The GUToB

Dear All,Because I got a lot of requests to explain what the GUToB holds, here I post my ideas about a General and Universal Theory of Biology. It includes the multipurpose genome (MPG) and non-random mutations (NRM). For both MPG and NRM biological evidence has been presented on this board.Why do we need a new biological theory?As demonstrated on this site evolutionism can readily be falsified on the level of the genome and thus cannot be the right hypothesis to explain life on earth in all its variation. Why? Evolutionism supposed to have its foundations in molecular biology and genetics, and when the theory can be falsified at this level it lacks a proper foundation and thus cannot be a good theory. Therefore, I introduced the concept of the multipurpose genome.The concept of a multipurpose genome is not entirely new since a similar concept has been introduced by P. Scheele in his book ‘Degeneration’ (http://www.evolution-is-degeneration.com) and by L. Spetner in his book ‘Not by Chance’.In my opinion their hypotheses cannot explain all biological observations --like sequence similarities/shared mutations within related species-- and so it cannot be complete.Therefore I also introduced and provided scientific evidence for non-random mutations. The non-random mutations should be conceived as non-random with respect to nucleotide and position. At present they should not be conceived as deliberately introduced as a response to environmental change, since that cannot be scientifically proven (although directed mutations have been observed in cone snail). In genetics non-random mutations are generally referred to as hot-spots. This type of mutations may have important implications for common descent (see my mailing # 184 in ‘molecular genetic evidence against random mutation’ and is still open for discussion). In conjunction with non-random mutation the idea of a multipurpose genome are able to explain all biological phenomena, including genetic redundancies and phylogenetics. (For scientific back-up for NRM see also Dr Caporale's book 'Darwin in the Genome' (ISBN 0-07-137822-7).The concept 'multipurpose genome' holds that:1) DNA sequences —although plastic-- are stable throughout time,2) organisms demonstrate genetic redundancies that reside in the genome without selective constraint,3) mechanism for adaptive phenotypes and variation are preexisting and due to duplication and/or shuffling of preexisting DNA elements —either genes or other non-coding elements-- that affect gene expression, or due to loss of (redundant) genes, and through RNA editing,4) the function of natural selection is to remove degenerate organisms, and5) there is/has been creation (=creaton interactions with matter in a morphogenetic field giving rise to genes and genetic programs in preexisting genetic programs) of multipurpose genomes.Predictions:1) predicts that within species we do not see abundant variation with respect to genes, and usually such genetic alterations are neutral or degenerate (although distinct alleles can be expected through the principle of degeneration, which is in effect the action of entropy, the major mechanism is NRM).
It also predicts that all organism --even the simplest-- have an elaborate and accurate mechanism to counteract mutations.2) predicts that a considerable part of the genes of any organism can be knocked out without being lethal.3) predicts that adaptive phenotypes of organism do never demonstrate new genes that are unrelated to other genes.4) predicts that organism lacking vital DNA elements are selected against.5) predicts that there should be organisms that have not undergone genetic changes (yet).Falsification:1) The GUToB will be falsified by the observation of the evolution of new genes unrelated to preexisting genes.Of course, a novel theory is subject to changes. I invite everbody to think about it and to have constructive comments.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-24-2003][This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-27-2003][This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-14-2003]

Your reply to my question about common descent please. Can your theory account for the fossil record? I am much more interested in how you would explain the evolution of a lineage, say, from cockroaches to termites and from your arthropod archetype with the Swiss army knife genome into insects/crustaceans/arachnids/myriapods.Lets see... if derived groups are degenerates from a genome with wider possibilities, then surviving members of the ancestral groups should have relicts of that MPG. By your theory I predict we will find termite genes in the cockroach genome.

Interesting point, Andya. Does Borger's hypothesis imply that those forms which appear earlier in the fossil record should have more complete versions of the swiss armyknife genome and therefore have at least the same number or more potentially functional genes or genetic "information" in their genomes compared with derived species which appear later in the fossil record? If the redundant genes are converted to new functional genes in a derived species, the ancestor and descendent should have the same total number of potential genes or "genetic information". If the derived species is the result of "devolution" and the loss of "genetic information" then the descendent species should have fewer potentially functional genes or "genetic information".For example, coelacanths appear in the fossil record about 400 million years ago. Different, but still identifiably coelacanth species still exist. Coelacanths appeared before tetrapods. So, for example, humans, as a (distantly) derived species from a common fishlike ancestor with coelacanths, should have the same or fewer genes or "genetic information" than coelacanths.Is this logic consistent with Borgers gutob? Is it a valid test of his hypothesis?

