Re: Haldane's Dilemma and quantitative genetics
- From: "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:37:56 -0400 (EDT)
Larry Moran wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 17:16:28 -0400 (EDT),
Wirt Atmar <atmar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
This is my opportunity to be the group's curmudgeon for the fortieth
time, but these models are not at all representative of how evolution
works and have almost no value in advancing any physical understanding
of the evolutionary process. If I can't be any more blunt and offensive
than that, I don't know how.
The evolutionary clock does not run at any where near a constant speed.
Filled ecological niches occupied by highly coevolved communities are
very difficult to invade, and thus evolution tends to come to almost a
dead stop in such situations. Intense competitive interaction doesn't
allow much change.
That's a false view of evolution.
Normally in a scientific discussion you should present your reasoning.
This is the difference between science and religion.
You don't know what you're talking
about.
How's that for blunt and offensive? :-)
Your false view of evolution includes the ridiculous idea that species
become perfectly adapted to their environment and will stop evolving.
Can you identify a single modern species that has become so perfectly
adapted that it has stopped evolving and therefore contains no significant
variation?
Nothing like this was stated. If you are to dispute somebodies
thinking be sure to dispute what was actually stated.
Another completely false idea is that natural selection is the only
mechanism of evolution.
Genetic drift depends upon the belief that causation comes in two
forms, random and nonrandom. This supposition in itself is nonsense.
The third false idea is that "the evolutionary clock does not run at
any where near a constant speed." This silly statement is directly
contradicted by real data in the scientific literature.
Such as?
I can only assume
that you are using some strange definition of evolution that eliminates
all change at the molecular level. Perhaps you meant to say that the
rate of "positive natural selection" isn't clocklike over millions
of years?
Moreover, the presence of a biogeographic map, which is ignored in
standard mathematical genetics, renders the substitution of neutral
changes almost impossible. A novel neutral mutation in an individual
must compete with its sibling competitors coming from all directions,
and because the change is neutral, it has no selective advantage for or
against it by definition, thus if it is to survive, it must climb
against the Gambler's Ruin tide, a Markovian process that virtually
guarantees not only the new mutation's relatively immediate elimination
but also a very short time on the biogeographic map.
Hmmm ... you have just eliminated random genetic drift as a mechanism of
evolution. Why don't you try and publish this? :-)
Why don't you show us the empirical evidence that demonstrates the
existence of random drift?
Walk the streets of any large city. Look at the people. Do they all look
the same? Can you recognize people whose ancestors came from Afica, Europe,
Asia, or North America? Have all of the differences been selected? You
*must* assume that every genetic feature is an adaptation of some sort
otherwise your "theory" is refuted. Are you prepared to make that claim
and defend it?
Larry, you are (again) on a rant that has nothing to do with what was
stated. Try not to force your ideology on the evidence.
.
- References:
- Haldane's Dilemma and quantitative genetics
- From: Perplexed in Peoria
- Haldane's Dilemma and quantitative genetics
- Prev by Date: Re: Convergent evolution and Intelligence
- Next by Date: Re: Haldane's Dilemma and quantitative genetics
- Previous by thread: Re: Haldane's Dilemma and quantitative genetics
- Next by thread: Re: Haldane's Dilemma and quantitative genetics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
