quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Readers
After reading Spetner's book I realised that all it would take to overthrow NDT is molecular genetic evidence against the mechanisms of random mutation, and examples proving the irrelevance of natural selection in the maintenance of the genome. Scientifically speaking, we need only one example that is not in accord with NDT. It would question the validity of the concepts.
In fact, I already had observed such papers in the scientific literature and I kept them in my collection of "weird stuff".
So let's have a look at this collection and overthrow the concept of random mutation.
The main problem I have with your conclusion is that it's demonstrably false. A friend of mine who happens to be a genetic engineer worked for a time with a team that subjected Drosophila to extreme artificial selection (artificial only in that it was regulated in a lab, but still following the basic principles of natural selection). After many dozens of generations, the genetic variance in the resultant population was significant enough to not only taxonomically classify the new population as a different species, but a different
genus as well. Both reproductive behavior and morphology were markedly different from the parent population. Thus Drosophila can indeed evolve.
As to why a particular gene has remained stable in two species of Drosophila, the obvious answer would be that the gene is selected for in both species, and mutations to that gene are maladaptive.
Derek
[This message has been edited by Underling, 09-16-2002]
™ Version 4.2