How the biologist responded to these "problems"? I've found nothing on
the net. I found a book on Amazon for $300, but I'm not buying it. This symposium took place in 1966, so it's possible that the
challenges have been met in the intervening years since then.
However, I
know of several challenges that so far as I know have not been answered.
The questions are: There are over 500 amino acids found in nature, 50% left-handed, but if blind, aimless, unguided natural processes selected
the 20 or 22 amino acids that used by all life what are
the chances of these particular particular 20 left-handed amino acids
being selected? I realize there are theories offered to explain why
only left-handed amino acids were selected, but what about the 20? Or is
it possible that any other set of amino acids would have worked just as
well?
We've discussed this before. I think originally the genetic code was
robust, but over time due to the 2/ND law and missed errors in copying,
the robustness declined and continues to decline. This I
think was anticipated from the beginning of the genetic code and several proofreading and repair machines were implanted into the code. But even
these proofreading and repair systems are subject to errors over time. However, they still catch overwhelming numbers of mutations and corrects them, but not all. The evidence I think supports this. Still, each
generation inherits the mutations from previous generations and develops
new mutations, all of which is passed on down. At some distant time the genetic code in each species becomes increasingly less robust until reproduction
ceases and we see this in many extinctions as recorded in the fossil
record.
If one looks at the fossil record with _no_ biases, I think what we find
is the abrupt appearance of most (if not all) species in the strata,
then long periods of stasis followed by sudden disappearance.
I think Dr Stephen J. Gould was an honest scientist who voiced what was actually observed in the fossil record without bias or an overriding commitment to convention.
On 6/1/24 5:56 PM, El Kabong wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:Now, now. Gould wasn't/isn't the last word of authority, especially
We've discussed this before. I think originally the genetic code was
robust, but over time due to the 2/ND law and missed errors in copying,
the robustness declined and continues to decline. This I
think was anticipated from the beginning of the genetic code and several >>> proofreading and repair machines were implanted into the code. But even
these proofreading and repair systems are subject to errors over time.
However, they still catch overwhelming numbers of mutations and corrects >>> them, but not all. The evidence I think supports this. Still, each
generation inherits the mutations from previous generations and develops >>> new mutations, all of which is passed on down. At some distant time the
genetic code in each species becomes increasingly less robust until
reproduction
ceases and we see this in many extinctions as recorded in the fossil
record.
Your invocation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a
common creationist diversion. It started as a deliberate
misrepresentation, and spread among the ignoratti such as
yourself.
The earth is awash in exergy. It has always been there
for the taking. The 2nd law has naught to do with
genetic drift. Extinction almost always happens due to
environment & competition, humans included.
You should ask an engineer to explain entropy and the 2nd
Law to you.
If one looks at the fossil record with _no_ biases, I think what we find >>> is the abrupt appearance of most (if not all) species in the strata,
then long periods of stasis followed by sudden disappearance.
I think Dr Stephen J. Gould was an honest scientist who voiced what was
actually observed in the fossil record without bias or an overriding
commitment to convention.
So Gould was an IDer. Who knew?
since he's been gone many years now, but his opinion that "replaying
life's tape" would produce nothing like what we see is the antithesis of >intelligent design. Ron's misunderstanding of almost everything about >evolutionary biology (Gould included) is becoming legendary. He claims
to be an engineer, but what kind?
So, who knows how many amino acids existed on the pre-biotic earth.
Since you asked, apparently not you, which verifies Ernest Major's presumption expressed above.
On 31/05/2024 18:36, Ron Dean wrote:
How the biologist responded to these "problems"? I've found nothing on
the net. I found a book on Amazon for $300, but I'm not buying it. This
symposium took place in 1966, so it's possible that the
challenges have been met in the intervening years since then.
At 10% of that price there is https://www.amazon.co.uk/Failures-Mathematical-Anti-Evolutionism-Jason-Rosenhouse/dp/1108820441
The summary for chapter 4 is "We discuss the famous Wistar conference
from 1966, in which high-level mathematical challenges to evolutionary
theory were presented. We refute these challenges and discuss the
historical significance of the conference in shaping modern
mathematical anti-evolutionism."
