Re: A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE
- From: "g" <gillawton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:16:46 -0400 (EDT)
"John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dfolgk$2uhi$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Guy Hoelzer <hoelzer@xxxxxxx>
>> I wonder whether anyone who agrees with Larry's statement might
> comment
>> on some of the processes other than natural selection that cause
>> evolution.
>
> Mutation causes evolution. Natural selection merely pushes in
> particular
> directions.
Hey, now there's a thought provoker.
When Guy speaks, you'll find me LISTENING... even if I, having listened, I
need to think about this for a while. I have never been able to put my
mental finger on ANYthing that strikes me as having the capacity to
"push" evolution. No matter how hard I try, I cannot seem to get my
intuition to see evolution as doing anything but putting mutations to the
test.
I cannot even imagine it as selecting only the "fittest."
What grounds would I offer for THAT statement:
genes that code for cardiac and vascular problems
genes that code for asthmatic and related pulmonary disorders
genes that code for mental retardation and psychopathologies
genes that code for muscular and neuro-muscular pathologies
genes that code for compromise of the immune system
genes that code for predispositions to certain cancers
That should be enough for starters.
Some authors have implied that because SOME disorders, such as sickle cell
trait, have survived in certain
genetic pools because they confer BENEFIT (making one resistant to malaria,
for example) that ALL genetic codings for abnormalities may survive in a
population because they confer some benefit.
If you know of a benefit provided by muscular dystrophy, breast cancer,
genetic kidney malfunction, genetically linked immunodeficiencies... by all
means enlighten me.
But I didn't mean to stray from the point -- which is -- a lot of genetic
abnormalities remain in a population
indefinitely, it seems to me, as long as their are plenty of people (or
members of any other species) getting only one copy of the related recessive
gene, so long as victims of a disorder are able to sexually reproduce prior
to becoming eliminated from the game, etc.
Take schizophrenia, for example. Although some early questionable behavior
may be sufficient to, say, get a boy sent off the military school, to
straighten him out, the classical symptoms tend not to become pronounced,
and often go undiagnosed until in late teens or early twenties... while
PUBERTY comes SEVERAL YEARS sooner. Thus, even where symptoms do not show
up in every generation of offspring, reproduction can preceed even where
blatant symptoms are destined to occur.
Or, if anyone wishes to believe there is no connection between genes and
schizophrenia, there are other disorders that do not seem destined to become
eliminated from the reproduction game... at least, not yet.
But -- cutting to the punch line -- I know of ZERO evidence of anything of
the nature of a "push," toward anything. And I know of ZERO evidence
that -- just because an individual is less fit, by virtue of inheriting some
nasty-consequence genes, that there is any umpire or referee to stop them
from reproducing... at least, not yet.
A lot of "literature" suggests things that are not borne out empirically.
However, when Guy Hoelzer says something, I do not immediately assume it is
a careless remark... and this
reaction based upon his past performance as a wise and thinking contributor.
I'm listening, Guy. Hope you won't keep me hanging.
Is there a chance you got misquoted, or quoted out of context?????
g
.
- References:
- Re: A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE
- From: John Edser
- Re: A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE
- Prev by Date: Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- Next by Date: Re: A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE
- Previous by thread: Re: A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE
- Next by thread: Re: A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
