Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
new species came from.
In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
new species came from.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:46:04?PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett still can't >get the hang of what makes for a good chez watt:
In the category of a case of begging the question being mistaken for a Chez Watt:
In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
new species came from.
"IDers" is false. Even if the more nearly true word " creationists" is >substituted, there are plenty of them who allow for new species or even new genera
to evolve, by calling it "microevolution." The family Equidae, with tight sequences of
genera, forces the more intelligent ones into this group.
The IDer Behe, who has argued *for evolution* (more than I've seen Daggett do)
goes a step further than most in _Darwin Devolves_. He considers a
great deal of evolution as being due to breaking genes.
For instance, the woolly mammoth
has been confirmed as having had close to a hundred genes broken
that held it back from being adapted to very cold weather.
If Daggett had done some "spying" to see where the strengths and weaknesses >of IDers lay, he would have seen an article in Evolution News
about these broken genes.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett still can't
get the hang of what makes for a good chez watt:
In the category of a case of begging the question being mistaken for a Chez Watt:
In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
new species came from.
"IDers" is false. Even if the more nearly true word " creationists" is substituted, there are plenty of them who allow for new species or even new genera
to evolve, by calling it "microevolution." The family Equidae, with tight sequences of
genera, forces the more intelligent ones into this group.
The IDer Behe, who has argued *for evolution* (more than I've seen Daggett do)
goes a step further than most in _Darwin Devolves_. He considers a
great deal of evolution as being due to breaking genes.
For instance, the woolly mammoth
has been confirmed as having had close to a hundred genes broken
that held it back from being adapted to very cold weather.
If Daggett had done some "spying" to see where the strengths and weaknesses of IDers lay, he would have seen an article in Evolution News
about these broken genes.
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:47:45 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:46:04?PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett still can't >get the hang of what makes for a good chez watt:
In the category of a case of begging the question being mistaken for a Chez Watt:
In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
new species came from.
"IDers" is false. Even if the more nearly true word " creationists" is >substituted, there are plenty of them who allow for new species or even new genera
to evolve, by calling it "microevolution." The family Equidae, with tight sequences of
genera, forces the more intelligent ones into this group.
The IDer Behe, who has argued *for evolution* (more than I've seen Daggett do)
goes a step further than most in _Darwin Devolves_. He considers a
great deal of evolution as being due to breaking genes.
I know you know Behe calls the consequences of broken genes
"devolution" in explicit contrast to evolution.
In fact and contrary
to your claim above, Behe claims Darwinian evolution is incapable of creating new species.
Finally, whatever else Daggett might do, he does not make a career of posting false and misleading claims against evolution.
Concluded in next reply, to be done after I am in my office at the university >for office hours.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:10:37 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
[匽
Concluded in next reply, to be done after I am in my office at the universitySo you spend time on Usenet when you are being paid for university
for office hours.
duties. This is from the guy who claims he is the "goddamn moralizer".
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:47:45 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
Finally, whatever else Daggett might do, he does not make a career of posting false and misleading claims against evolution.
For instance, the woolly mammoth
has been confirmed as having had close to a hundred genes broken
that held it back from being adapted to very cold weather.
If Daggett had done some "spying" to see where the strengths and weaknesses >of IDers lay, he would have seen an article in Evolution News
about these broken genes.
EvolutionNews is a biased and unreliable source of the strengths and weaknesses of IDers.
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 1:46:06?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:10:37 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
[?
Concluded in next reply, to be done after I am in my office at the universitySo you spend time on Usenet when you are being paid for university
for office hours.
duties. This is from the guy who claims he is the "goddamn moralizer".
That's an ill-informed cheap shot.
Sitting around in office hours can be
a lonely thing. Don't imagine students kept waiting outside the door with
a "hold on, somebody's wrong on the internet". It's more of waiting around
in case anybody stops by. If he's composing a post and somebody does,
he'll gladly drop what he's doing, smile, and see how he can help.
You ought to apologize.
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:46:05 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:47:45 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:[two lines repeated from first reply, for context]
Finally, whatever else Daggett might do, he does not make a career of posting false and misleading claims against evolution.Except, of course, out of ignorance. He thinks it is axiomatic that one's siblings are usually one's biggest competitors for survival. It's hard to guess
where he picked up that "axiom", so instead of speculating,
I reminded him of some "selfish gene" type folklore which he has
to reconcile with that "axiom".
[Oh, for the good old days of sci.bio.evolution, where genetics heavyweight Felsenstein put in regular appearances in the 1990's. That group went belly-up
a decade ago due to boredom.]
The next comment refers to the ignorant "chez watt" that claimed that
IDers don't try to research the causes of speciation. Perhaps literally, yes,
but if one expands "research" to what passes for that [1] in the humanities, then there is ample evidence ripe for the picking from scientific sources.
[1] You might get quite an argument from Burkhard if you tried to claim
that their methods are in any way inferior to the methods of research scientists.
The following is an instance of Behe's "evolution by devolution"":including the woolly mammoth.
The woolly mammoth is *Mammuthus* *primigenius,* a separate genusFor instance, the woolly mammoth
has been confirmed as having had close to a hundred genes broken
that held it back from being adapted to very cold weather.
from the African elephant (Loxodonta) and the Asian elephant (Elephas).[2] Behe is quite comfortable with the idea that the great number of genes
that were broken were adequate to launch a new species or even a new genus.
[2] Elephas is the closest living relative of the woolly mammoth.
The following research announcement in Science News from last year talks about those broken genes.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/08/220810123606.htm
"Nearly a hundred genes have been lost during the woolly mammoth's evolution"
Date: August 10, 2022
Source: Stockholm University
Summary:
A new study shows that 87 genes have been affected by deletions or short insertions during the course of the mammoth's evolution. The researchers note that their findings have implications for international efforts to resurrect extinct species,
I'm surprised to see how little you understand the value of reconnaissance, jillery:If Daggett had done some "spying" to see where the strengths and weaknesses
of IDers lay, he would have seen an article in Evolution News
about these broken genes.
EvolutionNews is a biased and unreliable source of the strengths and weaknesses of IDers.So is Wikipedia, even in some strictly scientific contexts. The quality varies
greatly in both. This article was reported five days later by Michael Behe and
conclusions were drawn from its findings.
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
If it has flaws, you should be grateful that I talked about it here:
it would keep you from being blindsided later on.
If you can't find any flaws with it, it would give you plenty of time
to spin-doctor its conclusions in a way that cushions the shock of it being quoted to you.
A win-win situation, if you can bring yourself to read it.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS The word "after" that I used in "after I am in my office at the university" took on
a meaning I neither foresaw nor wanted: I had problems with my laptop that our down-the-hall IT person was needed for. You can see that "after" is literally true,
yet unintentionally misleading.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 11:56:05 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett ><[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 1:46:06?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:10:37 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
[?
Concluded in next reply, to be done after I am in my office at the universitySo you spend time on Usenet when you are being paid for university
for office hours.
duties. This is from the guy who claims he is the "goddamn moralizer".
That's an ill-informed cheap shot.
I don't think it was particularly cheap when it was directed at a
person who regularly tries to claim the moral high ground on this
newsgroup yet constantly behaves atrociously towards other posters.
Sitting around in office hours can be
a lonely thing. Don't imagine students kept waiting outside the door with
a "hold on, somebody's wrong on the internet". It's more of waiting around >>in case anybody stops by. If he's composing a post and somebody does,
he'll gladly drop what he's doing, smile, and see how he can help.
Neither do I think it was ill informed. I was a lecturer until I
retired back in 2021 and, whilst I accept that people's mileage
varies, I never found myself at a loose end in the way you describe
above. When I had time to spare, I always considered it incumbent on
me to use that time in some way related to my professional position
such as additional reading or revising current lectures. Of course
there were times when I carried out personal business but I confined
those to things that were either urgent or could not be done outside
working hours e.g. arranging medical appointments. I certainly would
never have used my time to engage in hobbies or personal interests
I note that Peter has said elsewhere that what he posted was
inadvertently misleading and that he only intended to get his laptop
sorted out during office hours. I also note, however, that he
continues to use his title and the name of his university in his
signature. The institution where I lectured had a very strict policy
that people should only associate themselves with the institution when
they were engaged on institution business and never in a situation
where one was expressing personal views unrelated to the institution.
