|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: John A. (Salty) Davison - The Case For Instant Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John A. Davison  Inactive Member |
You look at the karyotypes and draw your own conclusions. I never said dozens I said at least a dozen. I'm still waiting to see if anyone can take me or my predecessors seriously. If not I'm history. I'm too busy to be wasting my time on completely deaf ears. Also, I have made my case very clearly and see no reason to abandon it especially since I cannot retract that which is now in hard copy. Also I see no reason to do so anyway. I can be every bit as recalcitrant as my opposition. I have yet to have a single matter of fact in my papers exposed as wrong. It seems to boil down to interpretaion. I interpret facts as I choose and will continue to do so. I have some of the finest minds of the twentieth century behind me. salty
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Ok salty. You have stated what you believe. The issue is now whether or not you can support it. Pleading to authority i.e. "When you attack me you attack them. " is not supplying supportive evidence for your case.
SLPx pointed out that there are a number of questions addressed to you from various posts from several people that you have not addressed. That people are responding to your posts demonstrates that their is an interest in discussion with you so this statement "Otherwise I see no reason to continue interacting with those who see no merit in my perspective. " is a copout. This is a discussion forum from that is inherently polarized in view. With that out of the way 1. Evolution is finished. Chance has played no significant role. Please provide experimental, natural observations from multiple disciplines to support these statements. Thoeretical (including links preferred) analysis would also be fine. 2.Micromutations and selection have not been involved in any significant way. Again, as with 1. please show the evidence and again link to citations (not just your own) 3. Evolution has come from individuals, not from populations. Please explain, with supporting evidence, how and why genetics and evolution are not linked. If what you say is true, then there is no such thing as heredity, DNA is not involved in the transmission of heritable traits, and our parents have no more relation to us than the tree in your yard. 4. Semi-meiosis is a necessary device since there is no compelling evidence that sexual reproduction can support evolution beyond the subspecies. Please do a point by point refutation of the data and the literature which suggests this point is completely wrong. What specifically from the thousands of papers on population genetics and evolution are you taking issue with (no I am not asking you to address every single paper) On a related note to the above questions, you seem to have completely ignored much of the last 20 years or so of genetics, population biology, etc...is there a reason for this i.e. why no updates to your manifesto? Cheers,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
You then are implying that new species of primates evolved by cloning? I may be misunderstanding you. But it seems that you are implying that you agree that the differences between chimp and human is macro evolution but you claim that this could not have occurred if chimps and humans originated from a sexually reproducing species. That would require thousands of indepedent asexual to sexual reproduction transitions to account for the diversity of primates much less general mammalian species diversity. Please elaborate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John A. Davison  Inactive Member |
I suggest you supply the evidence supporting what you believe. If I cannot support my statements it is because I don't know. Don't expect me to produce definitive evidence that is not before us. I believe as I have repeatedly indicated that macroevolution is finished. I am not alone. Can one understand with certainty a process that is no longer in operation? That is what you are asking me to do. I am happy to report that I am not clairvoyant. I want someone to show me that Broom, Huxley, Grasse and Davison are wrong. Where is the evidence that speciation is going on all around us? Come on let's quit stalling. All I see is rampant extinction, this at a time when the environment is undergoing the most drastic changes. Darwinian evolution is now as it always was a myth dreamed up out of thin air by a couple of naturalists. salty
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Grape Ape Inactive Member |
peter writes: PB: this is GUToB rule #3 Hi Peter. I'm afraid I don't have time to go hunting for whatever the GUToB is. It seems to me simply that you could address things in terms of current molecular knowledge -- especially as it applies to salty's claims -- and just leave it at that. But since it seems that you've been given a vacation, I'll just address a few points quickly.
PB: The genes you call unique have been derived from preexisting DNA elements, as predicted by GUToB. Well of course they've been derived from existing DNA elements. They are the result of gene duplication and the incorporation of non-coding elements into coding regions, among other things. The point is simply that they represent an increase in information via natural means. Salty has claimed that there hasn't been any new information. And the rest of the ID movement claims it couldn't have happened by natural means. They're both wrong.
In addition, it is highly unlikely that such genes arrived by random muations and selection (one can calculate a bit on it) and thus I advocate a non-random mechanism. LOL! It has been calculated, and they're perfectly capable of arising through random mutation and selection. Just read some of the papers.
