Additive or Non additive? ( was the Role of yunk-DNA)


br.hessels@xxxxxxxxx wrote:-

Measure the magnitude of such changes and a correlation would
be pretty clear.

I'm sure there's a correlation between the amount of genetic change
and phenotypic change, but it's not obvious that the genetic code can
change in that way.

There is something inherently discrete in digital code. Take language
for example. A change of a letter in a word will likely either a)
destroy the meaning completely or b) change the meaning entirely.
There is no clear relation in the sense that a slight amount of change
in spelling changes the meaning of the word slightly. (Of course it is
true that an addition of a letter changes the the number of letters in
a correlated way.)

The same applies to genetic code.

JE:-
What is being described here is the critical difference between "additive"
and "non additive". Evolutionary theory literature traditionally stresses
this difference, e.g. a code (genotype) may be just additive but what that
code represents (phenotype) may be non additive allowing: "a change of a
letter in a word will likely either a) destroy the meaning completely or b)
change the meaning entirely" without however, _an sufficient understanding
of WHY_. Empirically, multiplication is NOT the same process as addition.
However in mathematics they are the samebut only via a deliberate deletion
of _ all irreversibly nested set structures_ leaving just _reversibly
intersected set structures_ . This deletion represents a critical,
uncorrected oversimplification because all intersecting sets must remain
nested within at least one set to remain rational because if they are not
the theory becomes reduced to just an empty tautology. Non reversible
multiplication, which is represented by any set nested proposition (these
are know as proper sub sets within mathematics), reduces all the contained
sets to _dependency on just the one set all of them remain 100% within_.
OTOH, addition only requires set intersections which depicts _reversibly
independent sets_.

Providing a mechanism which can empirically separate dependency from
independency (note: interdependency is the same as dependency) was and
remains absolutely critical for any empirically, i.e. not just
mathematically based evolutionary theory. This remains particularly
important with regard to the measure of fitness no matter how it is defined
because a _dependent fitness cannot be independently selected_. IOW, one
nested (proper sub set) fitness represent just the one level (unit) of
selection and not may levels of selection. Any nested fitness is the fitness
of just one dependent part and not one independent whole. Of course the
process of modelling oversimplification destroys this critical barrier
rendering monocentric propositions (one nested proposition) to just a
heuristic polycentic (many intersected sets ) proposition. IOW non
falsifiable polycentric Neo Darwinistic theory represents an uncorrected
oversimplification of falsifiable monocentric Darwinism produced by the
deliberate deletion of falsifiable nested sets of fitness proposed within
monocentric Darwinism. The study of any proposed evolutionary tree is just
the an outcome of a nested set proposition which is what any computer
programme is. These programs are used extensively within evolutionary
theory, e.g Felsenstein's evolutionary tree analysis. Yet, when it come to
_the structure polycentric Neo Darwinistic evolutionary theory itself_, NOT
A SINGLE NESTED PROPOSITION OF FITNESS CAN BE FOUND.


Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx









However, what can vary in a continuous, gradual way? DNA-length.

Strictly speaking, that's just as digital as other aspects of DNA.

It seems to me that the genetic code, the particular order of
nucleotides, that is, let's say, implemented onto the DNA molecule is
digital, whereas the length of the DNA molecule is, well, just the
length of a molecule, analog.


That's the role of yunk-DNA. It allows for the controlled
and measured introduction of variation in a population,
making continuous, gradual evolutionary change possible.

Um, that's not right :-(

Well, it should be right, I predict it to be right... :-)




(Also: yunk-DNA should be spelled junk-DNA)





.

Loading