The Nature of Mutations II

It ended when I pointed out to Mr. Pamboli that if he had read the manifesto he would know what the evidence was for semi-meiosis. I now direct all skeptics to section V-2 The evidence from cytogenetics. As for the ether being responsible for a lapse of 21 postings, let me say that the ether doesn't even exist. salty

Point mutations (base pair substitutions) for all practical purposes can be ignored as having evolutionary significance as they are either neutral or deleterious. One can almost say that the only good point mutations are the ones that return the locus to the wild type. As anyone would know who has read my papers, I believe that, as in ontogeny, the information for phylogeny was present from very early on. The role of chromosome restructuring was to release (derepress) information which could lead to saltational speciation as well as the formation of the higher taxonomic categories.As for your precious ground rules about summarizing, I don't believe in it which is why I insist always on quoting my sources directly as I did M.J.D. White in section V-2 of the Manifesto. If you don't choose to read it and then respond to his judgements, then don't. To paraphrase an old saw : "You can lead a man to the literature, but you cannot make him read". Or, I might add, comprehend.Over at brainstorms, they ignored White as well. I think I know why. It is for the same reason he has been ignored by the whole neoDarwinian camp. His conclusions cannot be reconciled with a sexual model for evolution."All great truths begin as blasphemies" George Bernard Shawsalty

Dear wounded, I have never denied sexual reproduction as a beneficial device. I have in fact extolled it. It is not however, in my studied judgement, capable of supporting macroevolution. salty

A mutation would mean, I would think, any change which was heritable. That does not mean that there was any change in what was already present. It would include any change which was expressed and accordingly recognizable. The basis for that expression may well have been present all along. By the way has anyone invited Borgher back into the fold yet? If not why not? It is not an ultimatum but it is a condition for my further participation. I don't care for closed intellectual shops. Please advise. salty

MM I am on published record, based on the model of ontogeny, to suggest that all of the information for evolution was present very early on in phylogeny. What we have observed in evolution was thus the derepression of an enormous but clearly limited storehouse of potential expression. This idea puts a whole new light on what has been (erroneously) described as convergent evolution. It is nothing more than an elaboration of conclusions drawn by Leo Berg and Pierre Grasse. My 2000 paper, "Ontogeny, phylogeny and the origin of biological information" is available on my home page. I further now believe that the environment has had little or nothing to do with evolution which was driven by internal forces about which little is as yet known. I also don't think this is in any way at odds with our current knowledge of molecular genetics. I have very recently submitted a paper "Is evolution finished?". As you probably have realized by now, I am convinced that it is, again drawing a parallel between phylogeny and ontogeny. salty

M, I don't see what there is to elaborate. Here is an example. The ice ages were times of enormous environmental change that led to many extinctions but very few new forms were produced. At present the environment is probably undergoing the most profound changes in the history of the planet. Where are the responses to these changes? All I see is extinction. Even behabioral evolution is not going on. The poor squirrels can't seem to stop,look and listen. Also, there is no evidence for Lamarckian mechanisms anyhow and since selection, natural or artificial, also isn't producing new species or higher categories, I think we are wasting our time expecting the environment to have any effect on the evolutionary process. The Darwinians may very well be looking for a device that doesn't exist. That doesn't bother me in the least, as I am no Darwinian anyway and never have been. salty

I am not denying mutations at all. I am saying they are not the basis for macroevolution (to include speciation sensu strictu). Evolution, in my perspective, was an emergent phenomenon driven by built in devices about which little is known. I agree completely with Leo Berg that chance has no role in either ontogeny or phylogeny. I have gone one step further to now believe that evolution is largely finished. I also think that a primary cause of extinction may have been the gradual accumulation of deleterious genes as a result of sexual reproduction. Much of this is not new with me and I have depended heavily on the convictions of not only Berg, but Broom, Grasse, Bateson, Goldschmidt and Schindewolf among others. The semi-meiotic hypothesis, to which I still adhere, became necessary as a reasonable alternative to the sexual model for evolution. I realize it may be wrong, but it is based on the reality that the formation of gametes occurs in two steps, the first of which is a valid form of diploid reproduction. If the sole purpose of meiosis was to produce haploid gametes, one would see synapsis followed by crossing-over, followed by a single reduction division. No organism produces gametes this, the simplest conceivable way. I propose that the reason is historical and represents the evolutionary sequence. The first division had to evolve before the second could occur, and accordingly was the primitive mode of reproduction. It has the great advantage of providing structural chromosomal homozygosity in a single cytological step from any chromosomal heterozygote in the germinal line. It remains untested and, if it stays that way much longer, this old war horse may have to return to a laboratory somewhere if I can find one that isn't already committed to the Darwinian model. salty

Of course meiosis results in gametes. did I ever say otherwise? No. I cannot understand why my meaning remains unclear. The fact remains that sex has not and apparently cannot support any significant evolution. salty

Since you continue to allow mad dog Page to harangue you don't need me. adieu, salty

M. I am always happy to present my case and have done so innumerable times. I am very available at my email for any discussion that does not entail character assassination and denigration. Unfortunately, those conditions do not prevail at evcforum, largely through the tolerance of Scott Page. I suspect this is the only forum from which he has not been banned. salty

It is not a question of getting along. It is common ordinary civility which is neither required nor expected at Evcforum. I'll be happy to rejoin your forum when you enforce some standard of respectable communication. Scott Page would not be tolerated anywhere else. In the meantime I remain silent. salty

I am no expert on forum etiquette, but I do not know of another forum that would tolerate some of things that go on here. Also it seems Borgher won't be back, even if he was invited. He and I seem to have set records at brainstorms anyway, the Manifesto with 171 and Borgher with over 120 and still going strong. I'll be happy to return if things change for the better. I don't know about Borgher. salty

That Italian rag has been around since 1919. Scott, you are losing it. Can't you please edit your posts? You are a poster boy for Darwinian intolerance and no credit to this forum. salty

I learned long ago that there are two types I cannot communicate with: Biblical literalists and dedicated, rabid Darwinian atheists like yourself. Keep raving as it is perfect proof of your insecurity. salty

M It was I you asked Pamboli what quasi-Lamarckian meant. It sounds like double-talk to me, sort of like being slightly pregnant. salty