However, I know of several challenges that so far as I know have not
been answered.
The questions are: There are over 500 amino acids found in nature, 50%
left-handed, but if blind, aimless, unguided natural processes selected
the 20 or 22 amino acids that used by all life what are
the chances of these particular particular 20 left-handed amino acids
being selected? I realize there are theories offered to explain why
only left-handed amino acids were selected, but what about the 20? Or
is it possible that any other set of amino acids would have worked just
as well?
The last time you made this claim I tracked down the source of the 500 number, and found that this was 500 different amino acids which occur
in living organisms. I asked you to consider how many of these amino
acids existed in meaningful quantities (if at all) on the pre-biotic
earth. I presume that you haven't done so.
I've also brought to you attention that 20/22 amino acids used by all
life is an oversimplification. All variants of the genetic code encode
20 proteinogenic amino acids, so those are used by all life. Some
prokaryotes have genetic codes that also encode a 21st amino acid, i.e. pyrolysine.
Wikipedia reports that the current consensus is that this originated
in stem-archaeans, and has subsequently been horizontally transferred
into some bacterial groups. A 22nd amino acid, selenocysteine, is also incorporated into proteins from the genetic code using a kludge. This
is also not present in all organisms.
However other amino acids are incorporated in proteins by
post-translation modifications. I've previously brought to your
attention that there's more hydroxyproline in human proteins than
several canonical amino acids.
Other amino acids play a role in biochemical metabolism.
They you get into the weeds with amino acids such as canavanine (one of
your 500). This is produced by some leguminous plants as an
anti-herbivore toxin. It mimics arginine (a proteinogenic amino acid),
from which it differs from by replacing a methylene bridge by an oxygen
atom, resulting in it being incorporated into the herbivore's proteins
to the detriment to their function. Specialist herbivores get round
this either by having means of metabolising the canavanine before it
gets near their protein synthesis machinery, or by improving the discrimination of their tRNA-arginine synthetases.
There's a widespread belief that proteins are a relatively late
addition to the biochemical repertoires, catalysis having been previous performed using RNAzymes. (RNAzymes are still essential for life.) If
this is correct that would mean that amino acids and proteins can be
added to the biochemical repertoires in gradual steps.
People have studied the development of the genetic code, and inferred
that the original code included fewer amino acids - perhaps as few as
for. The addition of amino acids to the code would depend on
availability and utility. The availability constraint biases the
genetic code to simpler amino acids. The utility constraint biases the addition of amino acids to the code to amino acids which expand the functional range of proteins, i.e. which have properties (polar vs
non-polar, basic vs acidic, hydrophobic via hydrophilic, etc.) not
already found in the prior set.
People have studied the robustness of the genetic code. The genetic
code is not optimal for robustness against mutation, but is a lot
better than a random one. Something similar may hold for the set of proteinogenic amino acids. Other sets might work perfectly well, but a
set with, for example, only hydrophilic amino acids strikes me as
likely to be relatively ineffective, or perhaps even not effective at
all.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 31/05/2024 18:36, Ron Dean wrote:After I check the local library I'll look into this.
How the biologist responded to these "problems"? I've found nothing
on the net. I found a book on Amazon for $300, but I'm not buying it.
This symposium took place in 1966, so it's possible that the
challenges have been met in the intervening years since then.
At 10% of that price there is
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Failures-Mathematical-Anti-Evolutionism-Jason-Rosenhouse/dp/1108820441
The summary for chapter 4 is "We discuss the famous Wistar conference
from 1966, in which high-level mathematical challenges to evolutionary
theory were presented. We refute these challenges and discuss the
historical significance of the conference in shaping modern
mathematical anti-evolutionism."
Where there is mathematics involved, how is the math challenged? If not
the math then what?
I don't think it's fair to call someone an anti-evolutionist.
This is a
disparagement meant to discredit an opposition without a hearing. It's
like a court where the prosecutor presents his case, but a defense is
not allowed. But a fair decision is expected.
But you cannot challenge the mathematics. What is the chance of a single functional protein can form through unguided, random and aimless
processes?
