Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Another Day; Another Bad Day for Darwinism: Pt. 43

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This is from a new study published in Nature Communications, and talked about at Phys.Org.

Oh, how difficult it is these days to be an “intellectually fulfilled” neo-Darwinian:

Humans don’t like being alone, and their genes are no different. Together we are stronger, and the two versions of a gene – one from each parent – need each other. Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics in Berlin have analysed the genetic makeup of several hundred people and decoded the genetic information on the two sets of chromosomes separately. In this relatively small group alone they found millions of different gene forms. The results also show that genetic mutations do not occur randomly in the two parental chromosome sets and that they are distributed in the same ratio in everyone.

Ouch!!!!!

The results show that most genes can occur in many different forms within a population: On average, about 250 different forms of each gene exist. The researchers found around four million different gene forms just in the 400 or so genomes they analysed. This figure is certain to increase as more human genomes are examined. More than 85 percent of all genes have no predominant form which occurs in more than half of all individuals. This enormous diversity means that over half of all genes in an individual, around 9,000 of 17,500, occur uniquely in that one person – and are therefore individual in the truest sense of the word.

Uh oh. What happened to “purifying selection”? Ouch!!!!

According to the researchers, mutations of genes are not randomly distributed between the parental chromosomes. They found that 60 percent of mutations affect the same chromosome set and 40 percent both sets. Scientists refer to these as cis and trans mutations, respectively. Evidently, an organism must have more cis mutations, where the second gene form remains intact. “It’s amazing how precisely the 60:40 ratio is maintained. It occurs in the genome of every individual – almost like a magic formula,” says Hoehe. The 60:40 distribution ratio appears to be essential for survival. “This formula may help us to understand how gene variability occurs and how it affects gene function.”

Double Ouch!!!!!

The gene, as we imagined it, exists only in exceptional cases. “We need to fundamentally rethink the view of genes that every schoolchild has learned since Gregor Mendel’s time. Moreover, the conventional view of individual mutations is no longer adequate. Instead, we have to consider the two gene forms and their combination of variants,” Hoehe explains. When analysing genomes, scientists should therefore examine each parental gene form separately, as well as the effects of both forms as a pair.

What’s that you say? Oh, you’re going to take your bat and go home now? I understand.

Yikes!!! Could it get any worse for the Darwinists? Just wait for tomorrow. . . . .

Comments