Indeed, mechanism for non-random mutations (NRM) have recently been described. For an overview of NRM see Caporale's book "Darwin in the genome" and (almost) all my threads. From reading reviews of Caporale, it doesn't appear that she advocates any non-random (with respect to fitness) mutational mechanisms. Instead she points out mutational mechanisms that are more likely to produce an adaptive effect, rather than those that "intentionally" strive for a particular result. It shouldn't come as a surprise from a Darwinian standpoint that molecular mechanisms that are more likely to produce good phenotypes will themselves spread. But that's something entirely different from a mechanism that intentionally hits a prespecified target in response to certain evironmental cues. Corporale appears to be every bit as Darwinist as myself. The only such "adaptive mutation" that's ever been seen to occur is that from the work of Barry Hall. It was thought for a time that these might indeed be some sort of Lamarkian evolution, but it's since been discovered that they're fully Darwinian. I'm afraid there are no known mechanisms of the kind you seem to be alluding to.
You didn't get it. Functional DNA elements do not just drop out of the sky (that would falsify the GUToB). The 'novel' genes have been derived from preexisting DNA elements and are most likley re-assembled through NRM. Probably, there are gene-generating mechanisms in the genome. Well of course they don't drop out of the sky. Are you not aware of existing models for gene evolution? Most of them rely on duplication of existing elements, because that allows for redundancy, which allows for new functions to be added while old ones are retained. And then mechanisms like exon-suffling and transposition help create new genes by mixing and matching functional domains. The point is simply that they add "information" and complexity to the genome, contrary to salty's claims. Whatever it is that you're advocating, it doesn't seem any different than the standard mainstream evolutionary view, other than the fact that you're tossing "non-random" mutation in there for no good reason. And if you want an example of a gene that does appear to "drop out of the sky", check out turf-13. It's a functional gene that came from entirely non-coding sequences.
PB: If the genes are really novel you would be right. But they are not. They are derived from preexisting DNA elements. How are you defining "novel". Given that it's not really possible for a gene to come from something that wasn't an existing DNA element, this is not a useful meaning of the term. What are you looking for, some DNA that forms de novo from carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen? The whole point of evolution is that DNA comes from existing DNA, but that it can change or duplicate, resulting in creatures that are different than the DNA that they came from. You could keep moving the goal posts all the way back to the origin of life, but this is irrelevant to our current discussion (which incidentally, salty seems to have limited only to metazoans). I'm using the term "novel" to mean a new and unique function, one that was not carried out by the DNA element from which the new gene came. They examples I provided and many others show that this can and does happen quite a bit. That's enough to falsify salty's claim to "no new information". Not to mention the core claim of the ID movement.
The recent origin of such genes make it highly doubtful that they arose through a random mechanism. For instance the gene in the LCR16a segment (Johnson et al, Nature 2001, 413;514-19). That paper doesn't support your claims at all. The copies of this gene share 98% sequnce identity. If you want to find evidence against mutation and selection, find a gene of recent origin that has no homology to any known gene or non-coding squence. As it is, the authors drew up an nice little phylogenetic tree showing this gene's origin, and that of its paralogues in other apes. And there is not the slightest hint of evidence that this gene required "non-random" mutation. You are probably talking about the fact that the substitution rate for the coding sequences was higher than that of the neutral sequences. Well guess what? That's what's expected from positive Darwinian selection. And that's exactly what the authors say. They were measuring positive selection, not the mutation rate. And you might want to check out their recent paper for a model of the evolution of this gene family.
PB: The duplication-divergence mechanism sounds reasonable but cannot be the origin of the members of the Src-phosphatase family: point mutations give non-viable phenotypes (while knockouts are viable). In fact this family falsifies the evolutionary vision. Cite please. There are an awful lot of Src proteins. Which protein(s) was knocked-out? On which protein(s) were mutations performed? Did they do saturation mutagenesis, or just mutations on the catalytic site? Based on your misunderstanding of the previous paper (and the one below), I strongly doubt that the literature on Src supports your claims in any fashion.
PB: My still unaddressed question I've asked almost a year ago: When a functional redundant gene is knocked out is there a loss of information? Depends on how you define information. In most cases, yes.