For example, in the pre-biotic earth the first protein of say
150 (the average number amino acids in a protein is 500-400) amino acids
in a specific order is needed. Even in an ocean of amino acids and 4.5 billion years. It's said it would be less chance than the number atoms
in the known universe. As you know in the pre-biotic universe there is
no natural selection.
"......we can calculate the probability of building our very modest
protein."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaAfunctional protein to be 1 in 10^164.
Remember, this is only one protein, and life requires hundreds of
proteins".
https://www.str.org/w/building-a-protein-by-chance
I think this is where intelligence comes into play, there is no more
simpler explanation!
Where is Ocham's razor?
[big snip]
The truth is, information is degraded by errors, mistakes and copying.
On 2024-05-31 19:00:00 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 31/05/2024 18:36, Ron Dean wrote:
How the biologist responded to these "problems"? I've found nothing
on the net. I found a book on Amazon for $300, but I'm not buying it.
This symposium took place in 1966, so it's possible that the
challenges have been met in the intervening years since then.
At 10% of that price there is
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Failures-Mathematical-Anti-Evolutionism-Jason-Rosenhouse/dp/1108820441
The summary for chapter 4 is "We discuss the famous Wistar conference
from 1966, in which high-level mathematical challenges to evolutionary
theory were presented. We refute these challenges and discuss the
historical significance of the conference in shaping modern
mathematical anti-evolutionism."
However, I know of several challenges that so far as I know have not
been answered.
The questions are: There are over 500 amino acids found in nature,
50% left-handed, but if blind, aimless, unguided natural processes
selected the 20 or 22 amino acids that used by all life what are
the chances of these particular particular 20 left-handed amino acids
being selected? I realize there are theories offered to explain why
only left-handed amino acids were selected, but what about the 20? Or
is it possible that any other set of amino acids would have worked
just as well?
The last time you made this claim I tracked down the source of the 500
number, and found that this was 500 different amino acids which occur
in living organisms. I asked you to consider how many of these amino
acids existed in meaningful quantities (if at all) on the pre-biotic
earth. I presume that you haven't done so.
I've also brought to you attention that 20/22 amino acids used by all
life is an oversimplification. All variants of the genetic code encode
20 proteinogenic amino acids, so those are used by all life. Some
prokaryotes have genetic codes that also encode a 21st amino acid,
i.e. pyrolysine.
Also selenocysteine.
 Wikipedia reports that the current consensus is that this originated
in stem-archaeans, and has subsequently been horizontally transferred
into some bacterial groups. A 22nd amino acid, selenocysteine, is also
incorporated into proteins from the genetic code using a kludge. This
is also not present in all organisms.
However other amino acids are incorporated in proteins by
post-translation modifications. I've previously brought to your
attention that there's more hydroxyproline in human proteins than
several canonical amino acids.
Other amino acids play a role in biochemical metabolism.
They you get into the weeds with amino acids such as canavanine (one
of your 500). This is produced by some leguminous plants as an
anti-herbivore toxin. It mimics arginine (a proteinogenic amino acid),
from which it differs from by replacing a methylene bridge by an
oxygen atom, resulting in it being incorporated into the herbivore's
proteins to the detriment to their function. Specialist herbivores get
round this either by having means of metabolising the canavanine
before it gets near their protein synthesis machinery, or by improving
the discrimination of their tRNA-arginine synthetases.
There's a widespread belief that proteins are a relatively late
addition to the biochemical repertoires, catalysis having been
previous performed using RNAzymes. (RNAzymes are still essential for
life.) If this is correct that would mean that amino acids and
proteins can be added to the biochemical repertoires in gradual steps.
People have studied the development of the genetic code, and inferred
that the original code included fewer amino acids - perhaps as few as
for. The addition of amino acids to the code would depend on
availability and utility. The availability constraint biases the
genetic code to simpler amino acids. The utility constraint biases the
addition of amino acids to the code to amino acids which expand the
functional range of proteins, i.e. which have properties (polar vs
non-polar, basic vs acidic, hydrophobic via hydrophilic, etc.) not
already found in the prior set.