WD400 wrote:
As I said above, it works less well well when effective population sizes are very large or the mutation rate per site is very high. Neither of those apply to the resent history of humanity.
Agreed.leebowman
December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
Me_think thank you very much I'll let you know how it turns out I'm really busy so it might take a whilefifthmonarchyman
December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman @ 132 Ok. Here:
Two sonnets encoded in cipher ========================================================= td itdk td klxr dltbk vtfp, dx itdk klxr qwxv'dk, cf xfp xi klcfp, iwxh kltk vlcyl klxr upstwkpdk; tfu kltk iwpdl jbxxu vlcyl axrfqba klxr jpdkxv'dk, klxr htadk ytbb klcfp vlpf klxr iwxh axrkl yxfnpwkpdk, lpwpcf bcnpd vcduxh, jptrka, tfu cfywptdp; vcklxrk klcd ixbba, tqp, tfu yxbu upyta: ci tbb vpwp hcfupu dx, klp kchpd dlxrbu yptdp tfu klwppdyxwp aptw vxrbu htgp klp vxwbu tvta. bpk klxdp vlxh ftkrwp ltkl fxk htup ixw dkxwp, ltwdl, iptkrwpbpdd, tfu wrup, jtwwpfba spwcdl: bxxg, vlxh dlp jpdk pfuxv'u, dlp qtnp klpp hxwp; vlcyl jxrfkpxrd qcik klxr dlxrbudk cf jxrfka ylpwcdl: dlp ytwn'u klpp ixw lpw dptb, tfu hptfk klpwpja, klxr dlxrbudk swcfk hxwp, fxk bpk kltk yxsa ucp dta kltk klxr ucudk ixwdtgp hp ixw dxhp itrbk, tfu c vcbb yxhhpfk rsxf kltk xiipfyp: dsptg xi ha bthpfpdd, tfu c dkwtcqlk vcbb ltbk, tqtcfdk kla wptdxfd htgcfq fx upipfyp. klxr ytfdk fxk bxnp ucdqwtyp hp ltbi dx cbb, kx dpk t ixwh rsxf updcwpu yltfqp, td c'bb hadpbi ucdqwtyp; gfxvcfq kla vcbb, c vcbb tyzrtcfktfyp dkwtfqbp, tfu bxxg dkwtfqp; jp tjdpfk iwxh kla vtbgd; tfu cf ha kxfqrp kla dvppk jpbxnpu fthp fx hxwp dltbb uvpbb, bpdk c, kxx hryl swxitfp, dlxrbu ux ck vwxfq, tfu ltsba xi xrw xbu tyzrtcfktfyp kpbb. ixw klpp, tqtcfdk ha dpbi c'bb nxv upjtkp, ixw c hrdk fp'pw bxnp lch vlxh klxr uxdk ltkp
Test Strings: =========================================================== 1. dx xik ltnp c cfnxgpu klpp ixw ha hrdp, tfu ixrfu dryl itcw tddcdktfyp cf ha npwdp td pnpwa tbcpf spf ltkl qxk ha rdp tfu rfupw klpp klpcw sxpda ucdspwdp. klcfp papd, kltk ktrqlk klp urhj xf lcql kx dcfq tfu lptna cqfxwtfyp tbxik kx iba, ltnp tuupu iptklpwd kx klp bptwfpu'd vcfq tfu qcnpf qwtyp t uxrjbp htepdka. apk jp hxdk swxru xi kltk vlcyl c yxhscbp, vlxdp cfibrpfyp cd klcfp, tfu jxwf xi klpp: cf xklpwd' vxwgd klxr uxdk jrk hpfu klp dkabp, tfu twkd vckl kla dvppk qwtypd qwtypu jp; jrk klxr twk tbb ha twk, tfu uxdk tuntfyp td lcql td bptwfcfq, ha wrup cqfxwtfyp 2. lxv bcgp t vcfkpw ltkl ha tjdpfyp jppf iwxh klpp, klp sbptdrwp xi klp ibppkcfq aptw! vltk iwppocfqd ltnp c ipbk, vltk utwg utad dppf! vltk xbu upyphjpw'd jtwpfpdd pnpwavlpwp! tfu apk klcd kchp wphxnpu vtd drhhpw'd kchp; klp kpphcfq trkrhf, jcq vckl wcyl cfywptdp, jptwcfq klp vtfkxf jrwupf xi klp swchp, bcgp vcuxv'u vxhjd tikpw klpcw bxwud' upyptdp: apk klcd tjrfutfk cddrp dpph'u kx hp jrk lxsp xi xwsltfd, tfu rfitklpw'u iwrck; ixw drhhpw tfu lcd sbptdrwpd vtck xf klpp, tfu, klxr tvta, klp npwa jcwud twp hrkp: xw, ci klpa dcfq, 'kcd vckl dx