I would imagine that the University of South Carolina has a similar
policy. Peter's inclusion of the weasel words "standard disclaimer"
does not abrogate his responsibility to conform with that. Indeed,
they indicate that he is aware that he should not be doing what he is
doing which really seems just like rather pathetic attempt at creating
an 'appeal to authority'
You ought to apologize.
I don't feel any need whatsoever to apologise to Peter. Where I was
arguably out of order was that I have said elsewhere that I only
respond to Peter when he makes unprovoked attacks on me or posts
bullshit and lies about me. The post I responded to hear was clearly
not of that nature and it was in a discussion where I wasn't even
involved. In that context, I regret making the intervention and I
readily apologise to you for jumping into and potentially derailing a >discussion that was essentially between you and him.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 2:36:06 AM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:46:05 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:47:45 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:[two lines repeated from first reply, for context]
Finally, whatever else Daggett might do, he does not make a career of posting false and misleading claims against evolution.
Except, of course, out of ignorance. He thinks it is axiomatic that one's siblings are usually one's biggest competitors for survival. It's hard to guess
where he picked up that "axiom", so instead of speculating,
I reminded him of some "selfish gene" type folklore which he has
to reconcile with that "axiom".
[Oh, for the good old days of sci.bio.evolution, where genetics heavyweight
Felsenstein put in regular appearances in the 1990's. That group went belly-up
a decade ago due to boredom.]
The next comment refers to the ignorant "chez watt" that claimed that IDers don't try to research the causes of speciation. Perhaps literally, yes,
but if one expands "research" to what passes for that [1] in the humanities,
then there is ample evidence ripe for the picking from scientific sources.
Really, where?
And this is a really strange argument for you to make.
I have said
numerous times that IDlers do NOT develop theories about their subject matter the
way the humanities do - only for you to claim that because they are natural scientists
(ha-ha) that would be an inappropriate demand on them .
[1] You might get quite an argument from Burkhard if you tried to claim that their methods are in any way inferior to the methods of research scientists.
The following is an instance of Behe's "evolution by devolution"":
For instance, the woolly mammoth
has been confirmed as having had close to a hundred genes broken
that held it back from being adapted to very cold weather.
The woolly mammoth is *Mammuthus* *primigenius,* a separate genus
from the African elephant (Loxodonta) and the Asian elephant (Elephas).[2] Behe is quite comfortable with the idea that the great number of genes that were broken were adequate to launch a new species or even a new genus.
[2] Elephas is the closest living relative of the woolly mammoth.
including the woolly mammoth.The following research announcement in Science News from last year talks about those broken genes.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/08/220810123606.htm
"Nearly a hundred genes have been lost during the woolly mammoth's evolution"
Date: August 10, 2022
Source: Stockholm University
Summary:
A new study shows that 87 genes have been affected by deletions or short insertions during the course of the mammoth's evolution. The researchers note that their findings have implications for international efforts to resurrect extinct species,
This article was reported five days later by Michael Behe and
conclusions were drawn from its findings.
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
If it has flaws, you should be grateful that I talked about it here:
it would keep you from being blindsided later on.
If you can't find any flaws with it, it would give you plenty of time
to spin-doctor its conclusions in a way that cushions the shock of it being quoted to you.
A win-win situation, if you can bring yourself to read it.
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:21:08 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 2:36:06 AM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:46:05 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:47:45 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:[two lines repeated from first reply, for context]
Finally, whatever else Daggett might do, he does not make a career of posting false and misleading claims against evolution.
Except, of course, out of ignorance. He thinks it is axiomatic that one's
siblings are usually one's biggest competitors for survival. It's hard to guess
where he picked up that "axiom", so instead of speculating,
I reminded him of some "selfish gene" type folklore which he has
to reconcile with that "axiom".
[Oh, for the good old days of sci.bio.evolution, where genetics heavyweight
Felsenstein put in regular appearances in the 1990's. That group went belly-up
a decade ago due to boredom.]
The next comment refers to the ignorant "chez watt" that claimed that IDers don't try to research the causes of speciation. Perhaps literally, yes,
but if one expands "research" to what passes for that [1] in the humanities,
then there is ample evidence ripe for the picking from scientific sources.
Really, where?Do you understand what I wrote below about devolution by gene breakage?
If so, you have one answer: Behe researches (in the humanities sense of combing existing documents)
speciation that includes enough gene breakages to cause not only speciation, but
giving rise to separate genera.
including the woolly mammoth.And this is a really strange argument for you to make.Just playing in your ballpark. [Do you recognize the allusion to a key juncture in the film,
"Inherit the Wind"?]
I have saidThat was before I realized how the theories apply scientific understanding to the results of
numerous times that IDlers do NOT develop theories about their subject matter the
way the humanities do - only for you to claim that because they are natural scientists
(ha-ha) that would be an inappropriate demand on them .
research methods employed in the humanities.
One of the great things about talk.origins is that it helps me to learn all kinds of
things from unexpected sources. You are an excellent example: by playing in your ballpark, I arrive at
fresh insights that result from being stimulated in the way that an oyster is stimulated to produce pearls.
Irritating at first, but often rewarding in the long run.
Looks like I hit the nail on the head with this last remark.[1] You might get quite an argument from Burkhard if you tried to claim that their methods are in any way inferior to the methods of research scientists.
The following is an instance of Behe's "evolution by devolution"":
For instance, the woolly mammoth
has been confirmed as having had close to a hundred genes broken >that held it back from being adapted to very cold weather.
The woolly mammoth is *Mammuthus* *primigenius,* a separate genus
from the African elephant (Loxodonta) and the Asian elephant (Elephas).[2]
Behe is quite comfortable with the idea that the great number of genes that were broken were adequate to launch a new species or even a new genus.
This is what I was alluding to up there, this time around.[2] Elephas is the closest living relative of the woolly mammoth.
Here is where Behe wrote about that: https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
This was a result of Behe researching some of the latest scientific news:
The following research announcement in Science News from last year talks about those broken genes.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/08/220810123606.htm
"Nearly a hundred genes have been lost during the woolly mammoth's evolution"
Date: August 10, 2022
Source: Stockholm University
Summary:
A new study shows that 87 genes have been affected by deletions or short insertions during the course of the mammoth's evolution. The researchers note that their findings have implications for international efforts to resurrect extinct species,
<snip for focus>
This article was reported five days later by Michael Behe and
conclusions were drawn from its findings.
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
If it has flaws, you should be grateful that I talked about it here:
it would keep you from being blindsided later on.
If you can't find any flaws with it, it would give you plenty of time
to spin-doctor its conclusions in a way that cushions the shock of it being quoted to you.
Jillery hasn't responded yet. Do you think you could help her out by spotting some flaws -- like,A win-win situation, if you can bring yourself to read it.
telling us how such simple "research" doesn't do justice to the way people in the humanities do research?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
U. of So. Carolina in Columbia
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:21:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 2:36:06?AM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote: >> > On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:46:05?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:47:45 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"[two lines repeated from first reply, for context]
<[email protected]> wrote:
Finally, whatever else Daggett might do, he does not make a career of >> > > posting false and misleading claims against evolution.
Except, of course, out of ignorance. He thinks it is axiomatic that one's >> > siblings are usually one's biggest competitors for survival. It's hard to guess
where he picked up that "axiom", so instead of speculating,
I reminded him of some "selfish gene" type folklore which he has
to reconcile with that "axiom".
[Oh, for the good old days of sci.bio.evolution, where genetics heavyweight
Felsenstein put in regular appearances in the 1990's. That group went belly-up
a decade ago due to boredom.]
