|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: TOE and the Reasons for Doubt | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
But I don't agree -particularly if we are calculating the probability of a past event- that it is invalid to use a target. The fruitfly got his antenna. The gene does exist. There is a calculable probability to that. It remains unaffected by the idea that the fruitfly may have got something else. The probability of all past events is 1. They have happened. The a priori possibility of their happening is completely meaningless. See my previous post on this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The fact remains that Kimura showed from observed data that natural selection plays only a minor role in molecular evolution. And the fact remains that nothing he said supports your inane babble about "genomes being inexorably strafed into nonsense by mutations", nor your apparent pretense in post #123 that Kimura's findings are opposed to the proposition that natural selection removes deleterious mutations from the gene pool. As to your latest blather, "only a minor role" are weasel words, which are untrue without extensive qualification. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Kaichos Man writes: I have no doubt that you've read it. But you obviously didn't understand it: "The Neutral theory asserts that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of Protein and DNA sequences, are caused not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutants." Motoo Kimura, The Neutral Theory of Evolution You're misinterpreting what he's saying. Rather than me explaining it, I think if you just read the rest of the paragraph that you'll see he's not saying anything like you think he is. Here's the rest of it:
Motoo Kimura writes: The theory does not deny the role of natural selection in determining the course of adaptive evolution, but it assumes that only a minute fraction of DNA changes in evolution are adaptive in nature, while the great majority of phenotypically silent molecular substitutions exert no significant influence on survival and reproduction and drift randomly through the species. All he's saying is that in recognition of the fact that the greater portion of DNA is non-coding, therefore the greater portion of random mutations will occur in non-coding regions and so will have no effect on the phenotype. It's in the next paragraph ("The neutral theory also asserts...") that he gets to the interesting stuff. AbE: Mr Jack in Message 440 correctly points out that there are other types of changes at the DNA level that do not result in any change in the organism itself. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Add AbE sentence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Kaichos Man writes: I feel very, very dubious about this answer, Percey. If you can say "the principle of successive selection is best illustrated with a single specific target", why can't I say "the problem of specificity from randomness is best illustrated with a single specific target"? I wasn't objecting to anything you said about your example. I was objecting to your accusation that Dawkins misrepresented his weasel program as a model of biological evolution. I understand that you think Dawkins' simple weasel program and your fruit fly example are somehow commenting on the same or similar points, but they do not. Dawkins' program is an illustration of how successive selection upon random change can arrive at a desired result far, far more quickly than mere successive random change alone. The program attempts to address the common misunderstanding that evolution is purely random, hopefully making clear the error in drawing the associated conclusion that it would take literally forever to arrive at even a simple cell, let alone an eye or a kidney. But your fruit fly antennae example is making a different point. It attempts to make the case that the fruit fly antennae's evolution is very unlikely even when the relevant genes are already very close to the necessary state. Since you're drawing your example from the real world (as opposed to typing monkeys) you can't ignore that evolution has no target. You can't talk about improvement by 0.5% or whatever, because that assumes direction. You can't talk about NS kicking in or being enabled, because NS applies 24x7. If you're going to falsify evolution you have to falsify it based upon principles it actually holds, not upon ones you misunderstand it as holding. I haven't gone back and reread the responses to your Message 140, but I assume others have already pointed out the problems with your example. But even if it's redundant, just let me point out a couple things. First, 25 random mutations in a single gene is devastating. The number of mutations in your average reproduction is probably more on the order of 10 across the *entire* genome. You need to reconstruct your example using a reasonable number of mutations in the gene, like one, or perhaps two. Second, you failed to consider that nature is conducting a genetic experiment with every reproductive event, and in the case of fruit flies that has got to be billions and billions and billions of experiments per year. Since evolution keeps the good mutations and discards the bad ones, populations are able to maintain adaptation to their environment, as long as the environment doesn't change too fast. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Minor clarification made to last para.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
All he's saying is that in recognition of the fact that the greater portion of DNA is non-coding, therefore the greater portion of random mutations will occur in non-coding regions and so will have no effect on the phenotype. It's in the next paragraph ("The neutral theory also asserts...") that he gets to the interesting stuff. I don't believe he's only talking about non-coding changes. There are two other classes of silent (or almost silent) change: firstly, most amino acids are coded for by multiple codons - these changes have a minimal effect* on the organism - and, secondly, many amino acid substitutions don't have much effect at all. In many parts of a protein substituting luecine for isoleucine will make no measurably difference to the function, similarly glutamate for aspartate, etc
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3882 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure which example you gave that you're talking about now.
