|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolving New Information | |||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'm fairly sure I didn't say "fu" anywhere ... which shows great restraint on my part (joke).
If you now get 51 fixations per generation, does that mean that you now understand what's going on? If not, where does "fu" come into it? Can you quote?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I thought you were asking why muller's ratchet didn't provoke the extinction of bacterias ? I'm asking why bacteria don't go extinct as a result of these mysterious, impossible mutations which cause extinction but are invisible to natural selection, when they are more vulnerable to the accumulation of deleterious mutations and breed much faster. If we don't observe it in them, why should it affect anything else?
I think it is gonna be very difficult to discuss this with your aggressive behavior ... You mean, I point out where you're wrong, ask you for evidence, that sort of thing?
... coupled with the fact that you haven't read the book. Feel free to reproduce his arguments. Incidentally, have you read Kimura?
Dr. Sanford doesn't simply apply Muller's ratchet on sexual species, he ellaborates the concept of mutation accumulations to sexual species. This is very different. It is. Muller's rachet specifically applies to asexual organisms; the idea was put forward as one reason why sex is biologically advantageous. Calling some putative process that affects sexually reproducing organisms by the name "Muller's rachet" is sheer obfuscation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
We don't observe it in them because the no-selection zone is quasi inexistant for them, and so even nearly-neutral mutations can be detected by natural selection. Saying this is no substitute for evidence.
You have to remember two things: Muller developped his idea of ratchet in asexual species, but he was aware that the same could happen in sexual species. Quotes, please?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Mitochodrial DNA is an asexual system, and so subject to Muller's ratchet. However, Loewe makes it abundantly clear that nuclear DNA (which is not asexual) can also be subject to mutation accumulation. Where does he make it "abundantly clear" that mutations in nuclear DNA, invisible to natural selection, can accumulate to cause extinction?
From a personnal experience, the region where I live, saguenay-lac-saint-jeanthat are unique to the region. These are not near-neutral by any means, because each of them are very serious . But because they are recessive (as are most mutations I believe) they have been accumulating in the region at an alarming rate. Of course none have become fixed in the population yet ... The reason that they are unique to the region is because of the founder effect, and the reason that they will never become fixed is heterozygote equilibrium.
Another example I can think of is the recent trend to ban marriage between cousins in Europe, which is becoming a hot topic I think over there. I've never heard of such a movement.
It seems that similar mutations are becoming more and more frequent, to the point that even cousins inter-marriage are having an increasing probability of birth defects. Evidence?
This is in stark contrast to the culture of even 200 years ago, where marrying a cousin was common but was not known as a source of child defects. If it is now seen as a problem, it is because mutations have become more widespread in the population. No, it's because now people know about it. Mutations which cause birth defects are, in any case, not invisible to natural selection and so have nothing to do with Sanford's fantasies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I was talking about that part, with the u Ah, I see. That's a mu (μ) not a u. That represents the probability of any particular single nucleotide substitution occurring.
The 51 mutations fixed per generation, is that threw genetic drift ? Yes. Edited by Admin, : Fix special character so it doesn't become a smiley.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
the evidence is that bacteria species do not go extinct because of Muller's ratchet That would be my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
"The resulting genomic decay paradox complements a similar threat from extinction due to mutation accumulation in nuclear DNA " Its is as clear as you can get Ah, I see. Nonetheless, he seems convinced that this does not actually happen.
People would have known of birth defects caused by sister-brother marriage ... Would they? It's not like it happens that often. What with being illegal, and all that.
Of course, if we are talking about a dominant gene, then it cannot accumulate. But if the birth defect comes fro ma recessive gene, then it can accumulate, and as it accumulates, it becomes more frequent that two individuals have the gene and give birth to sick children. Up to heterozygote equilibrium.
It isn't a movement (yet, I suppose) but it is being talked, especially in England. I'm English, I've never heard of this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
A snippet of information, show me how you can mutate this code and introduce new information, piecewise! if you are genuinely ignorant of the existence of genetic programming, I strongly suggest that you look it up.
No? Why is it that evolution doesn't comply with the natural laws but instead has a set of laws all of its own. It doesn't. You are raving. I'm glad I could clear that up for you.
I'm sure everyone who has studied science has been introduced to the laws. Mentioning ^&*(&%% of thermodynamics on a evolutionism site is like turning the light on cockroaches; they scatter. What a curious lie. The creationist nonsense about thermodynamics would rank high in anyone's list of Huge Creationist Fails. We eat it for breakfast. If you want to be wrong about thermodynamics, start a new thread, and I (who, unlike you, have studied thermodynamics) will mock you in the way that you deserve. Or perhaps you will run from this offer like a cockroach from the light.
Its not an opinion, were talking exact science. Reciting creationist lies is not "talking exact science". It's kinda the complete opposite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I agree. If you could prove that it can only be done (not, can it be done?) with Darwinian processes and not (NGE) natural genetic engineering, then it would shut me up. That ol' burden of proof is getting a bit heavy for you, isn't it? Show me that only my dog could have been responsible for the disappearance of all the salami from the fridge while I was out the other day, and that magic fairies couldn't have been involved. And none of your materialist dogma about how there's no evidence that magic fairies exist, or the usual atheistic prating about so-called "Occam's Razor". Daminit, it you're going to introduce parsimony into the debate, then I could hardly believe in magic fairies at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
exactly, i'm not saying that natural selection didn't occur, but rather because of the controversial nature of the way the research was carried out I think it is best to stick to examples where the research isn't so controversial. But of course creationists can manufacture a "controversy" about any subject by getting up on their little soapboxes and talking rubbish about it. If we are not going to discuss anything which is "controversial" in this sense, then what can we discuss that is remotely relevant to evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
All that I was saying was that as many of you have pointed out already, some aspects of the research were dodgy. Can we agree on that. No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't understand that [...] I may never understand ... Ah, yes, creationism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I guess you do understand it. And as usual you are wrong. He did not claim to understand it. What he said was that not understanding it is not a basis for the Great Big Fundie Fallacy: "I don't understand this perfectly. Therefore, no-one else in the world understands it perfectly or ever will. Therefore, I do understand it perfectly --- God did it by magic".
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It takes intelligence to create information. It can not be done piecewise by chance. You know I mentioned the existence of genetic programming? Let me mention it again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't think there is anything wrong with "God did it" and I will tell you why. There will always be skeptics of the "God did it" idea. This is what science is for. Science should challenge itself and if and when it fails to find a unambiguous example of an explanation then, perhaps we could credit intelligent design as a casual explantion. How much ignorance of nature do we need for it to magically turn into knowledge of God? After all, our species spent millennia not knowing, for example, what lightning was, and yet all that ignorance did not, as it turned out, add up to one scrap of knowledge about the thunder-god Thor and his magic hammer.
Francis Crick's sequence hypothesis is apparently more than just a hypothesis. Anyone who thinks the sequences in DNA are nothing more than Shannon information fails to explain how the precise functions and coherence within the cell formed without it. That paragraph makes less sense then you hoped when you wrote it.
Also, labeling me as a creationist is off the topic and an argument more from philosophy. And, also, not something I actually did.
The ID paradigm is distinct from creationism. It is sort of a hybrid between science and creationism but more toward science. It is a particular way of thinking and once you start to use the paradigm, the differences become obvious. See link below which helps discern the differences. The similarities are rather more striking.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024