The next comment refers to the ignorant "chez watt" that claimed that
IDers don't try to research the causes of speciation. Perhaps literally, yes,
but if one expands "research" to what passes for that [1] in the humanities,
then there is ample evidence ripe for the picking from scientific sources.
Really, where?
Do you understand what I wrote below about devolution by gene breakage?
If so, you have one answer: Behe researches (in the humanities sense of combing existing documents)
speciation that includes enough gene breakages to cause not only speciation, but
giving rise to separate genera.
And this is a really strange argument for you to make.
Just playing in your ballpark. [Do you recognize the allusion to a key juncture in the film,
"Inherit the Wind"?]
I have said
numerous times that IDlers do NOT develop theories about their subject matter the
way the humanities do - only for you to claim that because they are natural scientists
(ha-ha) that would be an inappropriate demand on them .
That was before I realized how the theories apply scientific understanding to the results of
research methods employed in the humanities.
One of the great things about talk.origins is that it helps me to learn all kinds of
things from unexpected sources. You are an excellent example: by playing in your ballpark, I arrive at
fresh insights that result from being stimulated in the way that an oyster is stimulated to produce pearls.
Irritating at first, but often rewarding in the long run.
including the woolly mammoth.
[1] You might get quite an argument from Burkhard if you tried to claim >> > that their methods are in any way inferior to the methods of research scientists.
Looks like I hit the nail on the head with this last remark.
The following is an instance of Behe's "evolution by devolution"":
For instance, the woolly mammoth
has been confirmed as having had close to a hundred genes broken
that held it back from being adapted to very cold weather.
The woolly mammoth is *Mammuthus* *primigenius,* a separate genus
from the African elephant (Loxodonta) and the Asian elephant (Elephas).[2]
Behe is quite comfortable with the idea that the great number of genes
that were broken were adequate to launch a new species or even a new genus.
[2] Elephas is the closest living relative of the woolly mammoth.
This is what I was alluding to up there, this time around.
Here is where Behe wrote about that: >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
This was a result of Behe researching some of the latest scientific news:
The following research announcement in Science News from last year talks >> > about those broken genes.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/08/220810123606.htm
"Nearly a hundred genes have been lost during the woolly mammoth's evolution"
Date: August 10, 2022
Source: Stockholm University
Summary:
A new study shows that 87 genes have been affected by deletions or short insertions during the course of the mammoth's evolution. The researchers note that their findings have implications for international efforts to resurrect extinct species,
<snip for focus>
This article was reported five days later by Michael Behe and
conclusions were drawn from its findings.
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
If it has flaws, you should be grateful that I talked about it here:
it would keep you from being blindsided later on.
If you can't find any flaws with it, it would give you plenty of time
to spin-doctor its conclusions in a way that cushions the shock of it being quoted to you.
A win-win situation, if you can bring yourself to read it.
Jillery hasn't responded yet. Do you think you could help her out by spotting some flaws -- like,
telling us how such simple "research" doesn't do justice to the way people in the humanities do research?
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:21:11 AM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:21:08 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 2:36:06 AM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:46:05 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:47:45 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:[two lines repeated from first reply, for context]
Finally, whatever else Daggett might do, he does not make a career of
posting false and misleading claims against evolution.
Except, of course, out of ignorance. He thinks it is axiomatic that one's
siblings are usually one's biggest competitors for survival. It's hard to guess
where he picked up that "axiom", so instead of speculating,
I reminded him of some "selfish gene" type folklore which he has
to reconcile with that "axiom".
[Oh, for the good old days of sci.bio.evolution, where genetics heavyweight
Felsenstein put in regular appearances in the 1990's. That group went belly-up
a decade ago due to boredom.]
The next comment refers to the ignorant "chez watt" that claimed that IDers don't try to research the causes of speciation. Perhaps literally, yes,
but if one expands "research" to what passes for that [1] in the humanities,
then there is ample evidence ripe for the picking from scientific sources.
Really, where?
Do you understand what I wrote below about devolution by gene breakage?
If so, you have one answer: Behe researches (in the humanities sense of combing existing documents)
speciation that includes enough gene breakages to cause not only speciation, but
giving rise to separate genera.
Which humanities method is used in that research?
I can't see any.
And what documents do you mean? If you simply mean that rather
than doing his own experiments,
he uses those made by other, sorry,
no, mere "displaying reading ability" does not make this into humanities-type
research.
Humanities-type ID research on gene-breakages should form (testable) hypothesis of the type: The designer wanted these genera because....
or The designer chose this method of gene breakages because...
And this is a really strange argument for you to make.
Just playing in your ballpark. [Do you recognize the allusion to a key juncture in the film,
"Inherit the Wind"?]
I have said
numerous times that IDlers do NOT develop theories about their subject matter the
way the humanities do - only for you to claim that because they are natural scientists
(ha-ha) that would be an inappropriate demand on them .
That was before I realized how the theories apply scientific understanding to the results of
research methods employed in the humanities.
<small snip>The following is an instance of Behe's "evolution by devolution"":
For instance, the woolly mammoth
has been confirmed as having had close to a hundred genes broken >that held it back from being adapted to very cold weather.
The woolly mammoth is *Mammuthus* *primigenius,* a separate genus
from the African elephant (Loxodonta) and the Asian elephant (Elephas).[2]
Behe is quite comfortable with the idea that the great number of genes that were broken were adequate to launch a new species or even a new genus.
This is what I was alluding to up there, this time around.[2] Elephas is the closest living relative of the woolly mammoth.
<snip for focus>This was a result of Behe researching some of the latest scientific news:
The following research announcement in Science News from last year talks
about those broken genes.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/08/220810123606.htm
"Nearly a hundred genes have been lost during the woolly mammoth's evolution"
Date: August 10, 2022
This article was reported five days later by Michael Behe and
conclusions were drawn from its findings.
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
If it has flaws, you should be grateful that I talked about it here: it would keep you from being blindsided later on.
If you can't find any flaws with it, it would give you plenty of time to spin-doctor its conclusions in a way that cushions the shock of it being quoted to you.
A win-win situation, if you can bring yourself to read it.
Jillery hasn't responded yet. Do you think you could help her out by spotting some flaws -- like,
telling us how such simple "research" doesn't do justice to the way people in the humanities do research?
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 15:17:27 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:21:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 2:36:06?AM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:46:05?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:47:45 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"[two lines repeated from first reply, for context]
<[email protected]> wrote:
Finally, whatever else Daggett might do, he does not make a career of >> > > posting false and misleading claims against evolution.
Except, of course, out of ignorance. He thinks it is axiomatic that one's
siblings are usually one's biggest competitors for survival. It's hard to guess
where he picked up that "axiom", so instead of speculating,
I reminded him of some "selfish gene" type folklore which he has
to reconcile with that "axiom".
[Oh, for the good old days of sci.bio.evolution, where genetics heavyweight
Felsenstein put in regular appearances in the 1990's. That group went belly-up
a decade ago due to boredom.]
The next comment refers to the ignorant "chez watt" that claimed that >> > IDers don't try to research the causes of speciation. Perhaps literally, yes,
but if one expands "research" to what passes for that [1] in the humanities,
then there is ample evidence ripe for the picking from scientific sources.
Really, where?
Do you understand what I wrote below about devolution by gene breakage?
If so, you have one answer: Behe researches (in the humanities sense of combing existing documents)
speciation that includes enough gene breakages to cause not only speciation, but
giving rise to separate genera.
And this is a really strange argument for you to make.
Just playing in your ballpark. [Do you recognize the allusion to a key juncture in the film,
"Inherit the Wind"?]
I have said
numerous times that IDlers do NOT develop theories about their subject matter the
way the humanities do - only for you to claim that because they are natural scientists
(ha-ha) that would be an inappropriate demand on them .
That was before I realized how the theories apply scientific understanding to the results of
research methods employed in the humanities.
