Re: Genomic Instability?


If a scientist speaks of gradualism, and points to many species that have
changed gradually, and cites that to be a product of mutations, even
during times when geography, that is fine so far as it goes. But let him
NOT OMIT telling me how rhinoceroses were, by comparison, less vulnerable
to gradualism.

Ragland,

Let me expand a teensy bit on this point.

If I ask a deeply committed advocate of natural selection why there were
changes in the lengths of giraffe's necks over a lot of millinea, the
regurge response is that the giraffes kept needing longer necks to reach
foliage higher than other animals could reach.

If I ask a deeply committed advocate of natural selection why elephants are
so big and strong, ONE reason might be that it enables them to push over
trees to eat the leaves which otherwise only giraffes could reach. Or, more
often the reason given to why any animal is big and strong is because that
provided an advantage of other animals that are smaller and weaker.

Then, if I ask a deeply committed advocate of natural selection why
rhinoceroses have remained so near the same for (millions?) of years, then
the answer is likely to be, "Oh, that's simple. They were well adapted way
back then, and did not HAVE to adapt as much as giraffes and elephants.

Or, if I ask a deeply committed advocate of nature selection why there was a
LINEAR progression from Eocene horses fossils in what is now the western
U.S. with four toes in front and three in back to hooves, then the answer
may be something such as "because hooves were advantageous."

I DO NOT REFUTE any of this. What my stance is, as of this moment is
NOT WHETHER natural selection has taken place, but HOW.

And if the discoveries of genes and DNA and RNA explain it, great. But one
question that keeps nagging at my curiosity is this:

If mutations are random, then why do they EVER come up with mutations that
CAN be selected in the first place.

I need to think through the sub-questions that lead up to this one,
actually. But something about the assertion that just giving something a
name does not explain the nitty gritty details NECESSARY for it to mean
anything.

If a patient asks a doctor, "What is causing me to have this fever, malaise,
joint pain, anorexia, muscle pain, joint pain ...?"

The doctor says, "Influenza."

Patient says, "Oh."

So, if we ask why giraffes "changed" to having longer necks, while elephants
got larger and grew long tusks, and
rhinocerouses stayed the same, and someone says, "Natural Selection."

There is an important difference between an explanation's being "self
explanatory" and its being "self instantiating."

Natural selection surely makes sense in its abstract simplistic form.
"Well, you see you get these random mutations and the ones that work get
chosen, while the ones that don't result in inferiority, which results in
getting cancelled out of the gene pool. Simple as that."

"How?"

"Genetics."

"Now that we KNOW how to compute it, what are the statistical odds against
ANY BENEFICIAL mutation being come up with in a species that will have any
ADAPTIVE VALUE? One in ten. One in a hundred. One in a million?"

How can random mutations come up with a linear progression from four toes to
a hoof in front and three toes to a hoof in the back? When we think long
and hard about it, what were the odds of a whole SERIES of mutations coming
up with a hoof? Just random chance, huh?

What's wrong with that picture, until and unless we know EXACTLY why an
earthworm can have many times more genes than a human.

Now please do not think that were I am going with this is to any dogma,
theistic, pantheistic, magical, or any other.
I'm not. I am not offering an answer. I am only saying... how do we KNOW.

Natural Selection, as a model for describing some things that have occurred
in nature is POST HOC. It is taking a result and guessing up a model which
describes it, and giving that a name. (Darwin did a WONDERFUL job of
describing some aspects of what has happened, and giving that a "NAME.")

Doctors had names for things like "consumption" long before any microbe or
virus was discovered.

"Why am I losing weight, doc? Why am I getting weaker? Why do I cough all
the time?"

Doctor: "Consumption."

Patient: "Oh."


g


.

Relevant Pages
Loading