Re: "Genes are followers not leaders". Was: Birds of feather...

From: CNCabej (cncabej_at_aol.com)
Date: 12/21/04 

Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:49:30 +0000 (UTC)

M. Syvanen wrote:

>Cabej wrote:
>
>" We are told that evolution of a gene (not just any change), takes
>evolutionarily considerable periods of time, that evolution of a
>structure may
>need evolution of a varying number of genes, and evolution of a new
>organ
>requires evolution of an even greater number of genes and longer
>periods of
>time. Accordingly, it is to be expected that evolution of a new Bauplan
>for
>transition from a class, such as fishto amphibians, requires evolution
>of a
>still larger number of genes and longer periods of time. Have we proven
>this?
>Certainly not."

M.S.:
>Who told you this? It is certainly not >believed by any gene centric
evolutionist >of which I am aware.<

N.R.C.
Who told me this? Let me quote Richard Dawkins, if you consider him to be a
genecentrist (if not I can bring other examples): "Evolution by natural
selection could not be faster than the mutation rate, for mutation is,
ultimately, the only way in which new variation enters the species...The
mutation rate is bound to put an upper limit on the rate at which evolution can
proceed" (Blind Watchmaker")

Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, after Dobzhansky, in population genetics
evolution is essentially defined in terms of the change in gene/allele
frequencies in populations produced by the action of natural selection,
mutation, gene drift, and migration.

M.S.:
>Current thinking is that mutations
>that give rise to major morphological changes does not involve the
>evolution of new genes, but rather the rearrangement, frequently
>involving duplication, of existing genes and/or subtle changes that
>result in changes in temporal and/or spacial regulation. This is not
>proven for any major morphological change accounting for metazoan
>evolution, but it does have experimental support.

N.R.C.:
First, I do not talk of "new genes", so you agree with me that the prevailing
opinion (including R. Dawkin's) is that evolution is essentially evolution of
genes by gene mutations.

Second, all those "rearrangements, frequently involving duplication, of
existing genes and/or subtle changes that result in changes in temporal and/or
spatial regulation" are mutations, changes in genes.

Thank you for your constructive input and I look forward to hearing from you on
this and other issues considered in my post.

Nelson R. Cabej

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Behe, common descent, and life on the edge
    ... accepts an old earth and common descent (I'm not sure if he goes so ... Evolution, as I understand it, is that natural selection and mutation ... already had genes for lips and livers and gills and puppy dog tails; ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Behe, common descent, and life on the edge
    ... accepts an old earth and common descent (I'm not sure if he goes so ... Evolution, as I understand it, is that natural selection and mutation ... already had genes for lips and livers and gills and puppy dog tails; ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... did Darwin mean by it and what does Lee Spetner mean by it? ... relates "mutation" to copying errors in genes. ... in molecular genetics or molecular evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Pleiotropy Enforces Cooperation With Non Related Individuals
    ... Evolution of the speed of evolution. ... I suppose there are many genes or features of organisms ... Sexual reproduction is an example of a feature allowing ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Lack of evolution (computers and living things)
    ... So - the OPINION of a mathematician/astronomer about biology is more ... If this is how new genes are supposed to ... One well-known computer program that purports to mimic evolution is ... The figures show a certain amount of variety as they evolve. ...
    (talk.origins)