One of the great things about talk.origins is that it helps me to learn all kinds of
things from unexpected sources. You are an excellent example: by playing in your ballpark, I arrive at
fresh insights that result from being stimulated in the way that an oyster is stimulated to produce pearls.
Irritating at first, but often rewarding in the long run.
[1] You might get quite an argument from Burkhard if you tried to claim >> > that their methods are in any way inferior to the methods of research scientists.
Looks like I hit the nail on the head with this last remark.
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
If it has flaws, you should be grateful that I talked about it here:
it would keep you from being blindsided later on.
If you can't find any flaws with it, it would give you plenty of time >> > to spin-doctor its conclusions in a way that cushions the shock of it being quoted to you.
A win-win situation, if you can bring yourself to read it.
Jillery hasn't responded yet. Do you think you could help her out by spotting some flaws -- like,
telling us how such simple "research" doesn't do justice to the way people in the humanities do research?
I did you and Behe a favor, to not respond to your post. After all, I wouldn't want some troll to mindlessly accuse me of "bickering".
I'm not surprised you fell for this latest Behe nonsense.
Of course
mutations are "very much more likely to degrade genetic features than
to construct new ones". Anybody who stayed awake in biology knows
this already.
What Behe and you and other [snip obsolete, irrelevant term on which you are fixated]
always conveniently forget to mention is that genetic features which
improve organisms' fitness are "very much more likely" to be amplified
via reproduction and natural selection.
Stipulating for argument's sake everything Behe says is technically
correct, he still conveniently forgets to mention all the
"constructive" mutations his example organisms almost certainly
evolved during the same time period.
It's called cherrypicking, a
typical tactic of Creationists.
However, Behe is factually incorrect to presume devolved "genes are
gone forever".
Even when genes have zero function, they will likely
remain in the population for millions of years, as part of the junk
gene collection <snip your fixation> are so fond of denying. During
that time, those functionless genes will continue to mutate, possibly
to produce an entirely new function.
And since I mention new functions, Behe is fond of saying devolved
genes "don’t explain how the functioning genes got there in the first place. Well guess what? ID doesn't explain it either.
In fact, <snip your fixation>
make zero effort to explain which genes their
presumptive designer makes, nevermind how.
In summary, your cited article, and your post, are
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 3:21:12 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:21:11 AM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:21:08 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 2:36:06 AM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:46:05 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:47:45 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:[two lines repeated from first reply, for context]
Finally, whatever else Daggett might do, he does not make a career of
posting false and misleading claims against evolution.
Except, of course, out of ignorance. He thinks it is axiomatic that one's
siblings are usually one's biggest competitors for survival. It's hard to guess
where he picked up that "axiom", so instead of speculating,
I reminded him of some "selfish gene" type folklore which he has
to reconcile with that "axiom".
[Oh, for the good old days of sci.bio.evolution, where genetics heavyweight
Felsenstein put in regular appearances in the 1990's. That group went belly-up
a decade ago due to boredom.]
The next comment refers to the ignorant "chez watt" that claimed that
IDers don't try to research the causes of speciation. Perhaps literally, yes,
but if one expands "research" to what passes for that [1] in the humanities,
then there is ample evidence ripe for the picking from scientific sources.
Really, where?
Do you understand what I wrote below about devolution by gene breakage? If so, you have one answer: Behe researches (in the humanities sense of combing existing documents)
speciation that includes enough gene breakages to cause not only speciation, but
giving rise to separate genera.
Which humanities method is used in that research?Trying to find all relevant documents, and to study them in depth,
and to weave what one has studied into a coherent hypothesis.
Behe did this to a much greater extent in _The Edge of Evolution_. He used malaria
as an example of "trench warfare" between two antagonists [the malaria parasite and the human host]
where lasting victory seems to be a matter of having at least three different mutations
in the parasite, [with us humans it is different -- see below] all of which are beneficial
under the circumstances dictated by the environment.
With the sickle cell trait -- NOT the disease [1] -- the parasite has been stymied; in contrast,
one drug treatment after another has been successfully countered by it.
I wonder whether Bill Rogers, our malaria professional, can either (1) find flaws with it or
(2) has ever composed a more masterly account than the mere amateur, Michael Behe, has done.
[1] The sickle cell trait is characterized as having one normal gene
and one mutated version of it that protects against malaria.
The disease only has the mutated version. It protects against malaria even a tad better,
but it results in a debilitating anemia that is even worse than most cases of malaria.
I can't see any.I haven't provided any until now. This is an ongoing discussion in which I don't
try to anticipate your every criticism.
And what documents do you mean? If you simply mean that ratherJust what "experiments" is someone trying to discover the author of
than doing his own experiments,
the Voinich manuscript supposed to do?
out the hour in which the climactic Norman assault at Hastings took place?
he uses those made by other, sorry,See what I wrote about Behe and malaria. He's gone into lots of angles that one does
no, mere "displaying reading ability" does not make this into humanities-type
research.
not find in standard treatments of the subject, or in the writings of any single author.
Certainly not in the writings of Bill Rogers.
Humanities-type ID research on gene-breakages should form (testable) hypothesis of the type: The designer wanted these genera because....A creationist would frame such hypotheses, but Behe allows for lots of unguided evolution.
one I mentioned above: how likely is that unguided processes will
arrive at a successful counter-measure of the parasite to the entrapment
and suffocation the sickle cell trait "uses" to kill the parasites?
A vast period of time involving several million years might overcome the odds,
but neither humans nor the parasite have been around that long.
Humans, on the other hand, needed only ONE mutation in ONE human with several offspring to produce the sickle cell trait. Consequently, Behe doesn't claim
that the mutation was divinely caused or even that the Designer foresaw it.
or The designer chose this method of gene breakages because...No, gene breakages are a purely Darwinian means of producing whole new species. Behe made that point right in the article I linked for jillery:
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
And this is a really strange argument for you to make.
<crickets>Just playing in your ballpark. [Do you recognize the allusion to a key juncture in the film,
"Inherit the Wind"?]
You didn't say anything more this time around, but I've left in some of what you left in,
with one comment about what you did say this time around.
I have said
numerous times that IDlers do NOT develop theories about their subject matter the
way the humanities do - only for you to claim that because they are natural scientists
(ha-ha) that would be an inappropriate demand on them .
<snip for focus>That was before I realized how the theories apply scientific understanding to the results of
research methods employed in the humanities.
The following is an instance of Behe's "evolution by devolution"":
For instance, the woolly mammoth
has been confirmed as having had close to a hundred genes broken >that held it back from being adapted to very cold weather.
The woolly mammoth is *Mammuthus* *primigenius,* a separate genus from the African elephant (Loxodonta) and the Asian elephant (Elephas).[2]
Behe is quite comfortable with the idea that the great number of genes
that were broken were adequate to launch a new species or even a new genus.
<small snip>[2] Elephas is the closest living relative of the woolly mammoth. This is what I was alluding to up there, this time around.
This was a result of Behe researching some of the latest scientific news:
The following research announcement in Science News from last year talks
about those broken genes.
<snip for focus>https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/08/220810123606.htm "Nearly a hundred genes have been lost during the woolly mammoth's evolution"
Date: August 10, 2022
This article was reported five days later by Michael Behe and
conclusions were drawn from its findings.
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
If it has flaws, you should be grateful that I talked about it here: it would keep you from being blindsided later on.
If you can't find any flaws with it, it would give you plenty of time
to spin-doctor its conclusions in a way that cushions the shock of it being quoted to you.
A win-win situation, if you can bring yourself to read it.
You made a weak stab at it this time, but you may add more in the light of what I wrote this time.Jillery hasn't responded yet. Do you think you could help her out by spotting some flaws -- like,
telling us how such simple "research" doesn't do justice to the way people in the humanities do research?
Such back-and-forth is what Usenet was designed for.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
U. of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer-- https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
No, gene breakages are a purely Darwinian means of producing whole new >species. Behe made that point right in the article I linked for jillery:
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
I've spent a lot of time in sci.bio.paleontology today, but the reply I did to your fan Burkhard
just now, and this reply to you, jillery, is all the time I can spare for talk.origins today.
