Are mutations enough to explain natural selection?

Dear Eximius,
I recommend you to read some of my mailings first. Than you will understand that the concept of natural selection is NOT always valid. In particular at the level of the genome. As discussed before, genetic redundancies cannot be explained by natural selection. An example that has been discussed on this forum are the redundant alpha-actinin genes. To explain them one has to introduce neutral purifying selection. It is a contradictio in terminis. In the orthodox evolutionary community genetic redundancies have been met with a lot of disbelief, since they were found not to be associated with gene duplicaton and do not mutate more rapidly than essential genes. And thus, genetic redundancies defy evolutionism. In other words, evolution trough random mutations and selection cannot be true. I prefer the GUToB, since it is explanatory in these matters.Best wishes,
Peter(And don't read to much of Dawkins. It can be demonstrated that he doesn't even know the most elementary stuff on DNA. Above all things I prefer truth)[This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-01-2003]

Dear Schraf,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------(And don't read to much of Dawkins. It can be demonstrated that he doesn't even know the most elementary stuff on DNA. Above all things I prefer truth)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------S: Of course, one doesn't need any knowledge of DNA to understand that evolution occurs.PB: Evolution as it occurs = MPG in action.
This is more and more recognised by real scientists.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Eximius,E: Thanks Fred for your clarification and everyone else for the responses. Your answers have been very helpful but to keep the discussion going and to stop the topic straying too far into areas I am not very familiar with (I again apologise for my shortcomings) I would like to reiterate my original question:
How does natural selection favour a mutation that, while advantageous, is not likely to increase the carriers chance of survival or reproduction.PB: Usually the carrier has a diminished ability of reproduction. From antibiotic/drug resistence we know that as long as selective constraint are present such organism have an advantage. As soon as the constraint is removed the wild type takes over. Thus, only under permanent selective constraint traits can be maintained. Still, the genomes of all organisms are characterised by redundancies.
As mentioned, their is an increasing recognition that selection cannot explain biology as we know it now. I already mentioned genetic redundancies. But, more dramatically, even certain cells can be knocked out, without being lethal/affecting the fitness of the organism (for instance mast cell knock outs). Or, illustratively the design redundancy in the 100% perfect gliders of the Zanonia macrocarpa. It is an insoluble problem for evolutionism. As a bio-scientist I know that evolutionism is false and should be replaced by another theory, for instance by the GUToB. In a real search for truth I am not objected by the idea of a Creative Force.E: For evolution to work, every transitional step between, say, the light-sensitive skin-patch and the human or cephalopod eye has to be not only advantageous but advantageous *enough* to increase the individuals chance of reproduction. I sometimes have trouble seeing how that could happen, but I suppose it's like Gzus said and every time an adaptation evolves the situation is unique, so there is no single answer.PB: Who is gzus that he knows this? The only single answer is that it didn't happen that way. But to sound explanatory evolutionists have introduced meaningless terms like "almost neutral purifying selection". Everyone with a working brain knows it is bull. Evolutionism as a theory explaining microbe to man is dead. Killed by contemporary biology. People who deny it, don't know better (and should be educated properly) or prefer to be blind (a lot on this board). Therefor I registered to this board. To demonstrate that evolutionism cannot hold in the light of modern knowledge on biology. And thus evolutionism keeps people from what is really going on on this planet.E: As for the Dawkins quote, I didn't read it, it's from a television debate, and I agree that you don't need a great understanding of genetics to understand evolution. Darwin is proof of that. Besides that, I admire scientists that are comprehensible and interesting to the layman and I think Dawkins fits this category.PB: So you got Dawkins opinion from 'mind control'? Better catch up with real science instead being blinded by Dawkin's blathering on random mutations and selection, his outdated belief that 97% of DNA is junk, and his selfproclaimed search for thruth. Read some contemporary work on evolution and you will find out that molecular scientist now find out that evolution (= MPG in action) is not random. (e.g. LH Caporale is very accessible for layman. And read L. Spetner's Not by Chance: the complete refutation and overthrow of NDT. Also easy to read). Leave Dawkins for what he is: a great story teller. They were very popular in the middle ages, too. Fairytales, I mean, not science.Best wishes,
Peter

[deleted duplicate][This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-05-2003]

dear Dr Page,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
And read L. Spetner's Not by Chance: the complete refutation and overthrow of NDT. Also easy to read).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page: Yes, it is easy to read comics, isn't it?PB: Why don't you go to the library and get Prof L. Caporale's book "Darwin in the genome"? She demonstrates beyond any doubt the existence of non-random mutations. You better get used to the idea that the NDT era is terminated by these non-random mutations. But even more dramatic, these non-random mutations have far reaching consequences for phylogenetic analysis. I will mail them soon, so we can discuss them.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear dr Page,Page: Surely you have heard of the HOX genes and other developmental regulatory genes?PB: They are 99.3% identical in human and chimp. They probably vary on some neutral postions. So, that will not be the difference. They difference between man and chimp is more likely to be found in the fractal code of the DNA. Huh, another level of complexity in the genome? Yes, Dr Page, another level. Surprised?Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Page,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
Re: Lynn Caporale.
Funny - this paper by her does not seem to indicate what you think her book 'proves':http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/...caporale/Caporale_IJ2.htmPage: Looking at the description of the book and the reviews of it, I think what we have is just another example of Borger's shall we say, "unique" interpretations...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------PB: Oh, you read a paper? What paper? Newspaper? Better get the book! It simply proofs what I claimed all the time and what you are denying/ignoring all the time: NRM + MPG. So, you can start backpeddeling now.
That evolutionists will give it their own interpretation was to be expected. As a matter of fact, I recommended to integrate such mutations in the ToE in one of my first posts. Caporale's book proofs the case of NRM. The discussion can be concluded: Non random mutations are real, the NDT is dead. That was my initial claim: to obliterate NDT. The examples the evolutionists are so fond of and are reiterated over and over on 'mind control' are nothing but MPG in action. All information and mechanisms to induce variation are already present in the genome. It is GUToB.I wish you a nice trip backpedelling. (And a couple of apologies for your coarse language/insults).Best wishes,
Peter

Dear peter,P: P.Borger means 'unused' or 'non-functional' when he says redundant.PB: PB stated several times that redundant genes are functional openreading frames, but can be knocked out without affecting the fitness. PB showed several times that genetic redundancies are NOT associated with gene duplications and thus are NOT merely a back up. PB also demonstrated that genetic redundacies are NOT associated with a higher rate of change.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Page,PB: How do I have to read this mail? Backpeddeling already? Not up to date with your own disciplin?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
Re: Lynn Caporale.
SLPx:
Funny - this paper by her does not seem to indicate what you think her book 'proves':http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/...caporale/Caporale_IJ2.htmLooking at the description of the book and the reviews of it, I think what we have is just another example of Borger's shall we say, "unique" interpretations...
----------------------------------------------------------------------PB: Oh, you read a paper? What paper? Newspaper? Better get the book!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page: No, the paper by Dr.Caporale at the link I provided. It appers to be a 'pre-cursor' of sorts of the material in her book.PB: Still Dr Caporale proofs --as I did before-- the existence of these mutations. That was the issue here. Better admit --for once-- that you were wrong and I was right.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------It simply proofs what I claimed all the time and what you are denying/ignoring all the time: NRM + MPG. So, you can start backpeddeling now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page: Here on a place we like to call 'earth', unless Dr.Caporale does a complete turn-around in her book (and she doesn't - indeed according to a source, she is somewhat upset that her book has been 'misused' this way), she doesn't seem to support what you claim she does.PB: Caporale is not at all upset. In a personal communication with her she said that... "I believe that many people use the word "random" without carefully thinking through their definition. Generally when people use "random", they think they are saying that an organism doesn't know that if it changes a particular A to a C it will grow a longer neck and reach those leaves and not be hungry-- but then when molecular mechanisms are discussed they pull in the general meaning of the word "random" without thinking through the implications of doing that-- and I certainly have been confronted with such dogmatic arguments."PB: Yes, Dr Page YOU are such a dogmatic. To all kosts you try to keep up the appearance of random mutation (even by fooling yourself, why I wonder?).