urbb t ylppw, kltk bptnpd bxxg stbp, uwptucfq klp vcfkpw'd fptw 3. td itw td c th yxfypwfpu klp dltgpdsptwp dxffpk tfu klp yxup cd ltwu kx upycslpw rfbpdd axr gfxv fxk xfba klp dxffpk tfu klp wpbtkp gpa jrk tbdx vltkpnpw cd klp wpsbtyphpfk kpmk. c wptbba uxf'k gfxv vltk kx kasp dx c vcbb dkxs lpwp; tfu fxkp kltk dcfyp ha kaspu kpmk cd ntdkba uciipwpfk iwxh tfa dltgpdsptwp dxffpk, erdk klp stkkpwf dlxrbu jp t uptu qcnptvta ci axr pmthcfp klp bpkkpwd tfu klpcw pfyxucfq ybxdpba. c vcbb bptnp klp wpdk xi klp dxffpk td ck cd:vlxh dlp jpdk pfuxv'u, dlp qtnp klpp hxwp; vlcyl jxrfkpxrd qcik klxr dlxrbudk cf jxrfka ylpwcdl: dlp ytwn'u klpp ixw lpw dptb, tfu hptfk klpwpja, klxr dlxrbudk swcfk hxwp, fxk bpk kltk yxsa ucp 4. c bxnp klpp cf dryl dxwk, td, klxr jpcfq hcfp, hcfp cd kla qxxu wpsxwk; jrk fxv cd jbtyg jptrka'd dryypddcnp lpcw, tfu jptrka dbtfupw'u vckl t jtdktwu dlthp.xg, kvx: hcfrkpd cf tfu kltk ycslpw'd chsbphpfkpu. fxv bpk'd vwckp klp iwpzrpfya tkktyg yxup. icwdk vp fppu kx dxwk klp bpkkpwd cf t kpmk cfkx iwpzrpfya xwupw.td klxr qxpdk xfvtwud, dkcbb vcbb sbryg klpp jtyg, dlp gppsd klpp kx klcd srwsxdp, kltk; lpw dgcbb hta kchp ucdqwtyp tfu vwpkylpu hcfrkpd gcbb jrk fxk dkcbb gpps, lpw kwptdrwp
Me_Think
December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
Hey Me_think, I must have been unclear. You have given me only half of what I need. I can use the 4 mixed strings but now I need a set of 4 strings with only Sonnets coded exactly the same way as the first set. I'm looking to compare the variation in the set of mixed strings with the variation in the set of only Shakespearean Sonnets. That is why I need two sets. peacefifthmonarchyman
December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
I no longer have the original cipher, though if you manage to ferret out which of the strings given in the 'dFSCI thread' is a sonnet, I can tell you if you are correct. In any case, I have another set of encoded strings (with a fresh cipher) which also has Shakespeare sonnet(s). You can try with these strings :
1. Ad itdk td klxr dltbk vtfp, dx itdk klxr qwxv'dk, If xfp xi klcfp, iwxh kltk vlcyl klxr upstwkpdk; Afu kltk iwpdl jbxxu vlcyl axrfqba klxr jpdkxv'dk, Tlxr htadk ytbb klcfp vlpf klxr iwxh axrkl yxfnpwkpdk, Hpwpcf bcnpd vcduxh, jptrka, tfu cfywptdp; Wcklxrk klcd ixbba, tqp, tfu yxbu upyta: Ii tbb vpwp hcfupu dx, klp kchpd dlxrbu yptdp Afu klwppdyxwp aptw vxrbu htgp klp vxwbu tvta. Lpk klxdp vlxh ftkrwp ltkl fxk htup ixw dkxwp, Htwdl, iptkrwpbpdd, tfu wrup, jtwwpfba spwcdl: Lxxg, vlxh dlp jpdk pfuxv'u, dlp qtnp klpp hxwp; Wlcyl jxrfkpxrd qcik klxr dlxrbudk cf jxrfka ylpwcdl: Slp ytwn'u klpp ixw lpw dptb, tfu hptfk klpwpja, Tlxr dlxrbudk swcfk hxwp, fxk bpk kltk yxsa ucp 2. Cb xnp klpp cf dryl dxwk, Ad, klxr jpcfq hcfp, hcfp cd kla qxxu wpsxwk; Brk fxv cd jbtyg jptrka'd dryypddcnp lpcw, Afu jptrka dbtfupw'u vckl t jtdktwu dlthp.OK, kvx hcfrkpd cf tfu kltk ycslpw'd chsbphpfkpu. Nxv bpk'd vwckp klp iwpzrpfya tkktyg yxup. Fcwdk vp fppu kx dxwk klp bpkkpwd cf t kpmk cfkx iwpzrpfya xwupw.Ad klxr qxpdk xfvtwud, dkcbb vcbb sbryg klpp jtyg, Slp gppsd klpp kx klcd srwsxdp, kltk lpw dgcbb Mta kchp ucdqwtyp tfu vwpkylpu hcfrkpd gcbb jrk fxk dkcbb gpps, lpw kwptdrwp 3. Hxv bcgp t vcfkpw ltkl ha tjdpfyp jppf Fwxh klpp, klp sbptdrwp xi klp ibppkcfq aptw! Wltk iwppocfqd ltnp I ipbk, vltk utwg utad dppf! Wltk xbu Dpyphjpw'd jtwpfpdd pnpwavlpwp! Afu apk klcd kchp wphxnpu vtd drhhpw'd kchp; Tlp kpphcfq trkrhf, jcq vckl wcyl cfywptdp, Bptwcfq klp vtfkxf jrwupf xi klp swchp, Lcgp vcuxv'u vxhjd tikpw klpcw bxwud' upyptdp: Ypk klcd tjrfutfk cddrp dpph'u kx hp Brk lxsp xi xwsltfd, tfu rfitklpw'u iwrck; Fxw drhhpw tfu lcd sbptdrwpd vtck xf klpp, Afu, klxr tvta, klp npwa jcwud twp hrkp: Ow, ci klpa dcfq, 'kcd vckl dx urbb t ylppw, Tltk bptnpd bxxg stbp, uwptucfq klp vcfkpw'd fptw 4. Sx xik ltnp I cfnxgpu klpp ixw ha Mrdp, Afu ixrfu dryl itcw tddcdktfyp cf ha npwdp Ad pnpwa tbcpf spf ltkl qxk ha rdp Afu rfupw klpp klpcw sxpda ucdspwdp. Tlcfp papd, kltk ktrqlk klp urhj xf lcql kx dcfq Afu lptna cqfxwtfyp tbxik kx iba, Htnp tuupu iptklpwd kx klp bptwfpu'd vcfq Afu qcnpf qwtyp t uxrjbp htepdka. Ypk jp hxdk swxru xi kltk vlcyl I yxhscbp, Wlxdp cfibrpfyp cd klcfp, tfu jxwf xi klpp: If xklpwd' vxwgd klxr uxdk jrk hpfu klp dkabp, Afu twkd vckl kla dvppk qwtypd qwtypu jp; Brk klxr twk tbb ha twk, tfu uxdk tuntfyp Ad lcql td bptwfcfq, ha wrup cqfxwtfyp
Me_Think
December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
Hey ME_Thinks, I have a hypothesis and I need your help to test it. Remember the set of strings of coded words that contained one sonnet you provided to me back in the other thread? Could you provide me another coded set of the same size this time containing only Shakespearean sonnets? If my speculation about the ratio being an indicator of IC is correct then I should be able to measure different random variables in the two sets and the variance ratio should approach 60:40. thus confirming my hypothesis Additionally I might be able to look at each string in your original set and find one that fits better in the "all sonnet set" All of this will only work if both sets are coded the same way and if I don't not know which string in your original set is the real one What do you say Can you help a brother out? Peacefifthmonarchyman
December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT
PaV @ 126
I did the search. Nothing there of any importance. And you give a citation for a book on population genetics found within a Wikipedia section on wild-type alleles.
If only the concept was confined to wiki pages, but no it is a standard concept. Here are links to Google books: iGenetics: A Molecular Approach Introduction to Genetic Analysis by Anthony J.F Molecular Biology: Concepts and Experiments Biological Science, Volume 1 by Scott Essentials of Genetics by William S. Klug and so on and on... Me_Think
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
It’s still the same problem: is using the infinite allele model applicable to what is now known about the diversity found within the genome?
THe human genome? Sure. The infinite allele model only assumes each mutation creates a new allele (i.e. is not a back mutation or a mutation to an existing allele). You only get these "no wild type" genes when you define haplotypes over long runs of chromosomes. But, of course, of all the possible haplotypes over a long run of a chromosome only a few exist, so a new mutation will likely create a new allele. As I said above, it works less well well when effective population sizes are very large or the mutation rate per site is very high. Neither of those apply to the resent history of humanity.wd400
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
BA77:
PaV, the sun has not even risen yet and it is already another bad day for Darwinists: 150,000 quadruplex DNA sequence motifs found to be ‘non-randomly’ distributed throughout the genetic material of maize:
You'll probably remember that years ago, probably early on, like in 2005-2006, I made the comment numerous times that with "whole genome analysis" either ID or Darwinism would be proved correct. And, of course I had in the back of my mind the degree of variation, and the number of actual alternate alleles that exist within the genome. To me, the story has been written. Darwinism cannot possibly survive what WGA provides day-in and day-out. It gave rise, as you know, to my: "Another Day; Another Bad Day for Darwinism." It was exactly these kinds of results that I was refering to. Thanks for the 'find.' I'll take a quick look.PaV
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
Me_Think: I did the search. Nothing there of any importance. And you give a citation for a book on population genetics found within a Wikipedia section on wild-type alleles. You should have noted that you were quoting Wikipedia and not Hartl's book. Wikipedia articles are constantly being updated. There is no reason to believe that what is there has been known since 1998. It's still the same problem: is using the infinite allele model applicable to what is now known about the diversity found within the genome?PaV
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
The current Theory of Evolution is substantially changed from the Theory of Evolution of a century ago.
So you say yet cannot support.
Sorry that you’re not interested in science.
Nice projection.Joe
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
Well bornagain77, I suppose we might need to adjust the models ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ;-)fifthmonarchyman
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: Like I said evolutionary biology is the only scientific endeavor I know of where nothing ever changes. Seriously? The current Theory of Evolution is substantially changed from the Theory of Evolution of a century ago. Gee whiz, the double-helix wasn't even discovered until the 1950s, or endosymbiosis in the 1960s. It's the history of life that entices most of us. And that history is full of surprising twists and turns. fifthmonarchyman: in a hundred years all that has changed is a few tweaks to “precise genealogical relationships” Sorry that you're not interested in science. You must be getting old. The kids love the warm-blooded, feathered dinosaurs.Zachriel
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
PaV, the sun has not even risen yet and it is already another bad day for Darwinists: 150,000 quadruplex DNA sequence motifs found to be 'non-randomly' distributed throughout the genetic material of maize: Scientists uncover four-stranded elements of maize DNA - Dec. 3, 2014 Excerpt: A team led by Florida State University researchers has identified DNA elements in maize that could affect the expression of hundreds or thousands of genes. "Maybe they are part of the machinery that allows an organism to turn hundreds of genes off or on,",,, Bass and Carson Andorf,,, began this exploration of the maize genome sequence along with colleagues from FSU, Iowa State and the University of Florida. They wanted to know if certain DNA structures such as the four-strand G-quadruplex (G4) DNA might exist throughout the genetic material of maize. G4 structures are present in genes that regulate cancer and cell division in humans, making it an important focus in scientific research. But, not much is known about them.,,, The general public thinks of DNA as two connected strands known as the double helix. But scientists also discovered over the years that those strands regularly separate so they can replicate the genetic material. That material can also twist into different shapes such as a G-quadruplex. Bass and his colleagues found 150,000 sequence motifs that could theoretically adopt the G4 DNA structure, and they were distributed all over the chromosomes. Further examination showed that they were present in very specific places, as opposed to a random distribution. Given the strategic placement, the G4 is likely to perform some sort of function. Preliminary work showed that many of the genes identified were implicated in responses to energy crises within plant cells.,,, "It's a very interesting aspect of DNA," Bass said. "And people in the genetics field are very excited about it." http://phys.org/news/2014-12-scientists-uncover-four-stranded-elements-maize.html Moreover, G-quadruplexes are found to be 'conserved' from bacteria to humans. Which opens the tantalizing possibility that a species specific 'non-random' distribution of quadruplex DNA sequence motifs may be found throughout all of biological life: Another Remarkable DNA Rescuing Machine (Elucidated) -June 4, 2013 Excerpt: Some of these are composed of four strands that form stable structures called G-quadruplexes or G4s, so named because they tend to be rich in guanine. They are not uncommon,,,, ,,there is a machine that can unwind these G4s quickly and efficiently. Called Pif1 helicase, it is conserved from bacteria to humans.,,, Pif1 is “highly conserved, from bacteria to humans,” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/another_remarka072811.htmlbornagain77
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
wd400 says. Evolutionary biology has changed a lot since Darwin’s (and Fisher, and Haldane’s and Maynard Smiths’, and Kimura’s and Allan Wilson’s) time. I say You guys need to have a meeting or something. Zac says the only the feathered dinosaurs represents a change to the Theory of Evolution and this was simply a minor tweak to "precise genealogical relationships” Now you say that there was a lot of change but nothing changed in the existing framework. that is a little bit better than tweaking genealogical relationships and adjusting models I suppose but you will have to admit it's not very sexy. I'm sorry but redecorating a living room now and then is just not as much fun as a good old fashioned major remodel. As far as exploring the notion that the ratio is an indicator of Irreducible Complexity being merely numerology goes. Well it's that sort of quick dismissal of radical ideas that makes Evolutionary biology sound so boring in the first place compared to fields like cosmology. peacefifthmonarchyman
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT
Why do evos keep talking about the "theory of evolution" as if it is something real?Joe
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT
wd400:
Evolutionary biology has changed a lot since Darwin’s (and Fisher, and Haldane’s and Maynard Smiths’, and Kimura’s and Allan Wilson’s) time. It’s just that the theory has always advanced when scientists have provided better explanation, usually based on an expansion of the existing framework, or incorporating a new data source in our existing models.
Could you please in around one paragraph explain the premise, systematics, requirements and necessary variables in "the theory" that "has changed a lot since Darwin’s" time, and without confusing it with other theories such as Cell Theory, Gene Theory and all others?Gary S. Gaulin
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman @ 114
I’d explore the ratio in a heartbeat. It might be totally wrong but at least it’s exciting. check this out http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/s.....210312.pdf
Well, any cranial measurements can be approximated with icosahedron corners, so it can be expressed as Golden ratio.You can have corners like these
{{0, -GoldenRatio, -1}, {-1, 0, -GoldenRatio}, {-GoldenRatio, -1,0}, {0, -GoldenRatio, -1}, {0,-GoldenRatio, 1}, {1, 0, -GoldenRatio}, {-GoldenRatio, 1, 0}, {0, -GoldenRatio, 1}, {0, GoldenRatio, -1}, {-1, 0, GoldenRatio}, {GoldenRatio, -1, 0}, {0,GoldenRatio, -1}, {0, GoldenRatio, 1}, {1, 0, GoldenRatio}, {GoldenRatio, 1, 0}, {0, GoldenRatio, 1}}
Me_Think
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
Fifth, Evolutionary biology has changed a lot since Darwin's (and Fisher, and Haldane's and Maynard Smiths', and Kimura's and Allan Wilson's) time. It's just that the theory has always advanced when scientists have provided better explanation, usually based on an expansion of the existing framework, or incorporating a new data source in our existing models. If that bores you then by all means carry on with the numerology.wd400
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
Wow so apparently the 'Wild type gene' is known to be non-existent for 15 years and it caused no change at all to TOE. Talk about rigamortis. If the Higgs boson was shown to be merely a statistical construct rather than an actual particle I'll bet that the change to the standard model would go beyond "updating the models" peacefifthmonarchyman
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
PaV @ 104
It is obvious to the authors, and was obvious to me, that this ‘diversity’ of forms undermines conventional neo-darwinian presumptions. I take their statement about “saturation may not even be achievable” to mean that there are so many “forms” floating around in the genome that they might not ever be able to identify them all.