And this means no more posts until Monday, if my weekend break proceeds uninterrupted,
as it has all through 2023 so far.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:06:12?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 15:17:27 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:21:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 2:36:06?AM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:46:05?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:47:45 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"[two lines repeated from first reply, for context]
<[email protected]> wrote:
Finally, whatever else Daggett might do, he does not make a career of
posting false and misleading claims against evolution.
Except, of course, out of ignorance. He thinks it is axiomatic that one's
siblings are usually one's biggest competitors for survival. It's hard to guess
where he picked up that "axiom", so instead of speculating,
I reminded him of some "selfish gene" type folklore which he has
to reconcile with that "axiom".
[Oh, for the good old days of sci.bio.evolution, where genetics heavyweight
Felsenstein put in regular appearances in the 1990's. That group went belly-up
a decade ago due to boredom.]
The next comment refers to the ignorant "chez watt" that claimed that >> >> > IDers don't try to research the causes of speciation. Perhaps literally, yes,
but if one expands "research" to what passes for that [1] in the humanities,
then there is ample evidence ripe for the picking from scientific sources.
Really, where?
Do you understand what I wrote below about devolution by gene breakage?
If so, you have one answer: Behe researches (in the humanities sense of combing existing documents)
speciation that includes enough gene breakages to cause not only speciation, but
giving rise to separate genera.
And this is a really strange argument for you to make.
Just playing in your ballpark. [Do you recognize the allusion to a key juncture in the film,
"Inherit the Wind"?]
I have said
numerous times that IDlers do NOT develop theories about their subject matter the
way the humanities do - only for you to claim that because they are natural scientists
(ha-ha) that would be an inappropriate demand on them .
That was before I realized how the theories apply scientific understanding to the results of
research methods employed in the humanities.
I snipped the following from my reply to Burkhard, for the sake of staying in focus:
One of the great things about talk.origins is that it helps me to learn all kinds of
things from unexpected sources. You are an excellent example: by playing in your ballpark, I arrive at
fresh insights that result from being stimulated in the way that an oyster is stimulated to produce pearls.
Irritating at first, but often rewarding in the long run.
[1] You might get quite an argument from Burkhard if you tried to claim
that their methods are in any way inferior to the methods of research scientists.
Looks like I hit the nail on the head with this last remark.
<snip to get to the following link:>
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
If it has flaws, you should be grateful that I talked about it here: >> >> > it would keep you from being blindsided later on.
If you can't find any flaws with it, it would give you plenty of time >> >> > to spin-doctor its conclusions in a way that cushions the shock of it being quoted to you.
A win-win situation, if you can bring yourself to read it.
Jillery hasn't responded yet. Do you think you could help her out by spotting some flaws -- like,
telling us how such simple "research" doesn't do justice to the way people in the humanities do research?
I did you and Behe a favor, to not respond to your post. After all, I
wouldn't want some troll to mindlessly accuse me of "bickering".
I can't think of anyone besides Martin Harran who would stoop so low.
I have more weighty things to talk about.
I'm not surprised you fell for this latest Behe nonsense.
This is very mindful false advertising.
Of course
mutations are "very much more likely to degrade genetic features than
to construct new ones". Anybody who stayed awake in biology knows
this already.
But NOT what Behe said about it: they are able to produce new species
in a strictly Darwinian fashion, as opposed to producing IC structures by a direct method.
IOW, Behe has illustrated exactly what he said on page 40 of "indirect, circuitous methods."
What's left of hair production genes in the woolly mammoth may well have an IC system that
produces great volumes of hair that the previously unbroken genes had suppressed the
production of, in the interglacial and pre-glaciation warm periods.
What Behe and you and other cdesign proponentsists
always conveniently forget to mention is that genetic features which
improve organisms' fitness are "very much more likely" to be amplified
via reproduction and natural selection.
That's because that is belaboring the obvious. The issue here is that some >features that improve organisms' fitness in warm periods of earth
history become deleterious in colder periods. Besides hair, woolly mammoths >produced lots of insulating fat as genes which suppressed its formation became broken.
Stipulating for argument's sake everything Behe says is technically
correct, he still conveniently forgets to mention all the
"constructive" mutations his example organisms almost certainly
evolved during the same time period.
And you conveniently "forget" to supply us with any specific examples.
It's called cherrypicking, a typical tactic of Creationists.
And of anti-creationists who know less science than Behe does
about, say, malaria [see my reply to Burkhard] and cherry-pick
with abandon from my posts, from time to time. One of the worst,
if not THE worst, has killfiled you.
However, Behe is factually incorrect to presume devolved "genes are
gone forever".
Minor exaggerations like this are nothing compared to the
exaggeration you are fixated on. Especially when you
falsely accuse me of it, as you did above.
Even when genes have zero function, they will likely
remain in the population for millions of years, as part of the junk
gene collection cdesign proponenentsists are so fond of denying. During
that time, those functionless genes will continue to mutate, possibly
to produce an entirely new function.
Once in a million blue moons. [If that's an exaggeration, prove it!]
And since I mention new functions, Behe is fond of saying devolved
genes "don’t explain how the functioning genes got there in the first
place. Well guess what? ID doesn't explain it either.
It does in the case of DP, which may become strongly supported
as we send probes to earth-like exoplanets.
In fact, cdesign proponentsists
make zero effort to explain which genes their
presumptive designer makes, nevermind how.
There is some effort made in _The Edge of Evolution_ to find genes
that might have been designed.
But the bacterial flagellum is still the gold standard in that respect.
And DP is one hypothesis for how it might have been designed by
beings no more intelligent than Homo sapiens.
In summary, your cited article, and your post, are
...misrepresented by you, in the part I snipped here, to be like what our >initially science-based discussions most often devolve into: >jillery-generated mindless noise.
I can't think of anyone besides Martin Harran who would stoop so low.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 18:32:05 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" ><[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
I can't think of anyone besides Martin Harran who would stoop so low.
I now accept that trying to get you to recognise your obnoxious
behaviour is a waste of time. Either:
a) You are totally incapable of recognising how obnoxious it is
or b) You simply cannot stop yourself from behaving obnoxiously.
Either way, behaving as a decent, civilised person is obviously
totally beyond your capability so trying to get you to change is a
totally useless exercise.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 18:32:05 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" ><[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
I can't think of anyone besides Martin Harran who would stoop so low.
I now accept that trying to get you to recognise your obnoxious
behaviour is a waste of time. Either:
a) You are totally incapable of recognising how obnoxious it is
or b) You simply cannot stop yourself from behaving obnoxiously.
Either way, behaving as a decent, civilised person is obviously
totally beyond your capability so trying to get you to change is a
totally useless exercise.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:25:27 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:[...]
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 3:21:12 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
Humanities-type ID research on gene-breakages should form (testable)
hypothesis of the type:
The designer chose this method of gene breakages because...
No, gene breakages are a purely Darwinian means of producing whole new >species. Behe made that point right in the article I linked for jillery:
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
Incorrect. Behe made no such claim.
What Behe claims above is that
gene breakage is "the most likely way" organisms evolve, and so "can’t account for the origins of sophisticated biological systems."
He said nothing about creating whole new species,
or that gene breakage is
limited to Darwinian means. In fact, gene breakage is entirely
consistent with ID as well.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 2:26:14 AM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 3:21:12 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:21:11 AM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:21:08 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 2:36:06 AM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:46:05 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:47:45 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:[two lines repeated from first reply, for context]
Finally, whatever else Daggett might do, he does not make a career of
posting false and misleading claims against evolution.
Except, of course, out of ignorance. He thinks it is axiomatic that one's
siblings are usually one's biggest competitors for survival. It's hard to guess
where he picked up that "axiom", so instead of speculating,
I reminded him of some "selfish gene" type folklore which he has to reconcile with that "axiom".
