Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
I don't think you know your evolutionary theory:
Ernst Mayr: Genes cannot be modified by the environment. “What Evolution Is” pg 91
"Mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of adaptive improvement, and no mechanism is known (to put it mildly) that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random in this sense. Mutation is random with respect to adaptive advantage, although it is non-random in all sorts of other respects. It is selection, and only selection, that directs evolution in directions that are non-random with respect to advantage."
So you are saying that nuclear-radiated frogs won't produce genetically mutated offspring? You want there to be tests on dogs and rabbits and compound mammals because bacteria, HIV and pretty much all domesticated dogs aren't good enough. I think in the time from when Darwin proposed his ideas there have been enough tests to support it. Hey, he didn't even know about DNA and the causes of random mutations when he proposed them. And i think after 100+ years there have been enough observations, experiments, and evidence to support darwinism. So to say its dead would disprove every single thing that has been going on for 100+ years. I'm probably not going to read your feed back im always in zoology.
"Ignorance, the root and stem of every evil."
I havent read your whole post (as it is a bit long), but have read the introduction. You have admitted that you are not a scientist, then you critisice genetisists for "Hiding behind their test tubes". I think you need to learn the fundamentals of genetics before you can make such a direct claim. Of course there are some examples of lamarckism "working" but these are few and far between, and are by no means universal.
There are far too many critisisms of scientific theory by people who obviouly have not bothered to look into the long lines of research that lead up to them. I am not necessarily saying this is one of them, as I have not read your whole post, however I will read it all and get back to you shortly.
I have read your "hypothesis", my opinion still stands; you even seem to have contradicted yourself in a few places, as well as relying on one man for a lot of yor quotations. I have a university interview next week, so will not be able to post a full reply until after then.
I've been wondering about this as well. Darwinism is a good theory, but some fine-tuning might be required.
It seems that neo-darwinism hasn't taken epigenetics into account that much yet.
Then there's this interesting article by Barbara E. Wright found from the Journal of Bacteriology, June 2000, p. 2993-3001, Vol. 182, No. 11
You should be able to find that by googling 'nonrandom mutation'
So basically if gene control determines up to an extent what genes will go through mutation, then a mechanism for directing evolution is provided. How random is a directed random occurence? It wouldn't mean that gene control would determine the course of evolution, that's just silly, but it would mean that a lot of the randomness when discussing mutations isn't as random as the basic textbooks might let you understand.
"Your reasoning is excellent; it's just your premise that's wrong."
It always amazes me how people (and this includes a lot of science people) want simplistic answers.
If darwinian theory can't answer some questions, it must all be wrong. If neo-darwinism goes too far, well then none of it really applies.
I won't say that the molecular geneticists don't go too far in tying every single mechanism to allele frequencies, but there are legitimate mechanisms in population genetics.
Are Hox genes universal? Sort of. Are they the only genes at work in organisms? Not at all, and the other ones show a great deal of diversity - just not as much as you might expect. But remember, neo-darwinism also works with differential expression - locality effects, duplications, pathway modifications, etc.
I don't see Lamarck as much of a boogeyman - the man was no dummy, but he was working with limited knowledge about inheritance. Epigenetics is reviving some of his mechanisms, as well as some very strange bacterial behaviors.
I just wish that his belief about the Big Picture - evolution as a progressive movement toward some ideal goal - didn't have the legs it seems to have developed.
But there is a progressive movement towards some ideal goal: survival. Of course saying this might be seen as redundant, but as far as I remember, this is what Dawkins' Selfish Gene was about.
There wouldn't be life without homeostasis and self-propagation. Both of these are progressive in the sense that when environment changes, the regulation of these have to change or else the organism will not survive. And any organism that hasn't had the capacity for enough variability in their gene sequences have gone extinct. To have the ability to ensure that there will be enough variability in an organisms DNA sequence offers a clear evolutionary advantage as sure as any mechanism that increases the chance to survive.
Forgive me if I'm mistaken in interpreting what you're saying but:
There is no "progression" toward an "ideal goal".
Extinction is just as much a function of evolution as survival is.
If every species on earth were to go extinct, the process of evolution would not have "failed"
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
I will have to read the long informative post here again, but I get a sense that (maybe).... physics of fluids overides genetics as the creator of this universe's living forms.
My interest is the aesthetics of self organizing liquids, and I am intrigued by ideas and insights related to patterns and formations in liquids.
What on Earth did you just say?
(I actually have an inkling I know what you speak of, though I won't admit it until Im sure you know what you are talking about)
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests