Re: The driving force of evolution


"DK" <dk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f97s4d$2g3d$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
JE:-
This is just back-to-the-future, stuff. The mutationists were wrong in the
past and they remain wrong, today. Chance selection (random mutation and
genetic drift) cannot compete and win against non random selection. The
problem which needs to be addressed here, i.e. not just evaded is, how can
genetics account for all the heritable differences between say, a chimp
and
a human when over 99% of the genes that code for anything at all remain
the
same in both.

Not even true. When it comes down to what matters most - proteins -
80% of them are not identical between chimps and humans.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15716009

What's important to remember here is that there are plenty of examples
where a single mutation in a single protein alters the way an entire cell
or
a whole organism behaves. Therefore, the 80% difference (even when
most of the difference may be restricted to a single amino acid) looks
very significant and can easily account for the difference between
species.

Note: both have only tiny genomes (20,000 or so coding genes).
The answer that makes the most sense to me is that NON additive genetic
epistasis accounts for _most_ of the _heritable_ variation along with
above
the gene level forms of inheritance like gene imprinting. Both remain
deleted from popular Neo Darwinian models.

The answer that makes most sense is that when a single amino acid
can alter the functioning of the whole organism and when we don't have
capacity to faithfully model this series of events, we can't possibly
have any clue as to what changes are "important" and what are not.
In other words, forgetaboutit, any attempt to account for the difference
are as reliable as attempts of predicting consequences of cold summer
in Texas on corn harvest in Iowa.

DK

Dear DK,
You might already know that due to the inertia inherent in addictive
ideational preoccupations (amongst other kinds) it is very unrealistic to
expect "a forgetaboutit" in any of us.

One aspect of John's ideationally AEVASIVE characteristics is to try to make
evolutionary theorists see how significant the difference between mere
additive (or mere multiplicative) and "non-additive" (or ~= cascading -- as
recognized and most generally exemplified by you) of DNA-code changes.

How I am ideationally AEVASIVE is different to Edser's, and I the same goes
for you.

However we are all normally basically AEVASIVE somehow - if naturally more
or less intensely, and more or less rationally, and more or less
"successfully" (since it can be meant in different senses) so.

The basic functional character of "being AEVASIVE" is to in one combination
of ways or another be habitually addictively motivated to project the by
neural plasticities rerouted output of CCKHHURSSES (or CURSES - or, to use
Arthur Janov's more blunt jargon, "primal pain" or "Pain") in interacting
parallel with likewise "conditioned-in" and innately predisposed pleasure
seeking drives.

AEVASIVE is a concEPT that cannot be understood without a pragmatic
attitudinal application of a realistically rational extrapolation of the
"Principle of Tolerance" (from Jacob Bronowski);

Neither can it be appreciated without a talent for thinking in the almost
completely generic term(s) of evolutionarily significant life-situations
(challenges in the lifetime of animal individuals) in the form of
"specific/synaptic hibernation imploring type" predicaments.

Nor can it be grasped without an able willingness (that perhaps can only be
produced by being perverse in a sufficiently SEPTIC humored way) to sum over
highly plausible histories of members of our ancestral populations; That is,
to sum these histories with a percEPTive emphasis on how SHI-type
predicaments, come CURSES, naturally selectively combined (like they do
today) with relevant intrinsic as well as extrinsic (environmental)
evolutionary opportunities.

Although the scientific and perfectly science-aligned principles that are
implied by AEVASIVE do apply (to a greater or lesser extent) to the
phylogeny, function, and behavior of neuromuscular fauna, the concEPT's
greatest explanatory potential taps into, and is to do with tracing, the
evolutionary path to us folk.

P


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Possible vs. Likely
    ... impossible for humans to have "micro-evolved" their genetic ... mutation selection balance. ... mutation can "fix" the detrimental effects of another mutation. ... It is all just genetics. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Possible vs. Likely
    ... impossible for humans to have "micro-evolved" their genetic ... selection to remove it, and most likely it is lost. ... mutation can "fix" the detrimental effects of another mutation. ... It is all just genetics. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Neis "new mutation theory" resurrects William Bateson
    ... "The large number of variants arising in each generation by mutation ... Valentine JW: Evolution: W.H. Freeman, 1977, p. 72) ... variability available to the action of natural selection. ... 1955, Evolution, Genetics and Man. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: An introduction
    ... selection and an oversimplified concept of mutation via genetic ... and itself is a stronger force of evolution than mutation. ... genetics, and my understanding of population genetics has drift as a ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Human evolution
    ... The claim counters a common theory that human evolution has slowed to a crawl or even stopped in modern humans, since in modern society the survivors no longer have to be the fittest, and is based on data from an international genetics project that can chart how evolution has shaped mankind over the past 40,000 years. ... In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team led by University of Wisconsin-Madison anthropologist Prof John Hawks suggests that humans are in the evolutionary fast lane and many changes in our genes are driven by the dramatic rise in population, culture, changes in diet brought on by the advent of agriculture, and resistance to epidemic diseases that became major killers after the growth of human civilisations. ... "This is always a tough question, because selection depends on the environment and our environment has been changing," he explains. ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)