Re: The stupidity of Genetic Drift

r norman wrote:
[snip]

>> The mathematics of stochastic processes was not well developed in
>> Darwin's time and the notion of explaining biological processes in
>> mathematical and physical terms was also not at all developed. I do
>> realize that you do not believe in these concepts, but others do.
>>
>> The mechanism of variation was not at all understood in Darwin's time
>> and all indications are that Darwin was, indeed, wrong about nature
>> of the source of variation: mutation. Mendel's experiments had been
>> published but there is evidence that Darwin had not read them or, if
>> he had, did not appreciate their significance.
>>
>> Darwin certainly could not be aware of the field of population
>> genetics which underlies modern evolutionary theory. Here is where
>> probabilistic and stochastic processes enter the subject. Darwin
>> could not be aware of what has been called the "modern synthesis",
>> now a half century old which completely integrates concepts of
>> genetics with population genetics with evolutionary theory,
>> including the notion of probabilistic and stochastic processes.
>> Darwin could not have been aware of the revolution in molecular
>> biology leading to the elucidation of nucleotide sequences, full
>> genome and partial, for many organisms and for many genes and
>> proteins and how this has revolutionized the study of evolution,
>> including validating the notion of genetic drift. Darwin could not
>> have been aware of how comparison of nucleotide sequences among all
>> organisms, among animals, among vertebrates, among mammals, among
>> primates, and among hominids has contributed to our idea of human
>> evolution. Darwin was not aware of the hominid fossil record which
>> reveals many aspects of human evolution.
>>
>> Darwin was certainly not aware of any of these developments. I feel
>> certain (though this is just my opinion, of course) that he would be
>> absolutely delighted and feel completely at home with all of them
>> including the significance of genetic drift.

That's a keeper.
Neatly said.

Jois


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rupture aortic aneurysm
    ... > It seems folks like Jeff exist in the real world. ... I have not met an evolutionist who was competent in genetics. ... >>> theory of evolution. ... Darwin isn't even the founding father of evolution. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: VOTE! Usenet Kook Awards and AFA-B Awards, Feb/Mar 2009
    ... Ray Martinez wrote: ... Evolution gained acceptance within 15 ... years of 1859 when the discipline of genetics didn't even exist. ... Darwin in the Fall of 1838. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Anti-Defamation League denounces Expelled
    ... the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain ... pretend that their 'folk genetics' was 'scientific'. ... Boas was right about evolution: ... 'scientification' of 'folk genetics' and 'orthogenetic' ideas about ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwin the dunce founder? of modern evolution
    ... Darwin Got it wrong. ... overtime, But that in reality, this is not evolution in action. ... time to be observed in the fossil record. ... as Mendelian genetics works very well with Darwin's ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Another Stupid Evolutionary Peer Reviewed Published Paper
    ... "I was raised with the belief that modern humans showed up 40,000 to ... personal beliefs on an unsuspecting public, the two Charles's: Darwin ... "If evolution had been proceeding steadily at the current rate since ... Mendelian Genetics restores fixity to the species as it explains the ...
    (talk.origins)