Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,227 Year: 5,484/9,624 Month: 509/323 Week: 6/143 Day: 6/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Criticizing neo-Darwinism
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 239 of 309 (463534)
04-17-2008 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Percy
04-16-2008 6:37 PM


Re: NWR's 'Invasive theory'
The inability of selection to operate on pseudogenes would mean the likelihood of preservation of useful mutations is tiny, wouldn't it? Like way tiny? Like tornado through a junkyard tiny?
Are you suggesting that the theoritical evolution of genes and genetic complexity stems from natural selection?
What basis do you have for thinking that, if that's even the case?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Percy, posted 04-16-2008 6:37 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Wounded King, posted 04-18-2008 3:31 AM randman has replied
 Message 241 by Percy, posted 04-18-2008 6:58 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 242 of 309 (463583)
04-18-2008 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Wounded King
04-18-2008 3:31 AM


Re: Back to basics
adaptive evolution is principally the result of Random Mutation and Natural Selection acting on a population
Of course, but I can't tell you how often when someone not an evo points this out, someone from your camp drones on how this isn't the case.....but more to this point for this thread, the particular comment is directed to the evolution of genes and genetic complexity. I agree that standard evo theory suggests genetic evolution and complexity evolved along with morphological evolution and complexity. The standard way of thinking about this is that a mutation occurs and is expressed, confers an advantage and so natural selection preserves the mutation. In this manner then, genetic evolution proceeds alongside of morphologocal evolution.
My comment was just to get this on record because I didn't want someone to turn around and suggest, no, evo theory doesn't say this, which is what has happened on some other forums when I brought this up.
However, the problem with this story is it doesn't fit the facts. We see massive genetic complexity in very simple organisms with genes and genetic sequences for complex functions the simple organisms don't have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Wounded King, posted 04-18-2008 3:31 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 04-18-2008 3:59 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 244 of 309 (463597)
04-18-2008 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Percy
04-18-2008 3:59 PM


Re: Back to basics
Interesting.....in order to answer your question, I need to know what you mean by "evolution."
Do you mean mere heritable change?
Or do you mean ToE?
And if you mean ToE, please describe your idea on how genetic and morphological evolution proceed under that theory? Not the whole shebang, but a basic overview....in other words do you agree with WK that:
adaptive evolution is principally the result of Random Mutation and Natural Selection acting on a population

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 04-18-2008 3:59 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Percy, posted 04-18-2008 5:40 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 246 of 309 (463608)
04-18-2008 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Percy
04-18-2008 5:40 PM


Re: Back to basics
There is no way to answer your question until you define what you mean by evolution.
If, for example, you mean "evolution" simply means heritable change, then the answer is no. Neither is Young Earth Creationism inconsistent with evolution then either, nor Intelligent Design, nor just about any scenario I have heard.
So if you want your question answered, please state what you mean by "evolution"?
If by evolution, you are talking about evo theory, then you still need to answer the questions so we don't have a response from you claiming, well, you don't understand evo theory.
I think asking if you agree with WK's comments is a reasonable request so we can move forward.
Why are you hesitant to answer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Percy, posted 04-18-2008 5:40 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Percy, posted 04-18-2008 7:48 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 247 of 309 (463613)
04-18-2008 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Wounded King
04-18-2008 3:31 AM


Re: Back to basics
that adaptive evolution is principally the result of Random Mutation and Natural Selection acting on a population
A little impatient to await your response, I thought I'd add more clarity. I agree that your statement is standard evo theory. I would also add it necessarily couples genetic and morphological evolution together with natural selection conserving genetic mutations with morphological expression into a population group, or so the theory goes.
The problem is we don't really see such a coupling in reality. The thinking is that genetic mutations for specific traits would arise via mutation and that mutation adding a morphological trait conferring an advantage or at least not a disadvantage and so forth..... So you would think that we would see genetic expressions arise at the same time when the morphological traits arise. We should see genetic sequences for complex nerve function arise, for example, when complex nerve function was evolving.
Conversely, it would be puzzling to see such genetic sequences in species that have no complex nerve function. Clearly, natural selection could not be a force to select for complex nerve function since no complex nerve function exists.
Likewise, though there could be exceptions, you should expect to find increasing genetic complexity with increasing morphological complexity, and yet this is not the case either. In fact, some studies indicate many animal lineages evolved morphological complexity through a "massive loss of genes" rather than slow accumulation of them through random mutation and natural selection.
Indeed the most primitive metazoan (the theoritical common metazoan ancestor) is thought to be incredibly complex genetically, perhaps as much as human beings.
So when you step back and lookn at the data, it's not a picture of random mutation conferring morphological complexity that persists via natural selection. Random mutation and natural selection is a slow process, indicating gradual accumulation of genes coupled with morphological novelty.
That's not what the data shows, however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Wounded King, posted 04-18-2008 3:31 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Blue Jay, posted 04-18-2008 7:14 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 249 of 309 (463615)
04-18-2008 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Blue Jay
04-18-2008 7:14 PM


