Re: Can evolution go backwards?
From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 10/28/04
- Next message: John Edser: "Re: Darwinism=Capitalism"
- Previous message: William Morse: "Re: Can evolution go backwards?"
- Maybe in reply to: Country Loon: "Can evolution go backwards?"
- Next in thread: John Edser: "Re: Can evolution go backwards?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:17:40 +0000 (UTC)
> >This is not correct. Populations will evolve even if the environment is
> >perfectly stable. There are two important reasons why this is so. First,
> >a large part of evolution is due to random genetic drift and
> "environmental
> >pressure" is irrelevant for this mechanism of evolution.
> TH:-
> I have a follow up question.
> Doesn't this suggest that convergent evolution does not exist?
> IF the genetic drift pop and the original pop are both under the same
> stabilizing selection - how different would they be?
> They are both adapting to the same stable environment aren't they?
JE:-
It means that convergent evolution using
analogy (different genes evolving the same
type of phenotype) should be more common than
homology (the same genes evolving the same type
of phenotype), which it is.
Dr Moran's model of a "perfectly stable environment"
is just, pure fiction. While it is true that genetic
drift is always present because it is just a random
process (no random process can be deleted from any
natural population) allowing drift to remain immune
to "environmental pressure" this is all the proof
anybody needs to prove that Dr Moran's view of evolution
as: ANY gene frequency change in a deme (where
evolution can now be caused by just random sampling
errors acting alone) is NOT a valid scientific
theory of nature because it cannot be refuted just
non verified. Dr Moran et al refuse to even discuss
it.
Nothing is new under the sun including such horrible
errors. Exactly the same error in logic was provided
by the mutationist school that arose after Muller
discovered mutation. They insisted that evolution
by mutation acting alone could cause evolution
without selection. Darwinian selection was retired
for many years. Many silly science fiction films became
based on mutationist logic where mutagens caused populations
of people with 3 heads etc etc to evolve. The simple fact that
selection will always act against such nonsense was not even
considered. I suppose the next batch of silly science fiction
films will allow genetic drift to evolve populations
of massively disfigured individuals where again,
the super simple fact that selection will act against
it will yet again just be ignored. The principle is
very simple. No random process can replace a non
random process as causative within any scientific
proposition. Both genetic drift and mutation are
only random processes but selection is a NON random
process. I remain stunned and amazed at the futility
of attempting to replace a testable to refutation
non random process with just a non testable to refutation
random process within today's so called "evolutionary
theory".
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@tpg.com.au
- Next message: John Edser: "Re: Darwinism=Capitalism"
- Previous message: William Morse: "Re: Can evolution go backwards?"
- Maybe in reply to: Country Loon: "Can evolution go backwards?"
- Next in thread: John Edser: "Re: Can evolution go backwards?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
