Re: Baldwin Effect-Patent Nonsense


"John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:einvm1$2lta$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<snip>

Suggested rewordings:
JE:-
Phenotypes can only be selected and not the genes which code for them
because of the (refutable) existence of the revised central dogma of
biochemistry: genes can code for polypeptides but polypeptides cannot code
for genes. This means that "learning an advantageous behavior will
gradually reshape the genes of the species which has adopted it" and NOT
the
reverse.

Phenotypes only can be selected and not the genes which code for them...

Or:
Only phenotypes can be selected and not the genes which code for them....

Similarly, given haphazard (or for this matter humanly manipulated) but
heritable, and viable enough to be naturally selected from by subsequent
opportune and adverse lifetime challenges, genetic/epigenetic changes,
learnt advantageous behaviors can reshape the genome of the descendants of
the
of the species-member(s) that first learnt these behaviors and NOT the
reverse.


Here follows an relevant E[PT]dserian axiom:
A learnt ambiadvantageous behavior (i.e. any behavior whereby an individual
meets a mix of adverse and opportune lifetime challenges) will not be
reshaped by the genetic recipe behind this (e.g. AEVASIVE) behavior.

More than just one gene (even within an oversimplified model) must be
supposed to code for the supposed behavioral phenotype because the
empirical fitness of genomic genes have never been documented to only be
additive
(no matter how you define fitness)

IF you in the same semantic context substitutes the word "code" for the
nicely metaphorical expression "be the recipe for", THEN it becomes clear
that even just one added genetic ingredient may very
well have a tremendously profound effect of the future behavior
and coping capacity and behavior of a genome that is being ontogenetically
expressed or phenotyped.

I have always not minded John Edser's (your) desire to logically tighten
people's evolution theoretical thinking by
explaing/preaching the principle (and existence) of patterning
irreversibilies/reversibilities within the dynamics involved
in the evolutionary patterning totality.

Another aspect of "Edserian explanatory efforts" that has appealed to me has
been that
your logic has appeared to pinpoint where "the wavefront of natural
selective dynamics" is not just most
effectively naturally selective but also most relevant to how we are and to
how we in my opinion
SHOULD aim to "Eclectically Plot the Truth" of how we are, and get and got
to be this way.

Regards,

P



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Genetic or Epigenetic: The Causal Basis of Evolutionary Change
    ... genes that has led to an evolutionary morphological change in the ... is the transmission of these genetic changes (not your imaginary CNS ... So here we have *three* heritable phenotypes (dwarf, ... ultimately due to specific genes (and their DNA-based regulation). ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The wirehead problem
    ... meme, or is the behavior of "building a PC" the real meme here? ... Memes are like genes - and not much like phenotypes. ... we have switched our focus from the genotype to ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Is there a neo-Neo-Darwinian Synthesis?
    ... Random sampling error CAN entirely delete some genes ... within a deme and random mutation CAN permanently alter others. ... these remain just genotypic events and not necessarily phenotypic events. ... critical phenotypes remain highly canalized (buffered against genetic ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Natural selection and favorable traits how were they measured
    ... genotypes or phenotypes. ... Darwin didn't know about genes. ... Aren't dictionaries fun! ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Postal Proteins
    ... "Location Matters, Even For Genes" ... laboratory, proposes that, such compartmentalization "implies the ... existence of DNA segments that encode for 'nuclear addresses' acting ...
    (talk.origins)