Evolution itself doesn't have a "there", but Dawkin's program is a toy and doesn't simulate biological evolution. It simulates and displays the power of random selection. If you try to say evolution wants to create a crocoduck, or a teenage mutant ninja turtle, or that you should see pokemons in the real world, you are mistaken and you will get called on it. If you try to say evolution can't get from a fly to a bat, you'll be told that no - it can't, and it doesn't need to. Frankly, you appear to misunderstand the weasel program and what it means, still. Sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4508 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
As to your latest blather, "only a minor role" are weasel words, which are untrue without extensive qualification "The Neutral theory asserts that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of Protein and DNA sequences, are caused not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutants." Motoo Kimura If, according to Kimura, the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level are caused by drift, what kind of role does that leave Darwinian selection? Minor, perhaps? "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Kaichos Man writes: "The Neutral theory asserts that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of Protein and DNA sequences, are caused not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutants." Motoo Kimura If, according to Kimura, the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level are caused by drift, what kind of role does that leave Darwinian selection? Minor, perhaps? You're apparently certain that Kimura doesn't accept evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, and for some reason you've latched onto this sentence as the place where Kimura says this. But you couldn't be more wrong. All Kimura is saying here is that the vast majority of change at the molecular level has no effect at the phenotypic level. You want to look to Kimura's next paragraph to find something more easily misinterpreted to say what you mistakenly think he believes. That's the paragraph that begins, "The neutral theory also asserts..." Check it out:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
"The Neutral theory asserts that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of Protein and DNA sequences, are caused not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutants." Motoo Kimura Yes, we all agree with what he said. Where you pass into gibbering lunacy is where you pretend that you know what he means. For example, when you pretended that his meaning was that of "genomes being inexorably strafed into nonsense by mutations". I mean, that was just so much bullshit, wasn't it?
If, according to Kimura, the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level are caused by drift, what kind of role does that leave Darwinian selection? Minor, perhaps? No. For as he wrote:
The theory does not deny the role of natural selection in determining the course of adaptive evolution, but it assumes that only a minute fraction of DNA changes in evolution are adaptive in nature, while the great majority of phenotypically silent molecular substitutions exert no significant influence on survival and reproduction and drift randomly through the species. Got that? He says that natural selection determines the course of adaptive evolution, whereas genetic drift exerts no significant influence. So does that leave Darwinian selection as a "minor" influence, according to Kimura? Got that? If you'd actually bothered to read Kimura, you'd know how very different his ideas are from yours. But you haven't, have you? If you'd read what he had to say, you would doubtless be frothing and foaming about how he's one of those evil Darwinists. If you understood the full meaning of what he said you'd be apoleptic. It is his work that allows evolutionists like me to say that genetics proves that Darwin was right. It ought to drive you into screaming fits. But you haven't read it, have you? You don't know how his ideas stand as the basis of every time every evolutionist says "molecular phylogeny proves that we're right". You have no idea, do you? You poor creationists ought to be denouncing all his works like billy-oh --- if only you'd read them. But instead of reading what he said, all you know about him is what you tell one another you think that he meant, so you proclaim him as your savior. I would find this sad except that I have a dark sense of humor, so instead I find it very, very funny. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5162 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Huntard wrote:
Creation website much? Peg, tell me honestly please (not that you wouldn't, but meh), you got this from creationist websites, yes? Even after you were told in the Why are there no human apes alive today? thread that some of those quotes are false (by Percy, in Message 102), you still bring them out here. Why do that, Peg? First of all you cannot prove that you are correct by your arrogant mode, as I notice you keep on assuming that you are very knowledgeable, but the fact is you are an ignorant and it shows. What if peq will say yes, what if he will say that he got it from people who believe in creation. Does it prove that he is wrong? If your answer is yes it only shows that you are an arrogant closed minded individual. Edited by traste, : add punctation Edited by traste, : add punctuation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
traste writes:
Heh. No, it wouldn't prove she was wrong. It would be a very very very strong indication they are quotemines though. Since I haven't really seen a creationist quote anything from an evolutionary scientist honestly, ever. First of all you cannot prove that you are correct by your arrogant mode, as I notice you keep on assuming that you are very knowledgeable, but the fact is you are an ignorant and it shows. What if peq will say yes, what if he will say that he got it from people who believe in creation. Does it prove that he is wrong? If your answer is yes it only shows that you are an arrogant closed minded individual. I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4949 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
are they called quote mines because they are explosive to the TOE?
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, page154. I wonder what darwin would think today
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Peg writes:
No, they are called quotemines because they are used to distort the words of someone, who is not in any way supporting the view the person who is quoteminng him is trying to put forward.
are they called quote mines because they are explosive to the TOE? I wonder what darwin would think today
That he was absolutely right, and that no such example has ever been found. I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4949 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
That he was absolutely right, and that no such example has ever been found. can the living cell survive without all its parts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Just for clarification, the Darwin quote belongs in a different category from purposeful distortion by taking out of context. Darwin believed it, he would still believe it today, and all other biologists believe it, too, as do we.
The creationist fallacy in this case is that they misinterpret the quote as indicating that Darwin doubted his own theory, rather than just being an example of the standard scientific practice of seeking possible falsifications of one's theory. --Percy AbE: I urge resisting temptation before embarking upon the same explanation already offered many times to no avail. There's apparently no light bulb to go on. Edited by Percy, : AbE.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024