Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Is 'genetic determinism' empirically valid, and is it essential to the "Modern Synth
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 3 of 49 (442170)
12-20-2007 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Elmer
12-19-2007 7:09 PM


My question is, how can random genetic mutations be the cause of evolution if genes are not the determining cause of traits?
To be precise, genes are not the sole determining cause of traits.
I don't see what this has to do with "how random genetic mutations be can the cause of evolution". Evolution is, by definition, about heritable changes to the genes. Such as are caused by random mutation.
'[G]enes' do not 'cause' traits
Yes they do.
For example, the cause of my having blue eyes is that I have two copies of the blue allele for eye color. Reflection on this fact should answer your question:
[H]ow can random genetic mutation be said to be the responsible mechanism for the origins of biological novelty?
It is obvious, is it not, that when the allele for blue eyes was produced by mutation, this was an "origin of biological novelty".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Elmer, posted 12-19-2007 7:09 PM Elmer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 7 of 49 (442412)
12-21-2007 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Elmer
12-20-2007 7:54 PM


I do not see how random genetic mutations can achieve anything productive without 'genetic determinism'.
Because complete genetic determinism is not necessary for genes to have an effect on the phenotype, which they do.
Complete genetic determinism doesn't exist, but something with the genes of an elephant is going to darn well be an elephant; no environmental effect is going to give it the phenotype of a butterfly. So genes certainly determine some things. The fact that they don't determine absolutely everything about the phenotype is not a problem.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Elmer, posted 12-20-2007 7:54 PM Elmer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 20 of 49 (443817)
12-26-2007 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Elmer
12-23-2007 8:19 AM


Another study showing that selection, in this case true and actual selection [thoroughbred racehorse breeding] based on supposed genetic superiority/fitness, has a negative correlation to actual phenotypic fitness ...
It shows no such thing. The correlation is small, but it is positive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Elmer, posted 12-23-2007 8:19 AM Elmer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 49 (444669)
12-30-2007 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Elmer
12-29-2007 9:41 PM


His stuff adds up to an admission that 'genetic determinism' is false, and that is all that really matters.
Funny way you use the word "admission".
OF COURSE genetic determinism is false. Every biologist will be happy to "admit" that. This is taught in any textbook covering genetics.
If Dawkins' "sophistry" adds up to saying "that genetic determinism is false", in what way is it "sophistry"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Elmer, posted 12-29-2007 9:41 PM Elmer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 29 of 49 (444678)
12-30-2007 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Elmer
12-28-2007 6:12 PM


Sibling Species
It seems that geneticists have invented ...
... discovered ...
something new ...
... which biologists have known about for centuries ...
Something called, 'cryptic species' ... Where's the genetic determinism in that, I wonder?
The genes determine which species in a cryptic species complex an organism belongs to. Since you ask.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Elmer, posted 12-28-2007 6:12 PM Elmer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 48 of 49 (451619)
01-28-2008 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Elmer
01-28-2008 8:00 AM


Re: Trying to get some coherency
I would take from it [rightly or wrongly] that an original particle does not exist in space and time until some element of 'observation/perception' brings it into a meaningless, tentative, existence by bestowing temporal 'properties' upon it, [that is, creates a 'datum']. Same for another [gazillion?] particles/data brouight into existence in the same manner. Each distinct from any other, and hence meaningless, information free.
Vacuous, that is,until a simultaneous observation/perception of two or more such 'data bits' enables property/identity comparison, and that comparison,
a/creates meaning, significance, information, and b/ instills 'entanglement', that is instills a linkage/melding of properties/identities, that, as 'information/meaning/significance', lasts forever, i,e. for as long as it is, or can be, observed/perceived; anywhere, anytime, by any observer/perceiver. That is, data/property measurement is bounded and limited by time and space, but information [the property of entangled data], is not.
The wonderful thing is that your title for this post was "Trying to get some coherency".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Elmer, posted 01-28-2008 8:00 AM Elmer has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024