how would this affect your conjecture?
3) Does your conjecture point to design? If so, how is this different from Paley's blind watchmaker idea applied to non-random mutations?
4) To be honest, its very difficult to see where you make a clear summary of your entire conjectural edifice - NRM, the multi-purpose genome and the "Grand Unified Theory of Biology". I don't know what it is you refer to. Would it be possible for you to describe the salient points of the whole shebang, (or at least point me to the relevant posts) - or at the very least provide a working definition of the terms?
PE
------------------
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense - Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by peter borger, posted 01-09-2003 6:31 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by peter borger, posted 01-10-2003 5:32 AM Primordial Egg has replied
 Message 32 by Brad McFall, posted 01-13-2003 9:49 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 185 (28790)
01-10-2003 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by peter borger
01-10-2003 5:32 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear PE,
I read Dr Caporale's book. I know what it holds and I know what it implicates,
Best wishes,
Peter

and are you able to share this knowledge? I'm sure Dr Caporale would be interested.
PE
edit typos
PS is this your response to my questions?
[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 01-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by peter borger, posted 01-10-2003 5:32 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by peter borger, posted 01-12-2003 8:11 PM Primordial Egg has replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 185 (29102)
01-14-2003 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by peter borger
01-12-2003 8:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Primordial,
PE: and are you able to share this knowledge? I'm sure Dr Caporale would be interested.
PB: I discussed the consequences of non-random mutations for over six months now. All info can be found on this board. I've contacted Dr Caporale, and she concurs that such mutations indeed have implications for phylogenetics.
I already spelled out on this board in a letter to Dr Page how non-random mutations invalidate molecular evidence of common descent. It used to be the best evidence of molecular evolution, but due to the existence of non-random mutations not any more. For instance, the ZFY region is better exlained by NRM.
Not only Dr Caporale, but the entire evolutionary community should be interested.
Best wishes,
Peter
"Evolution? NO, GUToB!"
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-13-2003]

Peter,
This is a very childish response, given that I would have expected you to be more than willing to post your conjecture as many times as possible, if you genuinely believed it had any value...something about the action of "creatons" on a "morphogenetic field" wasn't it?
Given your obvious reluctance to describe your conjecture or subject it to any sort of scrutiny, your trite responses ("I have read the book and I know what it contains"), your dishonest and specious arguments on this thread, your persistent misunderstandings of the concepts you try to refute and your continual trolling, its very difficult to avoid the conclusion that you are simply seeking attention ("my theory's the best! my theory's the best!") without any kind of supporting argument or evidence. In short, you have no cogent theory which will revolutionise biology.
My own opinion of your motives is that if you repeat this often enough, you're fervently hoping that it may get noticed by one of the less honourable creation science research foundations in the US who might give you a fat funding cheque for your "research" - if so, I don't know whether to wish you luck or not.
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by peter borger, posted 01-12-2003 8:11 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by peter borger, posted 01-14-2003 6:20 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024