Could any creationist explain the DNA-differences from a sudden creation?

Perhaps you can explain why the fact that archaeopteryx is a clear intermediate is NOT in itself reason for an evolutionary interpretation.If you properly analysed the platypus - as taxonomists have you would not conclude that it is related to birds. The "bill" resembles a duck's bill in general shape but it is not a beak.The case for archaeopteryx IS based on the clear anatomical similarities. So long as you accept the possibility of evolution then evolution can be shown to be the best explanation for those similarities. All without assuming that evolution is true.The same goes for whales - but more so since there are several species involved and the genetic data indicates a relationship which was LATER confirmed by clear fossil evidence.Your explanation offers no clear reasoning - but it seems that you do indeed insist that the proper approach is to close your mind to even the possibility of evolution. That would rule out finding evidence for evolution, but it would certainly not be a sound approach.

quote:

---

Furthermore, mutations introduced through oxidative stress, radiation, etcetera are also not really random since they often are introduced at the same spot.

---

What do you mean "same spot"? And are these mutations non-random with repect to location or to fitness? If some happen to affect fitness (whihc is what started this whole "directed mutation" debacle in the 1980s) what about all the ones that don't?Is shooting a blunderbus and hoping one piece of shot gets the bird evidence that the one piece of shot that does was THE one intended to do so?The amount of repeated already-debunked gibberish employed by the creationist is truly amazing.

Well, it needn’t be equivocal evidence, but when you start making cladograms of multiple characters, & they are consistent with phylogenies derived from other data, then you have strong evidence suggesting evolution happened. Nor do you need to assume evolution,
either. It is a test of the theory.Seeing as how phylogenies are based upon the assumption of TOE by themselves, then you cannot legitimately use them in a debate for evidence for TOE unless you have peripheral evidence collaborating it. The problem here is that all the evidence for TOE
that has been brought to bear on the subject all contain the same grand assumption. This negates any evidence for TOE unless some can be provided that speaks for itself. To date,
there is none.Data is not self evident. It requires interpretation. See below.Not all data requires interpretation. When a murder is investigated, and there is a bullet hole in the deceased temple, you need no interpretation that there is a bullet hole in the deceased temple. Some data requires interpretation, yes. And when all of the data needs to be interpreted via one viewpoint only, especially when that interpretation presupposes an assumption throughout the data that cannot be verified without supporting assumption...we have a problem. Similarity in DNA or any other aspect of biological organisms does not imply descent with modification, unless you assume TOE into the equation. That is fine, unless and until you cannot find peripheral evidence independant of the grand assumption. When you cannot, the assumption must be dropped and a new one put into its place. This is how science works.I said...
For example, one cannot legitimately call upon the fossil record (with its assumption that TOE is a reality) and then call upon homology as far as it bears on fossils with its assumption that TOE is a reality.Mark said...Yes you can. New fossil discoveries that are consistent with evolutionary theory are tests of the theory. Nothing need be assumed.What fossils? Bambiraptor, with non-existant feathers applied to the models simply because cladistics says that they should be there? No. That does not qualify for our discussion, that only qualifies as examples of the zealousness of certain individuals and groups and their efforts at solidifying their pet theory.According to your reasoning, there is no such thing as an electron. Any test or observation you could make to conclude that there is a discrete negative charge carrying particle, would have to rest on the assumption that such a thing exists before you can assert it."In fact, you’ve just written off ALL of scientific enquiry. No data can be presented in support of any theory because you are assuming that theory to be true in order to do so!Negative. My reasoning does not state anything of the sort. My reasoning says that you begin with an assumption, but sooner or later, for that assumption to be solidified and able to be legitimately used as evidence in the matter, there must be peripheral evidence independent of the assumption utilized in the beginning of the investigation. This is how evidence is maintained in a court of law. Evolutionary theory has no such evidence, for all of its so-called evidence includes the beginning assumption, and is therefore invalidated. In other words, you cannot legitimately use homology as evidence for TOE when the fact of TOE is built into the maintenance of homology, unless you have supporting evidence from the side somewhere (peripheral evidence) that can verify that assumption WITHOUT assuming the same assumption.This includes similarity in DNA and other macromolcules of different organisms.Have a nice day!By the way, can someone tell me how I can do quotes on this board, I do not yet know how this is accomplished. thanks!

Phospho.

quote:

---

My reasoning does not state anything of the sort. My reasoning says that you begin with an assumption, but sooner or later, for that assumption to be solidified and able to be legitimately used as evidence in the matter, there must be peripheral evidence independent of the assumption utilized in the beginning of the investigation.

---

It didn’t say this in the last post you made!I quite agree, but observing a fossil form that has reptilian & bird like characters is independent of evolution, so by your own argument can be legitimately included as evidence. You do not have to assume evolution to observe the data.

quote:

---

Seeing as how phylogenies are based upon the assumption of TOE by themselves, then you cannot legitimately use them in a debate for evidence for TOE unless you have peripheral evidence collaborating it. The problem here is that all the evidence for TOE that has been brought to bear on the subject all contain the same grand assumption. This negates any evidence for TOE unless some can be provided that speaks for itself. To date, there is none.

---

False. Molecular phylogenies are based upon the TESTABLE assumption of heritable mutation, & that the nature of relationships can be recovered. So it to is independent of (macro)evolution, & is therefore also legitimate evidence.

quote:

---

Not all data requires interpretation. When a murder is investigated, and there is a bullet hole in the deceased temple, you need no interpretation that there is a bullet hole in the deceased temple.

---

That is the data! The interpretation would be the methodology you used to determine the calibre of weapon used, with what weapon, from how far was it fired, fired by whom etc.

quote:

---

Some data requires interpretation, yes.

---

Well, you don’t need to interpret data, but it will tell you nothing if you don’t, beyond the observation itself, that is. Take your hole in the temple scenario, for example, you have already interpreted the hole to have been caused by a bullet, no? I would tentatively accept that, but..... Let me put it this way, someone lying on the floor with a hole in their temple is not self evidence of anything other than someone is lying on the floor with a hole in their temple. The point is, as I said before, data is not self evident of anything other than itself. It requires interpretation if you expect it to tell you anything beyond the actual observation of the data. Were they shot with a gun? From the data you provided, the hole could easily have been caused by a bullet, or a crossbow bolt (OK, you said it was a bullet hole, but for the sake of analogy, let us assume we don't know the cause of the wound). We have two competing hypotheses, both of which could be wrong. Using the scientific method, what sort of predictions could we make to decrease uncertainty & test the hypotheses?Prediction of the bullet hypotheses: There is a bullet lodged in the victim’s cranium (you never mentioned an exit wound, I can only go by the data).Prediction of the bolt hypothesis: There is a crossbow bolt lodged in the cranium.The borne out prediction of one falsifies the other.Test: A crossbow bolt was lodged in the cranium.Conclusion: We have interpreted the data in such a way as to be consistent with other observation (we know what a bullet & crossbow bolt looks like) the hole was made by a crossbow bolt, & not a bullet.So when evolutionary theory states that there should be fossils which possess characters between two later taxa (predictions), then we can legitimately interpret Archaeopteryx to be a transitional fossil between reptiles & birds.And when molecular phylogeny produces consistent results that show modern lineages to be related in similar ways (again, a prediction), this is legitimate evidence of macroevolution in phylogenies consisting of of higher taxa.

quote:

---

And when all of the data needs to be interpreted via one viewpoint only, especially when that interpretation presupposes an assumption throughout the data that cannot be verified without supporting assumption

---

Like I say, it doesn’t. You are essentiall describing a circular argument, where you have to accept the conclusion before the premises. You do not have to accept macroevolution before performing molecular phylogenetics, so what's your beef? The 2 assumptions involved with phylogenetic analyses I have described elsewhere, & one of them isn't "macroevolution is true".Science works like this: An observation is made that makes someone inductively derive a hypothesis. They basically go hmmm, I wonder if this larger idea I have explains the observation X? They then go on to make predictions, data that should be discovered if the hypothesis is indeed true. This is how a hypothesis is tested, by means of the predictions it makes. So, any data, like the existence of transitional forms, possessing characters between later taxa in the fossil record is perfectly valid, logical, evidence of evolution. Once you start racking up all the predictions that have been realised, then you can place much more confidence that your hypothesis is indeed indicative of reality. Such evidence may very well be equivocal or not, but it is still valid evidence. This is the process by which electrons were discovered, & is the same process by which evolution is supported evidentially.Observations are made without assuming evolution. The data is objective, not subjective. If the data is predicted by evolution, then it is evidence of evolution, in the same way we tested whether our victim was shot by a gun or a crossbow.

quote:

---

I said...
For example, one cannot legitimately call upon the fossil record (with its assumption that TOE is a reality) and then call upon homology as far as it bears on fossils with its assumption that TOE is a reality.

​

Mark said...

​

Yes you can. New fossil discoveries that are consistent with evolutionary theory are tests of the theory. Nothing need be assumed.

​

What fossils? Bambiraptor, with non-existant feathers applied to the models simply because cladistics says that they should be there? No. That does not qualify for our discussion, that only qualifies as examples of the zealousness of certain individuals and groups and their efforts at solidifying their pet theory.

---

A fossil that has been interpreted isn't data, is it? It is the fossil itself........How about these ones. Figure 1.4.3. A comparison of the jawbones and ear-bones of several transitional forms in the evolution of mammals. Approximate stratigraphic ranges of the various taxa are indicated at the far left (more recent on top). The left column of jawbones shows the view of the left jawbone from the inside of the mouth. The right column is the view of the right jawbone from the right side (outside of the skull). As in Figure 1.4.1, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise, the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow, and the angular (mammalian tympanic annulus) is in pink. For clarity, the teeth are not shown, and the squamosal upper jawbone is omitted (it replaces the quadrate in the mammalian jaw joint, and forms part of the jaw joint in advanced cynodonts and Morganucodon). Q = quadrate, Ar = articular, An = angular, I = incus (anvil), Ma = malleus (hammer), Ty = tympanic annulus, D = dentary. (Reproduced from Kardong 2002, pp. 274, with permission from the publisher, Copyright 2002 McGraw-Hill)A gradual morphological change over time, as predicted by evolution. A transition between taxa also documented by molecular evidence (who’s 2 testable assumptions are not that macroevolution is real, but that mutations are heritable, & the relationships of subsequent lineages can be recovered by phylogenetic analyses).

quote:

---

By the way, can someone tell me how I can do quotes on this board, I do not yet know how this is accomplished. thanks!

---

Type the word quote inside square brackets at the beginning of your quote, & the same with /quote at the end.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

When you're typing a reply into the little box you'll see several links to the immediate left. Click on the one that says, "*UBB Code is ON". It will tell you all you need to know.--Percy

Hey Mark,Predictions about the past aren't predictions at all, they are, as Phos indicated, assumptions. Phylogeny itself is an assumption, not a prediction. The predictions of evolution have never panned out and evos weasil out of this all the time by saying evolution is just special to science and it need not be demonstrated in real time or predict something meaningful about the future. See Fruit Fly experiments. They always remained flies, did they not?Just thought I'd help steer you back on course! Back to my popcorn now.

But predictions about future discoveries about the past (i.e. fossils that weren't avaliable at the time you made the prediction, but were later found) are indeed predictions. Of course, every prediction is a kind of assumption - you're assuming that your model has predictive power and testing it. If your prediction is born out then your assumption was justified. Sometimes it takes a while to bear out the predictions. (Particle physics leaps to mind.) Other times new dat shows that your prediction can't ever be born out, so it's back to the drawing board.Some other times, you get evidence slightly different than what you predicted. This does't refute your theory but does suggest that it needs to be modified to take new data into account.I'm sure the concept of "double jeopardy" would prevent this from occuring in a court of law, but science doesn't work like a courtroom. All of our models and theories are in constant jeopardy from new evidence, that's why we say the conclusions of science are tentative by nature.------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

Hi Page,Page: What do you mean "same spot"?PB: Same spot in the DNA sequence. Has been observed in the mtDNA. You ahve the reference, since I've referred to it already.Page: And are these mutations non-random with repect to location or to fitness?PB: The are for sure NR with respect to location. Fitness? I don't know.Page: If some happen to affect fitness (whihc is what started this whole "directed mutation" debacle in the 1980s) what about all the ones that don't?PB: They are either neutral or selected against.Page: Is shooting a blunderbus and hoping one piece of shot gets the bird evidence that the one piece of shot that does was THE one intended to do so?PB: Obviously, bacteria have this trick present in their genome to respond to suddenly changing environments. For organism like bacteria it wouldn't mind shooting with a blunderbus, as long as they hit the bird. Bacteria are clones anyway that can spawn billions of offspring in 24 hours. Preexisting mechanism to induce variation do not have to be perfect, therefore. For higher organism it would be nice to have a better controlled mechanism. As demonstrated they have. If such mechanisms don't work properly the genome degenerates, and selection will work against it. Selection is mainly to get rid of degenerate genomes.Page: The amount of repeated already-debunked gibberish employed by the creationist is truly amazing.PB: I am not aware of any 'already-debunked creationst gibberish'. Maybe you could point it out.Best wishes,
Peter

PB: Obviously, bacteria have this trick present in their genome to respond to suddenly changing environments. For organism like bacteria it wouldn't mind shooting with a blunderbus, as long as they hit the bird. Bacteria are clones anyway that can spawn billions of offspring in 24 hours. Preexisting mechanism to induce variation do not have to be perfect, therefore.M: To bad this "trick" and the pre-adaptationist model for sudden changing environments has been repeatedly debunked experimentally and natural selection acting on natural variation confirmed experimentally multiple times....try again Peter, your "great ideas" have all crumbled to dust.

Zephan,

quote:

---

Predictions about the past aren't predictions at all, they are, as Phos indicated, assumptions. Phylogeny itself is an assumption, not a prediction. The predictions of evolution have never panned out and evos weasil out of this all the time by saying evolution is just special to science and it need not be demonstrated in real time or predict something meaningful about the future.

---

Actually a phylogeny is a hypothesis of relationships, but anyway, are assumptions allowed in court?Page not found – Denver DA"DNA ANALYSISIn order to develop the evidence needed for the prosecution of its case, the state consulted several experts about the feasibility of laboratory testing to compare the HIV taken from different individuals. In this case, the obvious purpose of such a comparison was to determine if DM's HIV was the source of Ms. Trahan's HIV. The state ultimately employed the laboratory of Dr. Richard A. Gibbs at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. Michael J. Metzker,4 who was then a doctoral candidate at the school, performed the requested comparison by use of a "phylogenetic" or "phylogenetic tree" analysis. Based on the results of this research, he and Dr. Gibbs issued a report concerning the investigation and their conclusions. In that report, Dr. Metzker and Dr. Gibbs concluded that the HIV found in Ms. Trahan was "closely related" to the HIV found in DM. Further, they concluded that the testing data supported their hypothesis that the direction of the transmission of the HIV was from DM to Ms. Trahan. At the hearing on the admissibility of the evidence, the state informed the court that it intended to use the testimony of Dr. Metzker and Dr. Gibbs to establish only that the two HIV samples were closely related and not to prove actual transmission. Therefore, it is only the conclusion that the samples are closely related that is before the court. Dr. Schmidt contends this conclusion is inadmissible.The general rule concerning admissibility of expert testimony is found in La.Code Evid. art. 702, which provides: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.Prior to 1993, the general test for admissibility of expert scientific testimony involving new techniques was the "general acceptance" standard of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923). In other words, an expert opinion based on a new scientific procedure or technique was not admissible unless the procedure or technique had been generally accepted as reliable by recognized authorities in the field.In 1993, the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 587-89, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 2794, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), wherein it concluded that, with the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a rigid "general acceptance" requirement would be at odds with the "liberal thrust" of the Federal Rules and their "general approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to 'opinion' testimony." Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. [153] at 169, 109 S.Ct. [439] at 450 [1988]....In Daubert, the Supreme Court suggested that the trial court should consider four factors in determining whether expert scientific evidence is reliable: (1) whether the theory or technique can be, and has been, tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error of the theory or technique; and (4) whether the theory or technique is generally accepted in the scientific community.Thus, under the Daubert guidelines, general acceptance in the scientific community is only one of the factors to be considered. Under this evaluation procedure, the trial court assumes "gatekeeping responsibility" to ensure that scientific evidence admitted in a trial is both relevant and reliable. Id. Still, the focus of the trial court's inquiry is not without limits. The focus of the inquiry "must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate." Id. at 595, 113 S.Ct. at 2797.Because La.Code Evid. art. 702 is identical to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the Daubert test as the test to be applied in Louisiana. See State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La.1993). In doing so, the supreme court noted that Louisiana had not previously followed the Frye test but had followed State v. Catanese, 368 So.2d 975 (La.1979), which had established standards different from those of Frye. The use of DNA evidence to establish the identity of a defendant as an offender or to eliminate a defendant as a suspect in a criminal case is now well settled in Louisiana.See State v. Quatrevingt, 93-1644 (La. 2/28/96); 670 So.2d 197, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 927, 117 S.Ct. 294, 136 L.Ed.2d 213 (1996). La.R.S. 15:441.1 applies to DNA test results and simply provides that DNA profiles and genetic markers are relevant to "establish the identity of the offender." However, La.R.S. 15:441.1 does not attach a legal presumption to a particular DNA test result but states only a general policy that the evidence is relevant. State v. Spencer, 95-208, 95-328 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/4/95); 663 So.2d 271. The issue in this case concerning the comparison of viral DNA, rather than human DNA, is res nova."So either, constructing phylogenies "from the past", is not an assumption, or assumptions are usable in court. You choose.Enjoy your popcorn.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 03-31-2003]

quote:

---

Seeing as how phylogenies are based upon the assumption of TOE by themselves, then you cannot legitimately use them in a debate for evidence for TOE unless you have peripheral evidence collaborating it.

---

Actually, this is somewhat hyperbolic.Phylogenetic reconstruction is premised on the fact that mutations occur and can be passed on to progeny. That evolution is an underlying assumption is warranted.

quote:

---

The problem here is that all the evidence for TOE
that has been brought to bear on the subject all contain the same grand assumption. This negates any evidence for TOE unless some can be provided that speaks for itself. To date,
there is none.

---

What evidence, in and of itself, devoid of interpretive bias, indicates a miraculous creation event no more than 10,000 years ago?

quote:

---

Appletoast:
Phylogeny itself is an assumption, not a prediction.

---

This is so wromg I don't know where to start.Phylogeny is not a prediction. One can, of course, predict a phylogentic pattern, but the phylogeny itself is not a prediction.Phylogenetic reconstruction, as has been pointed out, is premised on simple realities - mutations occur (rarely) and can be passed on to progeny. It is the patterns of observed nucleotide change that indicates phylogeny.
There is a wealth of published tests of the methods employed, as well as in depth and technical discussions regarding the shortcomings, pitfalls, and corrective methods for these analyses.One need only do some research on the topic to find such things out.

quote:

---

Hi Page,
Page: What do you mean "same spot"?

​

PB: Same spot in the DNA sequence. Has been observed in the mtDNA. You ahve the reference, since I've referred to it already.

---

You have referred to a number of papers purporting to support your claims. However, upon examination, not one has actually done so and, in fact, several have actually contained evidence contrary to your repeated assertions. "Darwin in the Genome" comes to mind.As for "same spot in the DNA", this is also old-hat. You are making a metaphysical mountain out of a physical molehill. Of course certain loci are more prone to mutation than others. There are simple, 'natural' explanations for this. No special creation required, no divine intervention.

quote:

---

Page: And are these mutations non-random with repect to location or to fitness?

​

PB: The are for sure NR with respect to location. Fitness? I don't know.

---

And so the case for special creation falls apart. In order for special creation of adaptive genomes to have a leg to stand on, there would by necessity be non-randomness with regard to fitness. Location is, for the umpteenth time, a simple physical side effect.

quote:

---

Page: If some happen to affect fitness (whihc is what started this whole "directed mutation" debacle in the 1980s) what about all the ones that don't?

​

PB: They are either neutral or selected against.

---

And how do you tell which are which? aside form your simply saying "this one is NR, this one isn't", what actual, verifiable, legitimate methods are there to tell NR from R?

quote:

---

Page: Is shooting a blunderbus and hoping one piece of shot gets the bird evidence that the one piece of shot that does was THE one intended to do so?

​

PB: Obviously, bacteria have this trick present in their genome to respond to suddenly changing environments.

---

What 'trick' is that? Suffering hypermutation in response to oxidative stress? Yeah, thats one superbly designed trick, wherein most of the colony dies while a few "lucky" ones (chosen?) just happen to get a mutation that helps them out, at least in the short run...

quote:

---

For organism like bacteria it wouldn't mind shooting with a blunderbus, as long as they hit the bird. Bacteria are clones anyway that can spawn billions of offspring in 24 hours. Preexisting mechanism to induce variation do not have to be perfect, therefore.

---

Nice ad hoc explanation...

quote:

---

For higher organism it would be nice to have a better controlled mechanism. As demonstrated they have.

---

False.

quote:

---

If such mechanisms don't work properly the genome degenerates, and selection will work against it. Selection is mainly to get rid of degenerate genomes.

---

Apparently you arew not aware of papers such as this one:Nature 1997 Jan 9;385(6612):151-4Episodic adaptive evolution of primate lysozymes.Messier W, Stewart CB.Department of Biological Sciences, University at Albany, State University of New York, 12222, USA.Although the darwinian concept of adaptation was established nearly a century ago, it has been difficult to demonstrate rigorously that the amino-acid differences between homologous proteins from different species have adaptive significance. There are currently two major types of sequence tests for positive darwinian selection on proteins from different species: sequence convergence, and neutral rate violation (reviewed in ref. 1). Lysozymes from the stomachs of cows and langur monkeys, two mammalian species displaying fermentation in the foregut, are an example of amino-acid sequence convergence among homologous proteins. Here we combine tests of neutral rate violation with reconstruction of ancestral sequences to document an episode of positive selection on the lineage leading to the common ancestor of the foregut-fermenting colobine monkeys. This analysis also detected a previously unsuspected adaptive episode on the lineage leading to the common ancestor of the modern hominoid lysozymes. Both adaptive episodes were followed by episodes of negative selection. Thus this approach can detect adaptive and purifying episodes, and localize them to specific lineages during protein evolution.

quote:

---

Page: The amount of repeated already-debunked gibberish employed by the creationist is truly amazing.

​

PB: I am not aware of any 'already-debunked creationst gibberish'. Maybe you could point it out.

---

Most of the threads that ytou started, then later requested to be closed, for example...

quote:

---

Funny thing is, all legitimate scientific theories CAN be established in a court of law. ToE cannot.

---

Funny - I was not aware that any scientific theory would need to be 'established' in a court of law. Of course, this claim seems to have ignored the round-about way ion which bibical creationism was shown not to be scientific while evolution is in the Arkansas case in the 1980s.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, ToE won't submit itself to objective inquiry in a court of law (never has btw),

---

Why would it? That would have no usefulness whatsoever. If a 'court of law' can put innocent people in jail - even execute them - and allow perpetrators fo crimes to get off scot-free due to some idiotic technicality, why on earth should anyone care what the 12 stupidest people lawyers can find think about scientific theories?of course, maybe Applezephan can provide some verifiable examples of other scientific theories being established in courts of law.Gravity, relativity, germ theory, etc. Got any?

Hi Mammuthus,
Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Obviously, bacteria have this trick present in their genome to respond to suddenly changing environments. For organism like bacteria it wouldn't mind shooting with a blunderbus, as long as they hit the bird. Bacteria are clones anyway that can spawn billions of offspring in 24 hours. Preexisting mechanism to induce variation do not have to be perfect, therefore.M: To bad this "trick" and the pre-adaptationist model for sudden changing environments has been repeatedly debunked experimentally and natural selection acting on natural variation confirmed experimentally multiple times....try again Peter, your "great ideas" have all crumbled to dust.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------PB: Why do you always twist what I am proposing? I wasn't even referring to 'adaptive mutations'. I mean, if under a particular environmental stress a wobbly enzyme is induce with the purpose to spawn billions of slightly different clones, than that is a preexistinmg mechanism to ensure the organism isn't wiped out immediately. Such a mechanism hasn't even to be perfect or deterministic --quasi deterministic would be sufficient. That is what we observe in the genome of microorganism. Rosenberg did some nice studies on it demonstrating that the mutaions are not pure random. (see 'cairns excerpt' posted by Dr Page, about 8 months ago)And only in your mind my great ideas may have crumbled. As long as they explain all biological observations I am pretty satisfied. What do we need an evolutionary theory for that addresses never observed phenomena?
It's like xenobiology: study of hypothetical animals living on other planets that have never been observed. That's what evolutinary theory has given us: science fiction & nonsense. Better get down to earth.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 03-31-2003]