Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[EHocking]

...So my argument is NOT that we don't know so we cannot say, my argument is that we DO!!!! know some important things, and as best we can tell, something other than mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling /transpposition occurring in the context of changing environmental/selection pressures does the trick.

It is called natural selection.

And in every single one of your posts in this thread you make great pains to ignore this cornerstone of evolutionary theory in order for you to attack your strawman.

 

[Dancing David]

Actually I did present empiric evidence, and as a matter of fact....I am the only one that has offered such evidence.

I presented the example of cytochrome c where selection pressure was not a factor whatsoever as mutations occurred with the regularity of a "molecular clock", and occurred in contradistinction to a Darwinian type mechanism without seeming to have much if any impact on phenotype/functionality.

Funny thing that!

So what selective pressures bear on the cytochrome c?

Are mutations going to be neutral, detrimental or beneficial to reproductive success?

Now of course you will ignore this and bring it up again later.

What possible reasons are there that mutations in cytochrome c are not retained?

 

[Dancing David]

Selection pressure is a feature of mechanism.......and certainly one not ignored by me, indeed, and again, my posts referencing cytochrome c emphasized the LACK OF A ROLE THAT SELECTION PRESSURE PLAYS IN SOME IMPORTANT CIRCUMSTANCES CASES.

No, selection pressures are exactly why cytochrome c is less likely to retain changes.

Vikings: Straw straw straw straw. Lovely straw! Wonderful straw! Straw stra-a-a-a-a-aw straw stra-a-a-a-a-aw straw. Lovely straw! Lovely straw! Lovely straw! Lovely straw! Lovely straw! Straw straw straw straw!

 

[Dancing David]

Neutral Selection was Motoo Kimura's ad hoc explanation.....for the then very very very surprising phenomenon of regular genotypic change without phenotypic impact or environmental pressure responsiveness.

Your point WAS MY POINT EXACTLY. This was an unexpected result. It is not evolution as had been theretofore understood and most would say was not evolution all, if by evolution one references substantive phenotypic change as a feature.

And how many changes occur in areas that are not narrowly constrained by metabolic processes.

You do know that a lot of time has passed since 1968, so somebody found something in 1968, that is like judging Gell-Mann's theories by what someone said in 1927 that disagrees with it.

Science moves on, someone said something 44 years ago, maybe that was true at teh time. Maybe things are a little different now.

So what about his later work where he explored other complexes where it would be expected to find mutations not retained in similar metabolic narrow processes.

What is the rate of random change retained in other portions of the DnA sequence where metabolic constraints do not effect the selection process?

Why is there random retention in other areas of the sequence and even the mitochondrial sequences?

 

[Dancing David]

Relax Dinwar, it was a joke.....don't take this stuff too seriously or we'll BOTH blow up. Then who would entertain the others??????

The Rush Limbaugh defense: It was joke, relax.

The playground defense: I was only playing.

The troll defense: It was joke, even though there were no smileys or other clues that it was a joke.

 

[Dancing David]

Skip the hot air stuff then Lowpro.....If it does not work for you, no big. it is not essential to anything. It is a metaphor helpful to some in their seeing my perspective, whether or not they agree.

No metaphors are appeals to emotion, often contain false analogies and are rhetorical devices.

Therefore they are not critical thinking.

Keep dancing, your resorting to such weak rhetorical spin doctoring shows that you are running out of actual critical thought and analysis.

 

[Dancing David]

I may me incorrect with my thinking, my analysis, but I am hardly ill-versed.......

So what are Gould's four errors in evolutionary thinking from the Mismeasure on Man?

And which two pertain very highly to your arguments?

Determinism is one

Which is the one that starts with a P?

 

[Dancing David]

I don't know how it, evolution, happened Dinwar....., and neither apparently does anyone else. Am I a bad person?

Yes but there is evidence of the retention of random, non-beneficial traits and other lines of converging evidence that do not contradict and support the theory of evolution through reproductive success.

Like traits which are directly detrimental to the individual but benefit reproductive rates, they are retained, etc...