Just search for 'Wild type gene' you will find articles as far back as 1998 which says exactly what this paper says. Eg: Jones, Elizabeth; Hartl, Daniel L. (1998). Genetics: principles and analysis.
It is now appreciated that most or all gene loci exist in a variety of allelic forms, which vary in frequency throughout the geographic range of a species, and that a uniform wild type does not exist.
Now you decide if the Max Planck paper has something that was not already know. Isn't diversity of form exactly what evolution needs ? How is this a detriment to the process of evolution ?Me_Think
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
I'm telling you guys if I was just starting out and I had the choice of endlessly "updating the models" or looking into this 60:40 ratio thing to see if there was something there. I'd explore the ratio in a heartbeat. It might be totally wrong but at least it's exciting. check this out http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/sajs/v103n11-12/a0210312.pdf peacefifthmonarchyman
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
Zac said, Only the feathered dinosaurs represents a change to the Theory of Evolution, and then, only to the precise genealogical relationships, not to the underlying mechanics involved. I say, Like I said evolutionary biology is the only scientific endeavor I know of where nothing ever changes. No matter what the discovery everything just stays the same talk about snooze-ville. According to Zac in a hundred years all that has changed is a few tweaks to "precise genealogical relationships" No wonder folks don't care about learning this stuff. boring peacefifthmonarchyman
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: Of course the Darwinist response to those developments is to “update the models”. The discovery of the DNA double-helix was reasonably consistent with genetic theory of the time, but it certainly established genetics as a central concern of evolutionary biology. Feathered dinosaurs have resulted in a somewhat different branching order for birds. And the 99 Lives Cat Whole Genome Sequencing Initiative is important to the health of kitties around the world! Only the feathered dinosaurs represents a change to the Theory of Evolution, and then, only to the precise genealogical relationships, not to the underlying mechanics involved.Zachriel
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
Of course the Darwinist response to those developments is to "update the models". what Fun peacefifthmonarchyman
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: It must be terribly sad to be committed to a field of study where all the exciting stuff happened more than a hundred years ago The last century has seen the discovery of the DNA helix, not to mention feathered dinosaurs, and the 99 Lives Cat Whole Genome Sequencing Initiative. These discoveries aren't as scientifically momentous as "Origin of Species", of course, but they are certainly exciting to biologists, and to many non-scientists too. -- Edited to reduce snark quotient.Zachriel
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
WD400 said Everyone wants a (scientific) revolution, no one wants to show one is required I say, It must be terribly sad to be committed to a field of study where all the exciting stuff happened more than a hundred years ago peacefifthmonarchyman
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
A little revolution never hurt anybody. This should be obvious to someone studying living things. Without an occasional scary upheaval there is only debilitating stagnation and eventual death. peacefifthmonarchyman
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
Everyone wants a (scientific) revolution, no one wants to show one is required...wd400
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
WD400 says, Papers like Charlesworth’s update our models, and make them applicable to cases they previously weren’t. They don’t require us to back up, burn The Origin and start again… I say, If you wonder why folks seem to be willfully ignorant of evolutionary biology this probably is a big part of the reason. To the interested inquirer other scientific fields always seem to be on the cusp of discovering something exciting and revolutionary. There is always something going on be it fusion or the holographic principle or quantum computing or who knows what. Meanwhile the Darwinist is forever updating his models. Talk about boring. There is more excitement in the average scrabble tournament than that. If the ID movement did not exist it would be in the best interest of the Darwinist camp to invent something like it just to liven the place up a little bit. peacefifthmonarchyman
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply