mutation and evolution

quote:

---

Puntuated equilibrium to explain gaps in the fossil record, modern synthesis to correct for Darwin's nonrandom mutation?

---

Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that rates of change varies. It is not a contradiction or a challenge any more than stating that your car can travel at any speed between 0 and 100 contradicts the idea that your car usually travels 45 or 50. Darwin assumed a steady rate of change but that assumption is not integral to the idea of evolution as decent with modification. PE appears to explain more data. It encompasses Darwins original idea, and adds to it. It does not invalidate the ToE.Darwin did not know about genes and genetics. No one, at the time, knew about genes. Even Mendel, whose name is sure to come up, didn't know about genes per se. The modern synthesis adds this information to the ToE.Imagine that someone writes a set of instruction for building a car. Then, a while latter, someone else realizes that those instructions do not include some principles of aerocynamics and so adds those principles to the origin set of instructions. Does that addition invalidate the original set of instruction? Or that even the IDEA of building a car is invalid?

quote:

---

Sure you can make inferences from the evidence, but that does not make a theory fact.

---

Put it in more familiar terms. The police come upon a murder scene. All they have is what they find at the scene. In other words, all they have are a few details. They gather this evidence, or what they think is evidence, and carefully analyze it. A particular carpet fiber identifies an auto manufacturer. That sort of thing. Eventually the police accumulate enough evidence to make an arrest. The DA tries the accused and that person is found guilty of murder and imprisoned. Yet this is all on the basis of "just a theory" that was constructed by analyzing much less evidence than we have for evolution. So, because it is "just a theory" do we consider the case unsolved and let the killer go free? After all, no one was there to SEE the murder so we don't have any 'real' evidence. All we have are inferences and theories, not 'facts.'

quote:

---

Perhaps chromosomes were designed with the ability to alter genetic material in response to environmental change.

---

Perhaps? Where is the evidence? It seems like this sort of thing should be easy to prove. You should get the same mutations for the same conditions, assuming you start with the same reasonable similar individuals.This should also mean that species should not ever go extinct, because their chromosomes would alter themselves to fit new conditions. This would be a hyper-efficient evolutionary mechanism.Neither of these conditions are verified by the data available. The is evidence of an increase in mutation rates in stressed organisms ( go figure ) but the mutations themselves are random.

quote:

---

Intelligent designer: synthetic material will arise someday as a result of human intelligence designed by me, there may someday be a need for natural means of disposal, Poof --> nylon eating bacteria?

---

Poof..... riiiight!!!!------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

A couple of things came to mind.

quote:

---

The environment has changed (albeit back) so the result
would be for the trait frequencies to re-align.

---

If the environment changes back to a condition similar to its original state, as you assume, then the selective pressure return to those that created the original species just as you say. And so the traits would tend to re-align. If the conditions change yet again to a third option the trait frequencies are not likely to re-align.In other words, if you have conditions A, a short time at B and then a return to A, the trait frequencies would 'bounce back' If, however, you had A>B>C, there would be no selective force driving the traits to return to conditions suitable for A.

quote:

---

Of course no new species have been created via selective breeding
(that I am aware of) so that still remains another issue.

---

I'd argue that some dog breeds are in fact separate species, but that is just me. I'd argue that some breeds would never be able to cross-breed without human assistance.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 02-28-2003]

I'd certainly agree that a continually changing
environment would prevent any 're-alignment' or reversion.By species I tend to mean 'incapable of producing young
on fertility grounds.

I thought you'd agree. I didn't really mean it as a response to you, but more as just clarification on a couple of points.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Will this get rid of the replies await 'Yes' ....?