[Oh, for the good old days of sci.bio.evolution, where genetics heavyweight
Felsenstein put in regular appearances in the 1990's. That group went belly-up
a decade ago due to boredom.]
The next comment refers to the ignorant "chez watt" that claimed that
IDers don't try to research the causes of speciation. Perhaps literally, yes,
but if one expands "research" to what passes for that [1] in the humanities,
then there is ample evidence ripe for the picking from scientific sources.
Really, where?
Do you understand what I wrote below about devolution by gene breakage?
If so, you have one answer: Behe researches (in the humanities sense of combing existing documents)
speciation that includes enough gene breakages to cause not only speciation, but
giving rise to separate genera.
Which humanities method is used in that research?
Trying to find all relevant documents, and to study them in depth,
and to weave what one has studied into a coherent hypothesis.
That is not distinctive for humanities, that is just research synthesis,
and is something that all disciplines do do - hence "standing on the shoulders of giants". Of course researchers don't have to do all
experiments on their own, they also read the results of others, and try to build
theories that account for all of them.
And in the natural sciences, meta-analysis is a rigorous research method, with
the Cochrane review setting the gold standard.
Behe did this to a much greater extent in _The Edge of Evolution_. He used malaria
as an example of "trench warfare" between two antagonists [the malaria parasite and the human host]
where lasting victory seems to be a matter of having at least three different mutations
in the parasite, [with us humans it is different -- see below] all of which are beneficial
under the circumstances dictated by the environment.
I can't see any research methodology that is distinctive for the humanities there,
this is just totally normal theory formation in the natural sciences.
With the sickle cell trait -- NOT the disease [1] -- the parasite has been stymied; in contrast,
one drug treatment after another has been successfully countered by it.
I wonder whether Bill Rogers, our malaria professional, can either (1) find flaws with it or
(2) has ever composed a more masterly account than the mere amateur, Michael Behe, has done.
[1] The sickle cell trait is characterized as having one normal gene
and one mutated version of it that protects against malaria.
The disease only has the mutated version. It protects against malaria even a tad better,
but it results in a debilitating anemia that is even worse than most cases of malaria.
I can't see any.
I haven't provided any until now. This is an ongoing discussion in which I don't
try to anticipate your every criticism.
And what documents do you mean? If you simply mean that rather
than doing his own experiments,
Just what "experiments" is someone trying to discover the author of
the Voinich manuscript supposed to do?
First, that misunderstands the argument entirely. Or are you really
arguing that if A is lacking a trait X, and B is lacking the same trait X,
A is B?
That is rather obviously fallacious. Footballers don't use javelins,
and chess players don't use javelins, but that does not mean that
football is the same as chess.
Even if it were true that humanities researchers do not carry out experiments,
the fact that Behe also does not carry out experiments would not make him
a humanities researcher, not by a long mile.
But apart from being logically flawed, it's also wrong as a matter of fact. Of course
Voynich researchers have and are carrying our experiments.Gregory Hodgins e.g.
carried out a carbon dating analysis, that rules out several theories that treated
it as a modern fake.
The ink has equally been subjected to testing, as were the
paint in the colourings (Barabe, Joseph G. (1 April 2009).
"Materials Analysis of the Voynich Manuscript") - showing e.g. that text and images
are contemporaneous, and that the author had access to some more
unusual materials.
or someone trying to figure
out the hour in which the climactic Norman assault at Hastings took place?
he uses those made by other, sorry,
no, mere "displaying reading ability" does not make this into humanities-type
research.
See what I wrote about Behe and malaria. He's gone into lots of angles that one does
not find in standard treatments of the subject, or in the writings of any single author.
Certainly not in the writings of Bill Rogers.
And that turns it into humanities research how?
Humanities-type ID research on gene-breakages should form (testable) hypothesis of the type: The designer wanted these genera because....A creationist would frame such hypotheses, but Behe allows for lots of unguided evolution.
But he also argues design, and a design theory would have to use
these hypothesis somewhere.
So his hypotheses are of a different sort, like the
one I mentioned above: how likely is that unguided processes will
arrive at a successful counter-measure of the parasite to the entrapment and suffocation the sickle cell trait "uses" to kill the parasites?
That quantifies over all processes, including unknown ones.
That is
just bad research methodology.
Doing natural sciences badly does not
mean doing it like the humanities do
A vast period of time involving several million years might overcome the odds,
but neither humans nor the parasite have been around that long.
Humans, on the other hand, needed only ONE mutation in ONE human with several offspring to produce the sickle cell trait. Consequently, Behe doesn't claim
that the mutation was divinely caused or even that the Designer foresaw it.
So why then is it a design theory?
or The designer chose this method of gene breakages because...
No, gene breakages are a purely Darwinian means of producing whole new species. Behe made that point right in the article I linked for jillery:
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
And this is a really strange argument for you to make.
Just playing in your ballpark. [Do you recognize the allusion to a key juncture in the film,
"Inherit the Wind"?]
<crickets>
nothing worth commenting on, really
You didn't say anything more this time around, but I've left in some of what you left in,
with one comment about what you did say this time around.
I have said
numerous times that IDlers do NOT develop theories about their subject matter the
way the humanities do - only for you to claim that because they are natural scientists
(ha-ha) that would be an inappropriate demand on them .
<snip for focus>That was before I realized how the theories apply scientific understanding to the results of
research methods employed in the humanities.
The following is an instance of Behe's "evolution by devolution"":
For instance, the woolly mammoth
has been confirmed as having had close to a hundred genes broken
that held it back from being adapted to very cold weather.
The woolly mammoth is *Mammuthus* *primigenius,* a separate genus from the African elephant (Loxodonta) and the Asian elephant (Elephas).[2]
Behe is quite comfortable with the idea that the great number of genes
that were broken were adequate to launch a new species or even a new genus.
<small snip>[2] Elephas is the closest living relative of the woolly mammoth. This is what I was alluding to up there, this time around.
This was a result of Behe researching some of the latest scientific news:
The following research announcement in Science News from last year talks
about those broken genes.
<snip for focus>https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/08/220810123606.htm "Nearly a hundred genes have been lost during the woolly mammoth's evolution"
Date: August 10, 2022
This article was reported five days later by Michael Behe and
conclusions were drawn from its findings.
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
If it has flaws, you should be grateful that I talked about it here:
it would keep you from being blindsided later on.
If you can't find any flaws with it, it would give you plenty of time
to spin-doctor its conclusions in a way that cushions the shock of it being quoted to you.
A win-win situation, if you can bring yourself to read it.
You made a weak stab at it this time, but you may add more in the light of what I wrote this time.Jillery hasn't responded yet. Do you think you could help her out by spotting some flaws -- like,
telling us how such simple "research" doesn't do justice to the way people in the humanities do research?
Such back-and-forth is what Usenet was designed for.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
U. of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer-- https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Point taken. But Behe is standing on the shoulders of giants
for his dating of when "Sickle Trait Eve" was born, and it's
quite important as to being able to show that the malaria parasite
has had all this time to mutate a defense, and it has failed to do so.
This has been another super-busy day, so I'm posting only in replymore recent results recounted here just pile more evidence onto that gathered in _Darwin_Devolves_ showing Darwin’s mechanism is powerfully devolutionary. That simple realization neatly explains results ranging from the evolutionary behavior of yeast
to posts with comments that are very much on-topic for the purposes
for which talk.origins and sci.bio.evolution were set up, and reciprocating.
And since s.b.e. went extinct over a decade ago, its on-topic
themes have been picked up by talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 3:31:15?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:25:27 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 3:21:12?AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
[...]Humanities-type ID research on gene-breakages should form (testable)
hypothesis of the type:
The designer chose this method of gene breakages because...
No, gene breakages are a purely Darwinian means of producing whole new
species. Behe made that point right in the article I linked for jillery: >> >
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
Incorrect. Behe made no such claim.
Not that you deserve it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt,
and assume that you did not read as far as the last paragraph.
Note the word "devolution" which Behe uses to mean "evolution that results from
degradation of the genome."
"At least in retrospect, it’s easy to see that devolution must happen — for the simple reason that helpful degradative mutations are more plentiful than helpful constructive ones and thus arrive more quickly for natural selection to multiply. The
Note the word "speciation" in that last half sentence.
What Behe claims above is that
gene breakage is "the most likely way" organisms evolve, and so "can’t
account for the origins of sophisticated biological systems."
Those are on the level of whole new families or orders,
but Behe stopped with speciation above.
He said nothing about creating whole new species,
i.e., speciation -- but he did talk about that "loud and clear,"
as the quoted comments show.
or that gene breakage is
limited to Darwinian means. In fact, gene breakage is entirely
consistent with ID as well.
Yes, but Burkhard was talking about divining the motivations of
(possibly human-level) designers, and in the case of the breakages Behe is talking about,
the Laplacian formula applies, "Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis."
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:31:15 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 2:26:14 AM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 3:21:12 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:21:11 AM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:21:08 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 2:36:06 AM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:46:05 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:47:45 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"[two lines repeated from first reply, for context]
<[email protected]> wrote:
Finally, whatever else Daggett might do, he does not make a career of
posting false and misleading claims against evolution.
Except, of course, out of ignorance. He thinks it is axiomatic that one's
siblings are usually one's biggest competitors for survival. It's hard to guess
where he picked up that "axiom", so instead of speculating,
I reminded him of some "selfish gene" type folklore which he has to reconcile with that "axiom".
[Oh, for the good old days of sci.bio.evolution, where genetics heavyweight
Felsenstein put in regular appearances in the 1990's. That group went belly-up
a decade ago due to boredom.]
The next comment refers to the ignorant "chez watt" that claimed that
IDers don't try to research the causes of speciation. Perhaps literally, yes,
but if one expands "research" to what passes for that [1] in the humanities,
then there is ample evidence ripe for the picking from scientific sources.
Really, where?
Do you understand what I wrote below about devolution by gene breakage?
If so, you have one answer: Behe researches (in the humanities sense of combing existing documents)
speciation that includes enough gene breakages to cause not only speciation, but
giving rise to separate genera.
Which humanities method is used in that research?
Trying to find all relevant documents, and to study them in depth,
and to weave what one has studied into a coherent hypothesis.
That is not distinctive for humanities, that is just research synthesis, and is something that all disciplines do do - hence "standing on the shoulders of giants". Of course researchers don't have to do all experiments on their own, they also read the results of others, and try to buildThat is exactly what Behe does with malaria in _The Edge of Evolution_, as I had written below.
theories that account for all of them.
Gene breakage is a much newer topic for him, so not on the same high level yet,
but his approach is promising.
And in the natural sciences, meta-analysis is a rigorous research method, with
the Cochrane review setting the gold standard.
Behe did this to a much greater extent in _The Edge of Evolution_. He used malaria
as an example of "trench warfare" between two antagonists [the malaria parasite and the human host]
where lasting victory seems to be a matter of having at least three different mutations
in the parasite, [with us humans it is different -- see below] all of which are beneficial
under the circumstances dictated by the environment.
I can't see any research methodology that is distinctive for the humanities there,Yes, but I've been making the point that the research Behe does IS real research
this is just totally normal theory formation in the natural sciences.
if we use the standards of the humanities for the word "research."
With the sickle cell trait -- NOT the disease [1] -- the parasite has been stymied; in contrast,
one drug treatment after another has been successfully countered by it.
I wonder whether Bill Rogers, our malaria professional, can either (1) find flaws with it or
(2) has ever composed a more masterly account than the mere amateur, Michael Behe, has done.
[1] The sickle cell trait is characterized as having one normal gene
and one mutated version of it that protects against malaria.
The disease only has the mutated version. It protects against malaria even a tad better,
but it results in a debilitating anemia that is even worse than most cases of malaria.
I can't see any.
I haven't provided any until now. This is an ongoing discussion in which I don't
try to anticipate your every criticism.
And what documents do you mean? If you simply mean that rather
than doing his own experiments,
Just what "experiments" is someone trying to discover the author of
the Voinich manuscript supposed to do?
First, that misunderstands the argument entirely. Or are you really arguing that if A is lacking a trait X, and B is lacking the same trait X, A is B?Obviously not! Behe looks at numerous measures and counter-measures
in this never-ending "trench warfare." There are numerous types of
traits evolving on either side.
That is rather obviously fallacious. Footballers don't use javelins,Why do you make these analogies in the absence of any palpable
and chess players don't use javelins, but that does not mean that
football is the same as chess.
statement by me to which they could be applicable?
Even if it were true that humanities researchers do not carry out experiments,Obviously not! I gave the main point I was making above:
the fact that Behe also does not carry out experiments would not make him a humanities researcher, not by a long mile.
"Yes, but I've been making the point..." etc.
But apart from being logically flawed, it's also wrong as a matter of fact. Of coursePoint taken. But Behe is standing on the shoulders of giants
Voynich researchers have and are carrying our experiments.Gregory Hodgins e.g.
carried out a carbon dating analysis, that rules out several theories that treated
it as a modern fake.
for his dating of when "Sickle Trait Eve" was born, and it's
quite important as to being able to show that the malaria parasite
has had all this time to mutate a defense, and it has failed to do so.
The ink has equally been subjected to testing, as were the
paint in the colourings (Barabe, Joseph G. (1 April 2009).
"Materials Analysis of the Voynich Manuscript") - showing e.g. that text and images
are contemporaneous, and that the author had access to some more
unusual materials.
Let me know when you figure out an experiment that wouldor someone trying to figure
out the hour in which the climactic Norman assault at Hastings took place?
shed light on this at this late date.
he uses those made by other, sorry,
no, mere "displaying reading ability" does not make this into humanities-type
research.
See what I wrote about Behe and malaria. He's gone into lots of angles that one does
not find in standard treatments of the subject, or in the writings of any single author.
Certainly not in the writings of Bill Rogers.
And that turns it into humanities research how?Missing the main point again.
Humanities-type ID research on gene-breakages should form (testable) hypothesis of the type: The designer wanted these genera because....A creationist would frame such hypotheses, but Behe allows for lots of unguided evolution.
But he also argues design, and a design theory would have to use
these hypothesis somewhere.
Yes...in very carefully chosen cases that call for it. A good design theorist does not go hunting for design under every bed, as the metaphor goes.
So his hypotheses are of a different sort, like the
one I mentioned above: how likely is that unguided processes will
arrive at a successful counter-measure of the parasite to the entrapment and suffocation the sickle cell trait "uses" to kill the parasites?
That quantifies over all processes, including unknown ones.That is why it is so important that the sickle cell trait has been
around for thousands of years. In contrast, the usual drug based
treatments get mutated around every few years, because of
the staggering number of individual parasites in every infected person.
That isNo worse than quantifying over all the unknown people that
just bad research methodology.
produced the ancient Indus Valley script. Despite about
a century and a half of effort, no one has deciphered a single sentence.
Doing natural sciences badly does not
mean doing it like the humanities do
A vast period of time involving several million years might overcome the odds,
but neither humans nor the parasite have been around that long.
Humans, on the other hand, needed only ONE mutation in ONE human with several offspring to produce the sickle cell trait. Consequently, Behe doesn't claim
that the mutation was divinely caused or even that the Designer foresaw it.
So why then is it a design theory?The theory has to do with how many successive neutral or slightly deleterious
mutations it takes to evolve a very precise certain feature, before "design" is hypothesized. I'm rushed for time, but IIRC Behe puts "the edge of evolution" at "more than three."
<snip for focus>
or The designer chose this method of gene breakages because...
No, gene breakages are a purely Darwinian means of producing whole new species. Behe made that point right in the article I linked for jillery:
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
And this is a really strange argument for you to make.
Just playing in your ballpark. [Do you recognize the allusion to a key juncture in the film,
"Inherit the Wind"?]