Dr Borger? Your move.

Dear Andya,I didn't think about this one a lot, but you are free to give it your interpretation. Do some predictions and see whether it can hold. In that way we are probably able to determine the borders between the created kinds.
Best wishes,
Peter

Created kinds? Discarding all pretence of science now Borger?

Dear WJ,Okay, for you I should have said: original MPGs,Best wishes,
Peter

peter borger,I took a look at the web site you directed us to. Rather interesting as it seems to be either accidenty or deliberatly miss interperating current theories!Two statements made by the web site about the degeneration theory."their variants can never evolve beyond the natural borders of their type""a new species is genetically poorer, or is even a form of degeneration compared to their ancestors"Ok, what about the humble blackbery plant. It was introduced into Australia over 100 years ago, well within recorded history. All the parent plands were diploid. There are now tetraploid plants in Australia. These are in effect new species as they are incapable of producing viable offspring with there ancaestors. They contain twice as much DNA as there ancestors! So what are their "natural borders"? So is doubling the genetic material degeneration?"(Natural) selection is always making genetic information poorer."These new "species" of blackberry are more virulent than thier ancestors and are replacing them in many cases. So isn't natural selection selecting something with more genetic information.Bald ape

Dear BA,BA: I took a look at the web site you directed us to. Rather interesting as it seems to be either accidenty or deliberatly miss interperating current theories!Two statements made by the web site about the degeneration theory."their variants can never evolve beyond the natural borders of their type""a new species is genetically poorer, or is even a form of degeneration compared to their ancestors"Ok, what about the humble blackbery plant. It was introduced into Australia over 100 years ago, well within recorded history. All the parent plands were diploid. There are now tetraploid plants in Australia. These are in effect new species as they are incapable of producing viable offspring with there ancaestors. They contain twice as much DNA as there ancestors! So what are their "natural borders"? So is doubling the genetic material degeneration?PB: These are NO new species. All info has been duplicated and is present as N=4. So what, every dividing cell goes through a stage of n=4 (G2 stage). Does that imply that you are made up of two distinct organisms?"(Natural) selection is always making genetic information poorer."BA: These new "species" of blackberry are more virulent than thier ancestors and are replacing them in many cases. So isn't natural selection selecting something with more genetic information.PB: The info has been duplicated. If you copy a manuscript containing 1000 bits of info, do you end up having 2000 bits of information? I don't think so. However, such plants may be stronger --virulent?-- than the WT due to more backup copies of genes and enhanced expression.And as I said in the GUToB thread, the vision that adaptive mutations may be explained by merely loss of info (specificity) is not entirely correct (although often observd in microorganism). Therefore, I introduced the GUToB.Best wishes,
Peter

http://EvC Forum: for Conspirator -->EvC Forum: for Conspirator

PB says: "These are NO new species. All info has been duplicated and is present as N=4. So what, every dividing cell goes through a stage of n=4 (G2 stage). Does that imply that you are made up of two distinct organisms?"I don't know about the specifics of tetraploid blackberries in Australia but, if BA's claims that the tetraploid version is unable to produce fertile offspring from backcrossing with the ancestral species, then it fits the usual definition of a different species. Are you now redefining "species"? Is there now some "information" based definition of species? PB you do realise that the tetraploid blackberries have N=4 somatic cells?

Hi WJ,Interesting questions.However, are you suggesting that infertile organism --whatever the reason for infertility-- do not belong to the same species?I am aware that all the cells from such plants are N=4. That's what makes them so robust. There have been N=1 plants artifially created in the lab. These are very weak plants. Still they are the same species, I guess.best wishes,
Peter

I am suggesting that the failure to produce a significant proportion of fertile offspring from individuals of two different populations is conventionally accepted as evidence that the populations represent two different species. I assume that the tetraploid blackberries are fertile amongst themselves.

dear WJ,Where did you get the impression that I advocate conventional interpretations of species?Best wishes,
peter

What does degenerate mean, and it's counterpart adaptive phenotype?I noticed that in stating the general and universal biological theory you have not once used the word reproduction, or something similar. It seems you have lost touch with the most basic observations of organisms that way. That organisms reproduce, that DNA reproduces.In restating the function of NS, you only mentioned death of the unfit (removing degenerates), where Darwinists largely only mention survival of the fit in stating the function of NS. So then Scheele is perceived by the public as an NS pessimist or negativist, and Darwinists are perceived as NS optimists or positivists.Of course there are 2 sides to the coin of NS, survival of the fit, death of the unfit.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu