Re: Natural selection vs mutation - in the news

Tim Tyler <seemysig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:-

The "chance" perspective suggests choices are common -
and that selection plays a relatively minor role
in determining the direction taken - instead,
chance is responsible.
The "necessity" perspective suggests choices are
either rare or that they lead to the same
endpoint - and so don't make much difference
in the long term.


JE:-
Chance provides heritable change which can only limit what the Darwinian non
random process of natural selection may select. Chance can indeed determine
which way a heritable pathway may take. An example would be which way around
the pre-retinal cells within a primordial eye happened to be facing.
However, it should be self evident that this _complex phenotype_ can only
remain a heritable trait if it is coded by genes at many different loci in
the same genome, acting in concert. IOW this 50/50 chance switching event
was not just the action of an isolated random process because it was and
remains, critically incorporated within a non random mechanism. In the
vertebrates and most probably only by chance, the primordial retinal cells
were facing the wrong way; however the invertebrates were luckier. IOW
epistatic (non additive in fitness) _heritable gene complexes_ act like
single mutated genes which can switch more complex phenotypes. Note that non
additive epistasis can employ a high or low gearing to preserve a phenotype
against change (canalization) or accelerate the rate of heritable change of
a different phenotype (assimilation) within the same genome accelerating the
rate of evolution. The invertebrate eye of an octopus is analogous to that
of a mammal. Analogies are common testifying to the power of non random
evolution over supposed, incorrect propositions of independent acts of
random evolution (heritable mutation and genetic drift). My point: random
processes work hand in hand with the non random process of natural selection
because they remain 100% incorporated within the one, same falsifiable
theory of evolution. Attempting to separate them by deploying mathematics
can only provide biological absurdities.

I am puzzeled about why I am having to explain
this repeatedly.
Aren't sci.bio.evolution posters /supposed/ to
understand what the "Chance and Necessity"
issue is about?

JE:-
Random processes were and remain corporated with non random natural
selection within just the one, same falsifiable theory of evolution. This is
what "Chance and Necessity" is all about. Attempts by mathematicians to
separate "chance" from the "necessity" of non random selection events within
the one, same falsifiable theory represents a critical error.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Brain Dead People
    ... Evolution is not chance. ... The available changes are by chance, selection result in ... Your positive skew seems to be limited to humans and chimpanzees, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Brain Dead People
    ... Evolution is not chance. ... The available changes are by chance, selection result in ... In any lineage one can expect to find regions of the genome which have ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is a general purpose mechanism possible?
    ... is becoming that evolution depended more on innate self ... organizing properties than on chance. ... so they all had to evolve to adapt. ... and selection for in my own attempts to evolve something it ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: The Evolution of the God Gene - NY Times
    ... A CRITICAL GLANCE INTO DARWIN ... He has already been shorn of his selection ... chance, variation he saw one of the chief factors of Evolution. ... credits to Natural Selection. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Brain Dead People
    ... Evolution is not chance. ... The available changes are by chance, selection result in ... If the local mutation rate is intrinsically ...
    (talk.origins)