Re: Back to basics
Moving the goal-posts, eh?
I will say there is evidence that suggests, assuming evo assumptions of common descent mind you for sake of argument, that the theoritical common metazoan ncestor likely had genetic sequences associated with complex nerve function and that certainly such sequences exist in invertebrates.
As far as linking the paper, I am not allowed to link it here, but you can probably find it and link it.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Blue Jay, posted 04-18-2008 7:14 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Blue Jay, posted 04-18-2008 8:07 PM randman has replied
 Message 252 by molbiogirl, posted 04-18-2008 11:04 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 253 of 309 (463655)
04-18-2008 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by molbiogirl
04-18-2008 11:04 PM


Re: Back to basics
Not grabbing at anything. You know full well what the study is so don't make false accusations.....the simple truth is this site is censored according to the perception of the owner.
So cut the crap. If you have some integrity, link the paper and discuss the findings. If not, don't hide behind false accusations of hiding behind anything. you know full well I cannot link the study without being banned and may well be banned for merely mentioning it, despite it being a peer-reviewed paper by evos.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by molbiogirl, posted 04-18-2008 11:04 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-19-2008 1:04 AM randman has replied
 Message 259 by Admin, posted 04-19-2008 7:51 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 254 of 309 (463656)
04-18-2008 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Blue Jay
04-18-2008 8:07 PM


Re: Back to basics
Why do you have such an aversion to telling us relevant data? I'm going to go out on a limb and says it's because there is no relevant data, and you're just spouting nonsense.
The data is there and you can find it quite easily.....you can even find where I've discussed it here at EvC or just do some googling.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Blue Jay, posted 04-18-2008 8:07 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Admin, posted 04-19-2008 8:03 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 255 of 309 (463658)
04-18-2008 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Percy
04-18-2008 7:48 PM


Re: Back to basics
You'll have to tell me what you mean by "evo theory" if it is important for understanding you.
I am referring to the same thing WK referred to when he wrote this:
that adaptive evolution is principally the result of Random Mutation and Natural Selection acting on a population
Is that your perception of what "adaptive evolution is principally"?
simple and easy question for you.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Percy, posted 04-18-2008 7:48 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Percy, posted 04-19-2008 8:06 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 257 of 309 (463682)
04-19-2008 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Adminnemooseus
04-19-2008 1:04 AM


Re: Randman's reluctance to supply a link
I thought you participated in the "discussion" of this link but maybe it was just percy and someone else. Here is the link per your request (though not in email form).
Percy's comments in admin mode suggest to me that linking this paper would not be acceptable to him. I would expect some here though to be familiar with the evidence mentioned, as on another thread there was an unchallenged comment:
the complexity of the rest of the animal kingdom being assumed to be due to the complexity of the common ancestor.
To be honest, it's not clear to me why the findings of this paper were deemed off-limits for it's own thread. Percy insisted I was misinterpreting it, but most of what I brought up was just quoting the paper itself.
My hope was that there would be sufficient familiarity with the evidence in this paper and elsewhere to bring up the facts relative to this thread without providing the link. It seems clear to me that the findings of this paper and elsewhere are relevant to genetic evolution.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-19-2008 1:04 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Admin, posted 04-19-2008 8:41 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 258 of 309 (463685)
04-19-2008 1:40 AM


this may be of interest...
An important general implication that flows from these data is that gene loss may occur stochastically. If the genes in a pathway function only in that pathway, then one might expect that entire pathways would disappear following loss of one key component. However, the Hydra data appear to contradict this; most of the intracellular intermediates of Toll/TLR signaling are present despite loss of all of the major receptor types (both Toll/TLR and the IL-1R types known from more basal cnidarians are apparently absent from Hydra). Moreover, simple comparisons between related animals (for example, Nematostella versus Acropora) are unlikely to be informative in terms of understanding the origins of genes [50] - loss of a gene from Nematostella and loss of a specific function in the indirect developing urchin seems more likely than the independent co-option of the same protein to related roles in Acropora and a direct developing urchin. Stochastic loss underlying the distribution patterns of genes across the Metazoa may account for some cases of assumed lateral gene transfer - chance retention of an ancestral gene in one or a few animal lineages might easily be confused with lateral transfer.
Application Unavailable | Springer Nature
It's worth noting the comment that "chance retention of an ancestral gene in one or a few animal lineages might easily be confused with lateral transfer." As to how this relates to NWR's theory of pseudogenes evolving without natural selection and then parts becoming coding genes for specific functions is that his idea, while not agreeing with it, at least holds out some promise of genetic complexity building up without morphological complexity so that from a position of massive genetic complexity, many animal lineages could evolve via LOSS of genes.
Keep in mind I am not arguing he is correct, but I do think some answer besides traditional NeoDarwinism of a gradual evolution of genes via random mutation and natural selection is necessary and am glad to see nwr moving away from the NeoDarwinian paradigm.
This article discusses these sorts of findings and proposes an alternative to NeoDarwinism for gene evolution.
http://www.machanaim.org/...f/nauka-rel/universal_genome.htm
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Wounded King, posted 04-19-2008 12:36 PM randman 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