In Message 178, Herepton (Ray) brought up the subject of Genetic Homeostasis. He claims that this demonstrates that evolution cannot happen past the 'kind' barrier.
The retort to this is that genetic homeostasis only applies to large populations, not 'kinds'. If that population is reduced in size, or if part of that population becomes isolated, the homeostasis effect vanishes.
I thought that this would make an interesting discussion in its own right, and would give a place for Ray, crash and anyone else to continue the discussion here since it is probably too broad to continue much longer in the 'Chimpanzee-human genetic gap' thread.
My own position is the one that is contradictory from Ray's (as you might expect), but I am not massively well versed in the concept so I hope to use this thread to learn a little about genetic homeostasis, as well as to debate its implications. To kick start the thread I'll post a quick definition from here
The tendency of mendelian populations to maintain a constant genetic composition in the face of external pressure. Although selection in nature operates on individuals, interbreeding populations as a whole as a by-product of mendelian segregation also have properties of which the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium of gene and genotype frequencies is a notable example. As a result of selection, gene pools are integrated and tend to maintain an optimal balance of gene frequencies at different loci (Sewall Wright's adaptive peaks). When subjected to such pressures as artificial selection (usually for some quantitative trait) or temporary environmental changes, genetic homeostatic mechanisms tend to restore to equilibrium gene frequencies that may have shifted from mean optimal values.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Wed, 01-February-2006 02:42 AM
Unless someone else is interested in the issue, there's nothing to discuss. Ray isn't apparently capable of anything except repeated repetition of demonstrated falsehoods and hilariously unlikely claims of his opponent's dishonorable behavior.
Shall I mark my calendar for April 30th? Or would April 1st be far more appropriate?
Very clever and truly funny, however. When my paper is up there will be no joy in evo-land. Dr. Scott has smashed your theory and the beauty of it is that your own arguments prove our case. This means there is nothing you can do.
My "Final Master Conclusion" is original; wholly invulnerable and impenetrable. I have the entire ToE in my merciless hand. Remember this post.
Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Paulinist
This message has been edited by Herepton, 02-08-2006 02:54 PM
This message has been edited by Herepton, 02-08-2006 02:55 PM
I've noted the post in my calendar ramoss. I don't think you have to worry about where it will be published. Since the author has demonstrated a difficulty with the use of firm evidence and logic it is not likely to be "published" anywhere.
This is the same guy who when a map and the great pyramid are refered to jumps to the height of the pyramid as if that is an answer to the map referring. This is the same guy who doesn't get it when it is pointed out how the height measurements are flawed. I don't think we have to be getting excited about any major step forward in science appearing April.
In fact, I suspect that come the merry month of May there will be no "paper" at all. There might be an incoherent mess that has already been discussed and blown to bits here but nothing new.
Oh, it will be published. There are place like CreationWiki that will publish it.
The entire point of writing the paper is for it to be Internet available and read. Chris Ashcraft/CreationWiki agreed to host the article with protected status. Ash MAY balk because of size (300-400 kilobytes). Wiki liked my contribution here:
But they are YEC's and I am not. If Wiki does not accept then I will promptly obtain my own website.
Title of work:
The stunning Biblical explanation of the modern scientific attempt to erase the Creator. Based upon the interpretation of Romans 1:17-25 by Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University.
How the Texual evidence of the Bible correspopnds with reality and falsifies the Theory of Evolution"
Rest assured Darwinists; my Biblical evidence will be supported and corroborated with scientific evidence.
We know ToE is commonly compared to the Emperor's New Clothes metaphor. My work will prove WHY 40 percent of the American public thinks the Emperor is clothed and why the other 40 percent knows he is completely naked.
This message has been edited by Herepton, 02-09-2006 02:20 PM