 

[Fast Eddie B]

You cannot prove, you cannot demonstrate, that which you cannot prove or demonstrate...

1) I agree!

2) Interesting that about the only time I do agree with Patrick1000 is when his "argument" becomes tautological. He has not made one other coherent argument in this entire thread that I can recall.

While I still hold there's nothing to be gained by engaging Patrick1000 directly, there is a lot of meat in this thread. Karen and I are about 1/2 way through "The Secret Life of Chaos", which we only knew about from this thread.

 

[Patrick1000]

Sure I've made a coherent argument......

1) I agree!

2) Interesting that about the only time I do agree with Patrick1000 is when his "argument" becomes tautological. He has not made one other coherent argument in this entire thread that I can recall.

While I still hold there's nothing to be gained by engaging Patrick1000 directly, there is a lot of meat in this thread. Karen and I are about 1/2 way through "The Secret Life of Chaos", which we only knew about from this thread.

Sure I've made a coherent argument(s)......

I pointed out that in the case of cytochrome c, and this is true for other proteins studied as well, there are these examples where biologic information/genes change over time without influence on phenotype, and this occurs very much independent of any selection pressures, occurs OUTSIDE OF THE CONTEXT OF NATURAL SELECTION. This is Motoo Kimura's "Neutral Selection".

As ALL evolutionary biologists agree that this occurs, whether those biologists write on the "side" of mainstream interpretation or challenge the mainstream interpretation as I do, there is NO disagreement on this point among all of the best minds in biology.

I argued in my posts above that here was a well recognized counter example, the cytochrome c example, to the conventionally presented mechanism of evolution.

As ALL biologists, mainstreamers and non-mainstreamers AGREE WITH MY POINT ABOUT CYTOCHROME C'S REPRESENTING A MAINSTREAM MECHANISM COUNTER EXAMPLE, it would seem to be, and is indeed the case Fast Eddie B, that you are wrong here, and so it is you that sits by himself, not a soul around you Fast Eddie B, on that island in the world of cytochrome c biology interpretation.

Must be lonely out there, all alone with your theories Fast Eddie B, is it not?

 

[Patrick1000]

Biologists, mainstreamers and those others critical believe selection is not a factor

Funny thing that!

So what selective pressures bear on the cytochrome c?

Are mutations going to be neutral, detrimental or beneficial to reproductive success?

Now of course you will ignore this and bring it up again later.

What possible reasons are there that mutations in cytochrome c are not retained?

Biologists, mainstreamers, as well as those others critical of the conventionally presented mainstream paradigm, believe "selection is not a factor" in the case of cytochrome c. They suggest this to be the case as the molecule, the genotype, changes with the regularity of a clock's ticking.

 

[Patrick1000]

That's silly........

No metaphors are appeals to emotion, often contain false analogies and are rhetorical devices.

Therefore they are not critical thinking.

Keep dancing, your resorting to such weak rhetorical spin doctoring shows that you are running out of actual critical thought and analysis.

That's silly........of course metaphors are not appeals to emotion.

Let's say we are Indians and our friend is the fastest runner among us. He darts off into the woods and I turn to you and say, "That man is a deer", implying he is very swift.

Metaphors are ways of communicating, and very effective they can be. They may or may not convey, or make appeals to emotion. My metaphor there, the one about our Indian friend made no such appeal.

 

[Patrick1000]

Downplay?, not on your life......

Hey look at you, trying to downplay your own embarrassing argument...

Sure it isn't essential or anything...only...it was the crux of your entire platform.

Oh, and now it goes on record that you're purposely ignoring the evidence against your argument and it is now understood that you admit that you have no proof against the mechanism for the theory of evolution. All this 21 pages finally comes to a conclusion.

Downplay?, not on your life......I personally think the metaphor is outta' sight excellent. I simply encouraged Lowpro to discard it if it doesn't float his own boat, his own evolutionary spaceship.

 

[Patrick1000]

What are you saying is called "Natural Selection"......

It is called natural selection.

And in every single one of your posts in this thread you make great pains to ignore this cornerstone of evolutionary theory in order for you to attack your strawman.

What are you saying is called "Natural Selection"?......I am not understanding your point.

 

[Patrick1000]

Examples of "Neutral Selection".........

No, selection pressures are exactly why cytochrome c is less likely to retain changes.

Vikings: Straw straw straw straw. Lovely straw! Wonderful straw! Straw stra-a-a-a-a-aw straw stra-a-a-a-a-aw straw. Lovely straw! Lovely straw! Lovely straw! Lovely straw! Lovely straw! Straw straw straw straw!

Examples of "Neutral Selection"......... are ones in which selection pressures do not seem to play a role, not a major one anyway, in the genome's change.

You are not understanding the point of the biologists here. By the way, it is a mainstreamer point, not one of mine.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

How outta' sight excellent would your "that man is a deer" metphor be, if you went on "therefore he is incapable of speech"? That's what you tried to do with your balloon analogy. It too was dumb.

 

[Wowbagger]

As ALL biologists, mainstreamers and non-mainstreamers AGREE WITH MY POINT ABOUT CYTOCHROME C'S REPRESENTING A MAINSTREAM MECHANISM COUNTER EXAMPLE, it would seem to be, and is indeed the case Fast Eddie B, that you are wrong here, and so it is you that sits by himself, not a soul around you Fast Eddie B, on that island in the world of cytochrome c biology interpretation.

Cytochrome C is not a "counter example". No one said all changes must be beneficial. There is room for neutral changes to be carried along.

A real counter example would be a change in a protein that made things far, far worse off for the species, in almost every way one could measure fitness; and yet some "holy spirit" or something kept them all alive and thriving in spite of that.
Do you have an actual counter examples to offer?

 

[Patrick1000]

In the case of cytochrome c the changes seem NEITHER beneficial nor detrimental....

Cytochrome C is not a "counter example". No one said all changes must be beneficial. There is room for neutral changes to be carried along.

A real counter example would be a change in a protein that made things far, far worse off for the species, in almost every way one could measure fitness; and yet some "holy spirit" or something kept them all alive and thriving in spite of that.
Do you have an actual counter examples to offer?

In the case of cytochrome c, the changes in genotype are viewed by mainstream biologists as NEITHER beneficial nor detrimental...hence the term "neutral". Selection pressure, environmental pressure has no role. It is neutral in a sense here as well. The genotype changes regardless, and the phenotype, at least to some significant degree, does not appear to be impacted by the genotype's changing. Very odd!

 

[Patrick1000]

It is a counter example.........

Cytochrome C is not a "counter example". No one said all changes must be beneficial. There is room for neutral changes to be carried along.

A real counter example would be a change in a protein that made things far, far worse off for the species, in almost every way one could measure fitness; and yet some "holy spirit" or something kept them all alive and thriving in spite of that.
Do you have an actual counter examples to offer?

It is a counter example.........Cytochrome c blew everyone's mind big time when it was "discovered". It is not natural selection in ANY sense. "Neutral Selection" is Motoo Kimura's ad hoc expression referencing it. It is biologic system informational change without natural selection as a feature of that change. It is very much a counter example, an excellent one. I have dozens and dozens more by the way.

 

[Lowpro]

In the case of cytochrome c, the changes in genotype are viewed by mainstream biologists as NEITHER beneficial nor detrimental...hence the term "neutral". Selection pressure, environmental pressure has no role. It is neutral in a sense here as well. The genotype changes regardless, and the phenotype, at least to some significant degree, does not appear to be impacted by the genotype's changing. Very odd!

Selection pressure does play a role; it always does. The changes are neutral but the organism is STILL undergoing selection pressure it never stops. If the changes caused CytC to lose functionality, the organism would probably die unless it was something like a yeast.

You really do not understand natural selection...

Also you don't understand biochemistry either, but that's fine. The changes occur biochemically as all genetic changes do. Fitness is ALWAYS effected though, even if there is no change in fitness that is an outcome of selection pressure.