Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

29962Re: Answer to Message #29937.

Expand Messages
  • gluadys
    Nov 10, 2012
      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
      > Charles P: The discussion is supposed to be about natural genetic
      > engineering.
      > Gluadys: Well, the ball is in your court on that one. I asked whether you
      > see Shapiro's natural genetic engineering as supporting of natural
      > selection or the reverse. I haven't seen you answer yet. Can't have a
      > discussion unless you hold up your end of it.
      > Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 This
      > was answered on August 11, 2012, and I apologize for repeating it so many
      > times.

      No, there is no answer to my question in that post. You can't repeat what you have never said in the first place (unless you are playing Mad Hatter to my Alice.)

      > James A Shapiro and natural genetic engineering and I support
      > natural selection. Even the creationists support natural selection.

      If you and Shapiro "support" natural selection as creationists do, that is equivalent to not supporting natural selection at all. Most creationists I have conversed with don't understand how natural selection works, and they certainly don't consider it the driver of evolutionary change.

      > Charles P (July 5, 2012):
      > because there is no list of undisputed facts of The Theory of Evolution,
      > both D R Lindberg and you seemed to think that I was disputing natural
      > selection. Natural selection should be number one on the list so that we
      > don't have to keep discussing the same old ideas over and over.

      Provided we are on the same page as to what natural selection is and what it can do ever time. Natural selection in a dinosaur family produced birds. Natural selection in a terrestrial arteriodactyl family produced whales.If you don't agree, then you do dispute natural selection.

      > Charles P: Why should we care about whether Moran is right and Axe
      > is wrong?
      > Gluadys: For your enlightenment, and that of other readers.
      > Charles P: I accept it as axiomatic. Please enlighten us with "why" and
      > "how".

      I told you it would take time and patience. Part of the how was in the first section of my post about the A and Z lineages. When you respond to that, we can move on.

      > Natural genetic engineering:
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 Selection
      > operates as a purifying but not creative force. Evolutionary inventions
      > that survive purifying selection and prove useful are subject to
      > microevolutionary refinement, perhaps by the kind of processes envisaged in
      > conventional theories.

      Is this your view or Shapiro's view or Axe's view?

      I can tell you for sure that it is diametrically the opposite of the views of Carroll, Moran and all scientists who agree with the "conventional" theories.

      So your earlier comment that Shapiro, Carroll, Axe, etc. are all saying the same thing is dead wrong. In The Making of the Fittest, Carroll gives many examples of the creativity of natural selection.

      I can add a little to Stewart's responses here.

      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "stewart8724" <art1st@...> wrote:
      > High altitude adaptations:
      > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/huertasanchez_01 In this
      > research profile, we will explore these key questions:
      > 1 What is the difference between acclimatization and adaptation?
      > (The first can be achieved by individuals and the second is acquired by the evolution of a population. An example would be that humans can acclimatise to live more comfortably in the desert by adjusting their activity and in turn their body temperature, thereby reducing water loss. Camels have evolved (adapted) to recycle water from their urine directly into their blood stream, eliminating water loss almost completely).
      > 2 How are allele frequencies used to identify cases of recent natural
      > selection?
      > (I don't know)

      When allele frequencies deviate significantly from the Hardy-Weinberg averages, and/or from the average rate of neutral change, it is a signal that natural selection is active.

      > 3 How can mathematical modeling be used to learn about evolutionary
      > history?
      > (I don't know)

      Can't add much here either, but mathematical modelling can run several evolutionary scenarios on a computer and the computer results can then be compared to observational evidence. This would obviously tell scientists which mathematical scenario is nearest to the actual history of evolutionary change. And that is very helpful in understanding it.

      > 4 How can changes in non-coding DNA lead to evolutionary change?
      > (I don't know)

      Just as changes in coding DNA can be inherited, so can changes in non-coding DNA. Changes in coding DNA can lead directly to a change in a protein and its effect. Changes in non-coding DNA can lead to changes in when, where, how and whether a gene is expressed. This can have just as significant an effect on the traits exhibited by an organism as a direct change in a protein.

      Any inheritable change can propel evolutionary change through the effect of natural selection.

      Sean Carroll explains a lot of this with examples in The Making of the Fittest.
    • Show all 13 messages in this topic