People have studied the robustness of the genetic code. The genetic
code is not optimal for robustness against mutation, but is a lot
better than a random one. Something similar may hold for the set of
proteinogenic amino acids. Other sets might work perfectly well, but a
set with, for example, only hydrophilic amino acids strikes me as
likely to be relatively ineffective, or perhaps even not effective at
all.
On 02/06/2024 14:55, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-05-31 19:00:00 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 31/05/2024 18:36, Ron Dean wrote:
How the biologist responded to these "problems"? I've found nothing on >>>> the net. I found a book on Amazon for $300, but I'm not buying it. This >>>> symposium took place in 1966, so it's possible that the
challenges have been met in the intervening years since then.
At 10% of that price there is
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Failures-Mathematical-Anti-Evolutionism-Jason-Rosenhouse/dp/1108820441
The summary for chapter 4 is "We discuss the famous Wistar conference
from 1966, in which high-level mathematical challenges to evolutionary
theory were presented. We refute these challenges and discuss the
historical significance of the conference in shaping modern
mathematical anti-evolutionism."
However, I know of several challenges that so far as I know have not
been answered.
The questions are: There are over 500 amino acids found in nature, 50% >>>> left-handed, but if blind, aimless, unguided natural processes selected >>>> the 20 or 22 amino acids that used by all life what are
the chances of these particular particular 20 left-handed amino acids
being selected? I realize there are theories offered to explain why
only left-handed amino acids were selected, but what about the 20? Or
is it possible that any other set of amino acids would have worked just >>>> as well?
The last time you made this claim I tracked down the source of the 500
number, and found that this was 500 different amino acids which occur
in living organisms. I asked you to consider how many of these amino
acids existed in meaningful quantities (if at all) on the pre-biotic
earth. I presume that you haven't done so.
I've also brought to you attention that 20/22 amino acids used by all
life is an oversimplification. All variants of the genetic code encode
20 proteinogenic amino acids, so those are used by all life. Some
prokaryotes have genetic codes that also encode a 21st amino acid, i.e.
pyrolysine.
Also selenocysteine.
Mentioned 2 sentences later.
Wikipedia reports that the current consensus is that this originated
in stem-archaeans, and has subsequently been horizontally transferred
into some bacterial groups. A 22nd amino acid, selenocysteine, is also
incorporated into proteins from the genetic code using a kludge. This
is also not present in all organisms.
However other amino acids are incorporated in proteins by
post-translation modifications. I've previously brought to your
attention that there's more hydroxyproline in human proteins than
several canonical amino acids.
Other amino acids play a role in biochemical metabolism.
They you get into the weeds with amino acids such as canavanine (one of
your 500). This is produced by some leguminous plants as an
anti-herbivore toxin. It mimics arginine (a proteinogenic amino acid),
from which it differs from by replacing a methylene bridge by an oxygen
atom, resulting in it being incorporated into the herbivore's proteins
to the detriment to their function. Specialist herbivores get round
this either by having means of metabolising the canavanine before it
gets near their protein synthesis machinery, or by improving the
discrimination of their tRNA-arginine synthetases.
There's a widespread belief that proteins are a relatively late
addition to the biochemical repertoires, catalysis having been previous
performed using RNAzymes. (RNAzymes are still essential for life.) If
this is correct that would mean that amino acids and proteins can be
added to the biochemical repertoires in gradual steps.
People have studied the development of the genetic code, and inferred
that the original code included fewer amino acids - perhaps as few as
for. The addition of amino acids to the code would depend on
availability and utility. The availability constraint biases the
genetic code to simpler amino acids. The utility constraint biases the
addition of amino acids to the code to amino acids which expand the
functional range of proteins, i.e. which have properties (polar vs
non-polar, basic vs acidic, hydrophobic via hydrophilic, etc.) not
already found in the prior set.
People have studied the robustness of the genetic code. The genetic
code is not optimal for robustness against mutation, but is a lot
better than a random one. Something similar may hold for the set of
proteinogenic amino acids. Other sets might work perfectly well, but a
set with, for example, only hydrophilic amino acids strikes me as
likely to be relatively ineffective, or perhaps even not effective at
all.
Martin Harran wrote:[]
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 11:15:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
In my youth I came to accept evolution as a fact. But after reading a
book by Dr Michael Denton, on a challenge, I began to question the
"evidence" for evolution and that's where I am today.
When forming my own views on a subject, I always make an effort to understand the various views on the subject. For example, on my
bookshelf, 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins sits alongside his
'God Delusion'; Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True' sits alongside
his ' Faith Versus Fact'; Francis Collins's 'The Language of God' sits alongside Stephen Meyer's 'God Hypothesis'.
What books or authors have you read you that argue against Intelligent Design?
I love reading, especially Science Fiction books + movies. I've read:
The Blind Watchmaker - Dawkins
the God Delusion -Dawkins
The language of Life - Collins
and 2 or 3 others, 25+ years ago - the titles I do not recall, but one
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 11:15:24 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
Once again, you conveniently forgot to mention that geneticNo, it is not corrected through reproduction,
information is corrected and amplified by reproduction and natural
selection, no intelligence necessary.
Read for comprehension. Yes, it is corrected through reproduction
*and* natural selection. Reproduction amplifies more fit mutations, natural selection removes less fit mutations. I know you know this.
Yes, and I've recognized and pointed this out. There are countless
errors and mutations, caused by radiation, copy error, omissions, but
the overwhelming majority or proofread and repaired. But there are a few mutations that the P&R machines does not detect. These mutations are
passed on
to offspring.
OK, in regards to the Cambrian Explosion, there were oceans where an abundance of new, unknown complex organisms abruptly appeared
(geologically speaking) where prior to this, there were billions of
years where only single cell organisms were found in the strata.
Not
only was this and explosion of complex organisms, this was accompanied
with an explosion of instructive information. The origin of which is
unknown.
On 2024-06-02 18:50:32 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 02/06/2024 14:55, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-05-31 19:00:00 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 31/05/2024 18:36, Ron Dean wrote:
How the biologist responded to these "problems"? I've found nothing
on the net. I found a book on Amazon for $300, but I'm not buying
it. This symposium took place in 1966, so it's possible that the
challenges have been met in the intervening years since then.
At 10% of that price there is
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Failures-Mathematical-Anti-Evolutionism-Jason-Rosenhouse/dp/1108820441
The summary for chapter 4 is "We discuss the famous Wistar
conference from 1966, in which high-level mathematical challenges to
evolutionary theory were presented. We refute these challenges and
discuss the historical significance of the conference in shaping
modern mathematical anti-evolutionism."
However, I know of several challenges that so far as I know have
not been answered.
The questions are: There are over 500 amino acids found in nature, >>>>> 50% left-handed, but if blind, aimless, unguided natural processes
selected the 20 or 22 amino acids that used by all life what are
the chances of these particular particular 20 left-handed amino
acids being selected? I realize there are theories offered to
explain why only left-handed amino acids were selected, but what
about the 20? Or is it possible that any other set of amino acids
would have worked just as well?
The last time you made this claim I tracked down the source of the
500 number, and found that this was 500 different amino acids which
occur in living organisms. I asked you to consider how many of these
amino acids existed in meaningful quantities (if at all) on the
pre-biotic earth. I presume that you haven't done so.
I've also brought to you attention that 20/22 amino acids used by
all life is an oversimplification. All variants of the genetic code
encode 20 proteinogenic amino acids, so those are used by all life.
Some prokaryotes have genetic codes that also encode a 21st amino
acid, i.e. pyrolysine.
Also selenocysteine.
Mentioned 2 sentences later.
True. I looked but I didn't see it. Getting old, I fear.
erik simpson wrote:
On 6/2/24 9:14 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabong wrote:You must have encountered thermodynamics in your education, but you
Ron Dean wrote:That's an easy claim to make where no proof is offered. It's just you
We've discussed this before. I think originally the genetic code was >>>>> robust, but over time due to the 2/ND law and missed errors in
copying,
the robustness declined and continues to decline. This I
think was anticipated from the beginning of the genetic code and
several
proofreading and repair machines were implanted into the code. But
even
these proofreading and repair systems are subject to errors over time. >>>>> However, they still catch overwhelming numbers of mutations and
corrects
them, but not all. The evidence I think supports this. Still, each
generation inherits the mutations from previous generations and
develops
new mutations, all of which is passed on down. At some distant time
the
genetic code in each species becomes increasingly less robust until
reproduction
ceases and we see this in many extinctions as recorded in the fossil >>>>> record.
Your invocation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a
common creationist diversion. It started as a deliberate
misrepresentation, and spread among the ignoratti such as
yourself.
;
stupid opinion!
Errors, omissions and other mutations happen, this is running down
The earth is awash in exergy. It has always been there
for the taking. The 2nd law has naught to do with
genetic drift.
;
this is increasing entropy.
The 2/ND law was stated by a locomotive engineer who observed that in
a _closed_ system energy always runs down, this is increasing
entropy. Heat flows from hot to cooler, never the reverse.
You are right the earth is an open system, receiving energy from the
sun, but even in open systems increasing entropy occurs. For example:
a house, after being deserted runs down and over time becomes
completely disordered this is increasing entropy, which is in accord
with the 2/nd law.
A tree grows from a seed this is decreasing entropy receiving energy
from the sun, and the tree
grows matures and then dies. Now even though the dead tree continues
to receive solar energy it
will decay and turn to dust. How do you explain that in terms of the
2/nd law?
Extinction almost always happens due to
environment & competition, humans included.I am an engineer MsEE. For your information according to the 2/ND
You should ask an engineer to explain entropy and the 2nd
Law to you.
law of thermodynamics the earth is an open system, but the second law
was originally defined by Carnot a steam engine engineer. He defined
the 2/ND law in terms of a closed system. He cared nothing about open
systems. But he, Carnot formulated the second law of thermodynamics.
No, that's not my claim. Stephen Gould observed the traits and
If one looks at the fossil record with _no_ biases, I think what we
find
is the abrupt appearance of most (if not all) species in the strata, >>>>> then long periods of stasis followed by sudden disappearance.
I think Dr Stephen J. Gould was an honest scientist who voiced what
was
actually observed in the fossil record without bias or an overriding >>>>> commitment to convention.
So Gould was an IDer. Who knew?
characteristics of the fossil record and he tried to interpret what
he found to fit within the scope of evolution. He never changed his
mind. He died an evolutionist.
continue to refer to any deleterious changes as "due to entropy".
So, deleterious change is not disorder?
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 11:15:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
In my youth I came to accept evolution as a fact. But after reading a
book by Dr Michael Denton, on a challenge, I began to question the
"evidence" for evolution and that's where I am today.
When forming my own views on a subject, I always make an effort to
understand the various views on the subject.
For example, on my
bookshelf, 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins sits alongside his
'God Delusion'; Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True' sits alongside
his ' Faith Versus Fact';
Francis Collins's 'The Language of God' sits
alongside Stephen Meyer's 'God Hypothesis'.
What books or authors have you read you that argue against Intelligent Design?
[Â…]
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
erik simpson wrote:
So, deleterious change is not disorder?
How does removing glutamic acid from a particular sequence and
replacing
it with valine increase entropy? Show your math, please.
Chris
I want to note how much I miss Paul Gans and other thermodynamics
experts.
'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins. A bit dated now and weak in
some areas like altruism but I have a soft spot for it as it was the second-ever book I read on evolution (see below for my first book.)
On 05/06/2024 12:37, Martin Harran wrote:
'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins. A bit dated now and weak in
some areas like altruism but I have a soft spot for it as it was the
second-ever book I read on evolution (see below for my first book.)
The Dawkins' books that I'd recommend are "The Extended Phenotype"
(written for biologists, rather the general populace, but I found it accessible, and covering somewhat of the same ground as "The Selfish
Gene"), and "The Ancestor's Tale" (a Gould essay collection written by Dawkins, with a unifying theme of consecutive sister groups to Homo
sapiens).
The weakness I found in "The Selfish Gene" is that it confused the individual/group selection dichotomy with the replicator/vehicle
dichotomy. That's fixed in "The Extended Phenotype".
IOW - None!
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?
The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.
