Wise seems
quote:
I am arguing that natural selection played no substantial role in
the origin or modification of any of these morphologies. I do
not exclude the possibility that once the morphologies had been
established, selection (including natural selection) may have
determined which morphologies became extinct and which did
not.
to be situating intrabaraminc differences at the detail that Gould gave to the “morphologies” in the Burgess Shale
Loading...number 6
. One has to notice that Gould had written this book
Wonderful Life (Google Books)as a change from a cone of increasing diversity to a large morphological basis to start (the 90s) with (this does not incorporate what I can cognize between differences of cones and ladders). It appears to me that Wise is using a 90s version rather than a 70s one of form.
This would not seem to permit *any* kind of recombination (for whatever the phenotypes mean genetically) if by that one has had the idea that a point mutation change does not change-the information- (whatever the information is here) content of gene based on bits for interbaramin differences. Perhaps you could say further what you mean by recombination. Croizat (character)recombination is not genetic recombination even though one might think back to that. What is the semantic information value that divides inter and intra baraminic differenes??
If there are numbers of baramins or kinds as Equinox proposes to start this thread @ some kind of magnitude (and any extreme coincidence excluded) then bits could be a way to measure something about em .
Wise asserted,
quote:
In fact, generalizing these observations to all
organisms, natural selection acting on mutations is an
unlikely mechanism for the origin of biological form
throughout the young-age creation model (see Wood
2005, for examples in the Galápagos Islands). The
intrabaraminic changes which are evidenced in the
fossil record (e.g. for the horses: Cavanaugh, et al.
2003) - and suggested by interspecific hybridization
- involve morphologies very, very far outside the
range of variation observed in modern organisms (as
the morphologies of modern organisms are outside
the range of variation observed in the older fossil
organisms). And, given the highly infrequent and
usually detrimental nature of phenotypically expressed
mutations, as well as the complex nature of many of
these past morphological characters, it is unlikely
that any of these morphologies arose by mutation.
Finally, even if the morphology were to arise in one
member of the population, natural selection fixes that
morphology only by differential death. This incurs a
death load on the population, making it impossible
to fix such a trait very rapidly (Haldane’s dilemma).
Especially in the light of the abbreviated time scale
of the young-age creation model, Haldane’s dilemma
makes it unlikely to impossible that natural selection
is responsible for fixing much or most of the realized
biological forms in earth history. It is more likely that
the only substantial role natural selection plays is the
elimination of deleterious mutations (i.e. minimizing
mutation’s damage in a fallen world).
It is crucial how one ”reads’ the word “outside” here. Is this ”outside ” a 70s or 90s consciousness of fossil and forms?? Is this a bottom heavy or not?
As for the postitive part this gets back to what I was starting to say about Darwin’s extincting F line
EvC Forum: Evolution and Increased Diversitybut this is ostensibly off topic in this thread according Equinox.
™ Version 4.2