But even WORSE, now you misrepresent Dr Caporale's stance (From some source? What kind of scientist are you?). Look around Dr page, this is the 21st century, the age of molecular biology!!! And MB proofs nonrandom mutations. Adapt your theory!! And don't keep fooling me.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That evolutionists will give it their own interpretation was to be expected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page: The projection is palpable and predictable.PB: It is predictable since it is true!! How do you call it? "Evolution of evolution". Let's have a look at this sentence. The latter 'evolution' (= variation induction) has been observed and is the MPG in action. The first 'evolution' is the -never observed- extrapolation from the latter evolution (=MPG in action). Let's keep it scientific, Dr Page, empirical for that matter. The only observation regarding evolutionism here on earth is the MPG.Page: Be sure to let us all know when your evolution-busting, fact-filled, logical scientific manuscript gets published.PB: Don't worry.best wishes,
Peter

Dear Fred,FW:I was not giving a definition of redundancy, I was simply pointing out that redundancy cries out design. Regardless, the redundancy I deal with is actually similar to genetic redundancies in that both are functional, and 100% operation is achieved even after knocking one out.If redundancies originated via an NDT process, we would not expect to see similar levels of constraint in the redundant gene as in their corresponding peer. Peter has shown that these redundant genes are equally constrained or nearly so with their corresponding peer (ie not associated with higher rate of change), which is very compelling evidence against NDT and very compelling evidence for intelligent design. As Peter pointed out, you guys need a new paradigm!PB: Exactly my point. What about the GUToB?Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Peter,PW: Having just read the paper (link posted by SLPx) by Dr. Caporale
I would agree that she has provided detailed explanation of
features of DNA sequences that can lead to a higher or lower
rate of mutation at any particular location. I have not
disagreed with this, and niether has anyone else I have seen
taking a counter-view to your NRM posts.PB: O I see, I have been debating for 6 months because everyone agreed on the NRM in the 1G5 genes and their impact for evolutionism. Get real, Peter. Don't fool me.PW: What I have contended is that your choice of defintion of
'random' is not that used in NDT, nor indeed that used by
Dr.Caporale.PB: Problem with you guys is that you are to blind to see what is really going on in this world. My definition of nonranom mutaions was that these mutations are random with respect to position where the are introduced and usually with respect to nucleotide. That is exactly the same as DR CAporalse's definition and if you don't believ it look at page 41: "Thus mutations are not random, at least with respect to their position in a DNA sequence". And, as Dr Caporale told me she had had a lot of dogmatic arguments from orthodox evolutionists too. So, my advise: update.PW: 'Random' in the NDT sense is intended to mean 'not in direct
response to any stimulus'.PB: Ever heard about the immunoglobulin genes? They mutate in response to antigen. That is a direct stimulus. The ATP6 gene mutates as a response to the climate, etcetera.PW: That is mutations occur when they occur, there is no causative
effect (beyond mutagenic effects ... and these increase
mutation rate they do not 'cause' mutation).Mutations have not been shown, to occur in direct
response to an environmental pressure.PB: ...and the denial goes on and on and on. Why don't you just give up, like everybody els already did. In short, NRM are real and can be induced by environmental factors.PW: The relevent aspect of evolutionary theory is the bit that goes
along the lines that heritable variation within the population
is either selected for or against, causing a shift in trait
frequencies over time. Random (as in 'unprovoked') changes to
these heritable characteristics is the origin of that variation.PB: Listen, Peter, you dont have to teach me what ToE learns as dogma. It simply cannot hold in the light of contemporary knowledge.PW: If there is a mechanism that can facilitate the trial of different
proteins, mitigate mutations (leading to lower fatal mutations?),
or other biochemical processes that govern mutations this does
not 'falsify NDT'. The mutations still cause variation, and are
still 'unprovoked'.PB: No of course not. Nothing can falsify your silly atheistic humbug. That's the way it was meant to be. Unfortunately, such directed NRM do falsify NDT.PW: You additionally claim that NRM's can cause an illusion of
common descent.PB: I am glad you understand this part.PW: Presumably your premise is that there are a number of created
kinds all with similiar DNA sequences, and that NRM (in your sense)
cause these to look like they were descendended from a common
ancestor.PB: Yep.PW: The end result would be indistinguishable from
common descent. This is effectively the same problem that
you run into whenever you discuss common design vs. common descent.PB: If such were true than it would be a draft for ever. However, fortunately there is the ZFY region that proofs my vision is right. You cannot have it both ways, my dear friend. It cannot be both common descent AND common design (or could it?). Since the ZFY region demonstrated clearly NRM, common design must be the right vision.PW: If the end result would be the same for both premises then we
need something else to tip the balance ... otherwise we
can say nothing in either direction.PB: the balance is tipped by the ZFY region and by genetic redundancies. Both clearcut evidence of design.PW: For the common descent argument we have comparative anatomy,
fossil data, observed speciation, and observed natural selection
(there may be more, but this will do for now).PB: The comparative anatomy is utterly subjective. It doesn't mean anything to me. It could as well be common design. Observed speciation is nothing but the GUToB, and natural selection is included in the GUToB. However, natural selection can not explain the existence of genetic redundancies. And I am not going into that again. (Okay, only if you really don't get it).PW: What do we have for NRM as a cause of apparent common descent?PB: The mtDNA for one, the ZFY for two, the rest of the alignments that you take as evidence for common descent.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Dr Page,I presume you've got a better interpretation.You still don't get it Page. For you once more: Science = interpretation. I don't mind you keep interpretating your data according to your paradigm, but than you shouldn't mind that I will point out the flaws in your interpretation. I will keep interpreting the same data in the new paradigm. Why? Since it fits better.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Dr Page,Amazing how you are always able to find a straw man.Better pay some attention to your analyses of the mtDNA, ZFY region, the IL-1beta genes, the swimreflex in newborn, etcetera, etcetera.Still waiting Dr Page. I know you can do it Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Page,SP: Of course, Dr.Caporale told me that she was upset that her book was being misinterpreted....I wonder by whom?PB: Maybe you could quote her.By the way, I mailed my examples of NON-random mutations months before her book was published, so what's your point? She only confirms what I and others were thinking about the genome. If you wanna cry about the fall of your worldview, do it somewhere else and not on this board, please.Or send me a personal e-mail than we can talk about it in private. Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Peter,PW: If you check back I think SLPx did quote Dr.Caporale
in a previous post ... can't seem to find it to
reference for you but I'm sure it's there.PB: You're too eager. It was me who contacted Dr Caporale and I quoted her, not Page. It was about orthodox evolutionists and not understanding NRM (like Page and you).PW: Dr.Caporale's work seems to indicate a mechanism behind the
existence of differing mutational rates in different parts
o genomes. There is nothing in the work which suggests that
the mutations are 'non-random with respect to environmental
conditions or time'.PB: The point that is pretty clear here is that the observed change that Darwin -and other biologists- observed is already present in the genome, and therefore (yes I have to reiterate this again how many times this time I wonder) cannot be extrapolated to microbe to man, because it implicated that evolution is mechanistically dericted and that is creation. Listen, Peter, you evo-guys have a problem. I don't, I have the GUToB.PW: Re: NRM's:: Yes you mailed your 'examples' a while ago,
but you have also just stated that you view is just another
interpretation of the data.PB: Yes, and as it stands now, my interepretations discribe equally well, and often better what we see.PW: The problem you seem to be missing with you assertion that you
are right and everyone else is wrong can be summed up like this::PB: It took Darwin almost a lifetime to produce his Origin of Species. He first had to convince himself. It is no argument.PW: You say:: 10 + 5 = 15 therefore 3 X 5 cannot possibly be 15.PB: I fail to see the connenction. I mentioned several times that evolutionism superficially seems a nice theory, but not any longer.PW: i.e. you are looking at a data set and proposing an explanation which for you fits the data. The mainstream view also fits the data.PB: No, the mainstream view is held up by so many tricks I don't accept it anymore. And mainstream view has been demonstrated to be always wrong. The mainstream view used to be a flat earth, remember, or generatio spontanea (still present in the atheist community, though). So, that can hardly be an argument, too.
And now we have NRM. And now we have genetic redundancies. They also cannot be explained by evolutionary theory as I have mentioned several times before. I illustrated it with examples like alpha actinin genes, for which you have to introduce neutral purifying selection and the src-family of phosphatases (their existence cannot even be explained by duplication). It is not only one little incongruence, it is the one after the other after the other after the other. So, evo = false, GUTob = less false. I know what to choose.PW: The departure from my above analogy in this case is that you
have no support for your starting assumptions (the one's that
I can identify anyhow) nor have you fully stated what those
assumptions are.Perhaps now would be the time for that.PB: If you CHOOSE to be blind, than that is NOT my responsiblity.Best wishes,
Peter