On 6/8/24 1:38 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron DeanI accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron DeanThen please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium. >>>
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
IOW - None!How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?
The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists >>>>>>> have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary >>>>>>> theory.
IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they >>>>> quote are talking about.
Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.
that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw
it as "no data".
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and ignored
by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's theory. I
think that explains the "no data".
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated
equilibrium, as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis
followed by punctuated (rapid appearance of new species (geologically
speaking)), then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then sudden
disappearance.
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species". He calls punctuated which is
not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.
Mostly OK, if oddly stated. A few problems
1. "Sudden disappearance" is not in any way a part of the theory.
2. You have the equilibrium part all wrong. The equilibrium is stasis.
3. The term is "peripheral isolates", adopted from Ernst Mayr, and I'm
not sure you know what they are. They're just small, geographically
isolated populations on the periphery of a species range.
Some peripheral isolates are in fact observed. If you look at the
original publication, Eldredge N., Gould S.J. Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf T.J.M. editor. Models of Paleobiology, 1972. p. 82-115, you will see that it produces a couple
of examples of peripheral isolates, notably in a trilobite, Phacops
rana.
4. You should know that punctuated equilibria is not very popular with evolutionary biologists.
On 6/9/24 12:27 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-06-08 20:51:39 +0000, John Harshman said:I don't have a problem with this. I know about birds that surround an
On 6/8/24 1:38 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron DeanI accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out >>>>> that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw >>>>> it as "no data".
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron DeanThen please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
IOW - None!How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?
The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.
IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual >>>>>>>> change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they >>>>>>>> quote are talking about.
Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and ignored >>>>> by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's theory. I >>>>> think that explains the "no data".
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated
equilibrium, as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis >>>>> followed by punctuated (rapid appearance of new species (geologically >>>>> speaking)), then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then sudden >>>>> disappearance.
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species". He calls punctuated which is >>>>> not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.
Mostly OK, if oddly stated. A few problems
1. "Sudden disappearance" is not in any way a part of the theory.
2. You have the equilibrium part all wrong. The equilibrium is stasis. >>>>
3. The term is "peripheral isolates", adopted from Ernst Mayr, and I'm >>>> not sure you know what they are. They're just small, geographically
isolated populations on the periphery of a species range.
Speciation in such cases can happen remarkably rapidly. On the island
of Madeira there are six races (the term they use, though they fit
Mayr's definition of species) of mice, that cannot breed either with
one another or with the common European mouse. They appear to have
evolved within the past 1000 years (if you assume they are descended
from mice introduced by the Vikings), or much less than that if they
came with the Portuguese. (Madeira is an island with numerous deep
valleys separated by high ground that mice can't cross.)
island each grope can cross breed with the a-joining population in both
the fore and the back groups, but not beyond.
I think you're trying to talk about ring species.
Two problems: that's not what jillery is talking about, and there are
in fact no known examples of ring species of birds that surround an
island.
Some peripheral isolates are in fact observed. If you look at the
original publication, Eldredge N., Gould S.J. Punctuated equilibria: an >>>> alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf T.J.M. editor. Models of >>>> Paleobiology, 1972. p. 82-115, you will see that it produces a couple
of examples of peripheral isolates, notably in a trilobite, Phacops
rana.
4. You should know that punctuated equilibria is not very popular with >>>> evolutionary biologists.
Biological things are designoid: ‘Designoid
objects that look designed, so much so that some people – probably,
alas, most people – think that they are designed.
J. J. Lodder wrote:
LDagget <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
erik simpson wrote:
So, deleterious change is not disorder?
How does removing glutamic acid from a particular sequence and
replacing
it with valine increase entropy? Show your math, please.
Chris
I want to note how much I miss Paul Gans and other thermodynamics
experts.
Past expertise is always better than present one, eh?
Jan
Oh I realize that a number of people here have expertise in
thermodynamics, but it used to go deeper. Further, it included some with excellent skills in communication, the sort that sometimes arises from decades of teaching both freshman classes and graduate level classes.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 62:17:50 |
| Calls: | 9,813 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,754 |
| Messages: | 6,191,217 |