non-adaptive evolutionary changes

As I have stated in many different messages, I do not pretend to know
anything. I do read and do think and do have an open mind about conclusions
others reach that differ from mine. Obviously there are others who resent
my arriving at different conclusions (even though I repeatedly remind that l
deem all conclusions in science, and in my own personal philosophical quest,
as TENTATIVE -- i.e., held by me only as where my thinking is at a given
moment, and pending exposure to evidence that serves to support, moderate or
refute the thinking of a moment.

Sometimes those whose thinking is 'elsewhere' than mine wax critical and
abusive and I tend to return fire when fired upon... or fire in defense of
another who is fired upon. The ones who become most insulting about a
tentative idea or trial opinion of mine often believe their view, or that of
some one, narrow school of thought or line of thinking based upon some
dogmatic agenda, tend to be people who believe their ideas are not capable
of being wrong and only mine (where they might not suck up to theirs) are
capable of being in error.

My carefully studied opinion on that is that NONE of us knows much of
anything. And the surest sign that someone probably is locked into a
stance, and unlikely to modify it come evidence to the contrary of fire or
high-water.

Anyhow, my tentative belief is that evolution (meaning change over the
course of multiple successive reproductions... period) is not driven only by
necessity, but can be completely driven by mutations which simply take a
road previously untaken that need not work better -- nor surely work
worse -- but simply works ALSO. The following article has been deprecated
by a contributor to SBE in broad, grandiose judgmental terms... yet offering
nothing of substance to refute.

The article is:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5756/1878

Please understand that I neither claim any stilted self-aggrandizing wisdom
to deprecate NOR condone the article. Neither do I claim to know more than
research scientists (WHO BEAR WITNESS TO THE CLAIMED BREAKTHROUGHS
CITED IN THE STREAMING VIDEO WHICH CAN BE
ACCESSED THROUGH A LINK ON THE WEB PAGE CONTAINING THE ARTICLE).

What I do wish to assert is that the article contains data (cited on basis
of qualified, expert research) which supports my current thinking to the
notion that not all evolutionary change is adaptive, but that some changes
occur as a result of mutations that are not necessity driven, but simply
result in something else that works perhaps no better than some existing set
of characteristics.

I make no claim of being original in this. Neither to I insist that it has
to be correct, nor that anyone who disagrees is blind, stupid, or wrong.

What I do assert is that this makes a lot of sense to me.

And, also, I would recommend that any and all review the streaming video
link. Then, I ask that you use your own judgment, and do not be led by
someone who strikes me as setting himself up as being more knowledgeable and
wise than the Chief Editor of Science... who commends the article.

g





.