It should be noted that redundant genes do not have an association with gene duplication and do not mutate faster. (in: A genetic uncertainty problem by D. Tautz, TiG 2000; 16:475-7) Did you read further than the first two sentences of the abstract?
quote: Indeed, the point of this paper is to explain in evolutionary terms why these redundancies exist. By making it look like an unsolved mystery, you are giving people the impression that this is somehow an uncrossable barrier for evolution. You are using an old creationist tactic, and discrediting yourself in the process. Furthermore, if you know anything about knock-outs, you'll realize why they're not always a good way to detect function. Laboratory organisms are kept under strictly controled conditions, such that any subtle effects which might be important in the wild will not matter in the lab. Knock-outs are best for detecting essential genes or those that affect gross morphology, but are limited in detecting other functions. The paper you cite makes that exact point too:
quote: Good grief man, why are you asking me to explain this for you when the paper you cite has the answers?
PB: Apparently biological information can not be defined that way, since non-phenotype knockouts are rather the rule than exceptions. But did you take them to the opera? The examples I cited have an obvious function. For some of them, the function is still unknown. But in any case where you have a biological function being determined by a DNA sequence, you've got information as far as I'm concerned.
PB: What is the selective constraint to keep redundancies stable in the genome? Try reading the paper you cited. It answers that question quite nicely. [This message has been edited by Grape Ape, 03-21-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I already have. You said you see "at least a dozen" KARYOTYPIC differences. I see one. I guess you simply cannot support the claims you make. You won't be missed. Go back to TalkOrigins where you can "inflame" the "Darwinists" to your heart's content. That appears to be about the only thing you are now able to do - "inflame" people that are not impressed by your irrelevant namne-dropping.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
To all, not just Grape Ape - Peter Borger is currently under a 7 day suspension.
At least until further notice, the GUToB is NOT in any way to be part of this topic. Go to http://EvC Forum: Change in Moderation? -->EvC Forum: Change in Moderation?, if you wish to discuss moderation policy. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote:Then why make them? quote: No. Neither was Marshall Applewhite (the UFO cult guy). That didn't mean he was right. quote: I have yet to see evidence - and repeated assertion and argument via (quasi)authority is not evidence - that they are right. As YOU are an advocate for their position, it seems it is up to YOU to show that they ARE.In evidence: What is your evidence that all information was already present? Thus far, all you have presented is an irrelevant analogy to a fertilized egg. That is, you have presented none. The same has occurred for other claims in your manifesto and your "Ontogeny..." paper. Vacuous repeated assertion, implicit complaints that everyone is not dropping to their knees in awe, and the all too irrelevant "Yeah, but, Grasse, and Huxley agree with mre..." schtick. Most of us are scientists here - oh, sorry, I forgot that you don't think "Darwinsts" are scientists - so you can dispense with the facade of scientific authority and actually DISCUSS the issues. That is, if you can.quote: Yes, that is an incredibly accurate reperesentation. How could I not have known? Cichlids. your turn. Karyotypic differenses, please, if nothing else. [This message has been edited by SLPx, 03-21-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John A. Davison  Inactive Member |
I don't think anything in population genetics has anything to do with evolution. The forces that have caused the emergence of new life forms remain a complete mystery just as Pierre Grasse indicated. Grasse was probably the greatest French zoologist of his time just as was his Russian counterpart Leo Berg. If anyone thinks I have been hard on those that believe there is a role for chance in evolution, I recommend the books by Grasse and Berg. I get the distinct impression from this forum that some actually think they understand evolution. The role of chance and random undirected mutations has yielded nothing of substance in understanding phylogeny. The facts are that we will probably never understand evolution without the necessary postulate that it has been a guided process. I am no happier than anyone else about that conclusion. My nonsectarian vitalist perspective has been derived from my experience as a hard-headed experimental scientist. If some think my view is unacceptable so be it. Just as Pasteur was a vitalist based on his science, so am I a vitalist based on mine. I would like to see a little more tolerance for views that do not agree with the purely materialistic model that still dominates the evolutionary scene. salty
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Yes, we all know this. You have stated the same thing over and over. But you have yet to offer any actual legitimate reasoning. I frankly do not care what Grasse or DeHaan think. They are not here. You are. Unfortunately for your position, "armchair theoreticians" of much higher esteem than you or your 'colleagues' would differ. and they would have actual empirical data on their side. Thus far, all you have is a repeated assertion and attempts to hide behind the supposed beliefs of others. Why are you so afraid to actually DISCUSS things?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Grape Ape Inactive Member |
salty writes: There are far more differences in the karyotypes of man and his living relatives than you claim. I can easily see a dozen between man and chimp. That's fine, but you have to demonstrate that all of them have major phenotypic effects, and even then it's probably not enough. Given the nearly identical phenotypes of various chromosomal races among other animals (like Mus cited earlier -- dozens of such examples are known), it seems unlikely that any more than a small percentage of any translocation, fusion, etc. is going to have a major effect.
quote: The problem is, I'm pretty sure that there have been a lot more than just a dozen. (It would actually only be six for H. sapiens and six for Pan since our divergence from a common ancestor, assuming that these karyotype changes were equally likely to happen in each lineage.) I'm not sure what the latest count on human ancestors is, but it's getting close to a dozen if it hasn't already surpassed that. And our record for now only goes back a couple of million years and is mostly absent in the 4-6 million years immediately after our divergence with Pan. So the true number of recognizable intermediate steps is far larger than the scant but informative record that we have to deal with. Even if we assume that each chromosomal change constitutes a morphological change, and as before we certainly can't assume that, we're still not going to account for all of the steps between ourselves and our LCA with chimps. And moreover, the steps do not seem to be very discrete. There is quite a lot of difference between early erectus and late erectus for instance, and between archaic sapiens and modern sapiens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I want to point out again that even if your semi-meiotic hypothesis was assumed to be true, that then Darwinism would still apply. Your talk about "semi-meiotic trial balloons" is equivalent to how Darwinists talk about variants. Some "trial balloons" would be selected in, some would be "selected out", and this would be how they evolve.
Besides the people you mention I think also "mutationists" like De Vries and a few others whose names I forgot are more or less "on your side". As far as I can tell the case is that very few intermediates are found. In stead typically one form is found which persists for a long time without changing much, without many forms leading up to that one form which persists a long time. But I think you are taking a wrong philosophical track here, because if you found just one gradually changing species, then your hypotheis would IMO be in serious error. Similarly if we would find one semi-meiotically mutationist specie then gradualist Darwinism would IMO be in serious error. You never know how influential an organims is going to be in an ecosystem, so to miss one from the scope of the theory would always be a serious error IMO. The rule should be an abiding respect for the unicity and complexity of Nature, so that only specific cases are worthwile, and not very general notions about evolution being abrupt or gradual. (edited to correct wrong word) regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu [This message has been edited by Syamsu, 03-21-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John A. Davison  Inactive Member |
No one knows how many ancestors humans have had any more than how many ancestors the horse had. Most lineages have been highly branched with many side lines that went nowhere except to extinction.The same can be said for the pre-mammalian reptile lineages only one of which led to the mammals, or at least, so it seems. Berg believed in a polyphyletic origin for many animal groups and for all I know he may have been correct. The simple fact is that we don't know squat about our origins, and I'm perfectly willing to admit it. I still maintain that the best explanation for the emergence of true species does not require the addition of new information which has been generated through mutation and selection. Just as in ontogeny, I think it was there all along. I am sorry I cannot document that, so please do not expect me to do so. I want a demonstration that selection of mutations (other than reorganization of existing information) can produce true species. I just don't see it anywhere. I am not going to endorse a mechanism that has been tested to death like the mutation/selection model of neoDarwinism. There comes a time when it must be abandoned. I am already on record as proposing that Darwinism must be abandoned as a meaningful instrument for organic change. I see no reason to recant. salty
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John A. Davison  Inactive Member |
It is obvious that you don't care what Grasse or DeHaan or any other antiDarwinians think. I do care and have based my semi-meiotic hypothesis firmly on what they did think. Also, don't continue to expect me to justify speculation. That is all any of have at our disposal when it comes to phylogeny. Sorry I don't measure up to expectations. salty
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
So, Salty, at this point I must ask how your viewpoints are relative to old earth creationist Philip Johnson?
quote: To me (very much not a biologist), you seem to be saying that you find the science of the mainstream biological evolutionary thought to be terminally flawed, but you are conceeding that you have no scientificly valid alternative. Moose
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024