<crickets>
nothing worth commenting on, reallyThen you've lost the "strange argument" game on your home turf. Would you like a rematch?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS you had nothing new to say below, but I am pressed for time and haven't commented on what's there either. But I left it in below, intact.
You didn't say anything more this time around, but I've left in some of what you left in,
with one comment about what you did say this time around.
I have said
numerous times that IDlers do NOT develop theories about their subject matter the
way the humanities do - only for you to claim that because they are natural scientists
(ha-ha) that would be an inappropriate demand on them .
<snip for focus>That was before I realized how the theories apply scientific understanding to the results of
research methods employed in the humanities.
The following is an instance of Behe's "evolution by devolution"":
For instance, the woolly mammoth
has been confirmed as having had close to a hundred genes broken
that held it back from being adapted to very cold weather.
The woolly mammoth is *Mammuthus* *primigenius,* a separate genus
from the African elephant (Loxodonta) and the Asian elephant (Elephas).[2]
Behe is quite comfortable with the idea that the great number of genes
that were broken were adequate to launch a new species or even a new genus.
<small snip>[2] Elephas is the closest living relative of the woolly mammoth. This is what I was alluding to up there, this time around.
This was a result of Behe researching some of the latest scientific news:
The following research announcement in Science News from last year talks
about those broken genes.
<snip for focus>https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/08/220810123606.htm "Nearly a hundred genes have been lost during the woolly mammoth's evolution"
Date: August 10, 2022
This article was reported five days later by Michael Behe and
conclusions were drawn from its findings.
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
If it has flaws, you should be grateful that I talked about it here:
it would keep you from being blindsided later on.
If you can't find any flaws with it, it would give you plenty of time
to spin-doctor its conclusions in a way that cushions the shock of it being quoted to you.
A win-win situation, if you can bring yourself to read it.
You made a weak stab at it this time, but you may add more in the light of what I wrote this time.Jillery hasn't responded yet. Do you think you could help her out by spotting some flaws -- like,
telling us how such simple "research" doesn't do justice to the way people in the humanities do research?
Such back-and-forth is what Usenet was designed for.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
U. of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer-- https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
Is there consensus on a singular sickle trait eve? Seems it could have evolved independently several times.
Point taken. But Behe is standing on the shoulders of giants
for his dating of when "Sickle Trait Eve" was born, and it's
quite important as to being able to show that the malaria parasite
has had all this time to mutate a defense, and it has failed to do so.
There’s this: “Since Allison and Haldane's work, the action of natural selection on genetic resistance to malaria has been shown in a multitude of contexts (Kwiatkowski, 2005). Indeed, the sickle-cell variant (i.e., the
HbS allele) has been identified in four distinct genetic backgrounds in different African populations, suggesting that the same mutation arose independently several times through convergent evolution. Beyond HbS, other distinct mutations in the HBB gene have generated the HbC and HbE alleles, which arose and spread in Africa and in Southeast Asia, respectively”
From: https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/natural-selection-uncovering-mechanisms-of-evolutionary-adaptation-34539/
Next up: “The sickle cell trait is widespread throughout Africa with low frequencies (<1%–2%) in the north and south of the continent and high but variable frequencies throughout much of equatorial Africa. Characterization of the DNA structure flanking the β-globin locus of HbS suggests that the mutation has arisen on at least three independent occasions in the African continent, referred to as β-globin haplotypes and named after the areas where they were first described: Benin, Senegal, and Central African
Republic or Bantu (Pagnier et al. 1984; Nagel et al 1985; Chebloune et al. 1988). The HbC trait is believed to be a relatively recent mutation limited to West Africa where it occurs at high frequencies (>20%) in central Ghana and Burkina Faso, in only 2% in Nigeria, and does not occur, except in peoples of West African origin, in East and Central Africa. Only limited
data are available on the type and distribution of α- and β-thalassemia genes in the African continent.”*
From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3784812/
But there’s this: “There are two models of the origins of the sickle allele. The multicentric model posits five independent occurrences of the same mutation within the last few thousand years. The unicentric model
posits a single occurrence and an older age. We used whole-genome-sequence data to provide insight into this issue. Using haplotypic classification
and phylogenetic network analysis, we found clear and consistent evidence
for a single origin of the sickle mutation. After accounting for recombination, we estimated that the sickle mutation is 259 [123,395] generations old.”
From: https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(18)30048-X
This last article was referenced in https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-43373247.amp
Where is was said: “In a study published on Thursday in the American Journal of Human Genetics, Daniel Shriner and Charles Rotimi from the
Center for Research on Genomics and Global Health presented findings from analysing the genomes of nearly 3,000 people, 156 of whom had sickle cell. The researchers say they traced the mutation back for 7,300 years, and
found it started with just one child.”
[…]
“But Frederick B. Piel of Imperial College London has told the New York Times that he wants to see bigger studies to see if they come to the same conclusions.”
“For decades scientists have wondered whether the mutation happened just once, or whether it happened at different times in different places.
Sickle cells were first found in the US in people of African origin, but
they are also common in people from the eastern Mediterranean (particularly Greece), the Middle East and parts of Asia.”
[…]
“So is Dr Rotimi certain of what his study has found?
At that question, he laughs out loud: "As a scientist it's always a bad
idea to say something is final. I never really take the position that this
is the final answer."”
“But, he says: "The information that we have now seems to make it quite clear that the multiple origin is not supported."”
So I dunno if it’s multicentric or unicentric in origin. Do you?
Crickets chirping in the gentle topical breeze.
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 14:30:19 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:more recent results recounted here just pile more evidence onto that gathered in _Darwin_Devolves_ showing Darwin’s mechanism is powerfully devolutionary. That simple realization neatly explains results ranging from the evolutionary behavior of yeast
This has been another super-busy day, so I'm posting only in reply
to posts with comments that are very much on-topic for the purposes
for which talk.origins and sci.bio.evolution were set up, and reciprocating.
And since s.b.e. went extinct over a decade ago, its on-topic
themes have been picked up by talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 3:31:15?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:25:27 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 3:21:12?AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
[...]Humanities-type ID research on gene-breakages should form (testable) >>>> hypothesis of the type:
The designer chose this method of gene breakages because...
No, gene breakages are a purely Darwinian means of producing whole new >> >species. Behe made that point right in the article I linked for jillery: >> >
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
Incorrect. Behe made no such claim.
Not that you deserve it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt,
and assume that you did not read as far as the last paragraph.
Note the word "devolution" which Behe uses to mean "evolution that results from
degradation of the genome."
"At least in retrospect, it’s easy to see that devolution must happen — for the simple reason that helpful degradative mutations are more plentiful than helpful constructive ones and thus arrive more quickly for natural selection to multiply. The
Note the word "speciation" in that last half sentence.
What Behe claims above is that
gene breakage is "the most likely way" organisms evolve, and so "can’t >> account for the origins of sophisticated biological systems."
Those are on the level of whole new families or orders,
but Behe stopped with speciation above.
He said nothing about creating whole new species,
i.e., speciation -- but he did talk about that "loud and clear,"I see that now. I have no excuse for missing it before. Now I have
as the quoted comments show.-+
to rethink my understanding of what Behe's point is wrt devolution.
Thank you for pointing out my mistake.
or that gene breakage is
limited to Darwinian means. In fact, gene breakage is entirely
consistent with ID as well.
Yes, but Burkhard was talking about divining the motivations of
(possibly human-level) designers, and in the case of the breakages Behe is talking about,
the Laplacian formula applies, "Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis."
*Hemidactylus* <[email protected]d> wrote:
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
Is there consensus on a singular sickle trait eve? Seems it could have evolved independently several times.
Point taken. But Behe is standing on the shoulders of giants
for his dating of when "Sickle Trait Eve" was born, and it's
quite important as to being able to show that the malaria parasite
has had all this time to mutate a defense, and it has failed to do so.
There’s this: “Since Allison and Haldane's work, the action of natural selection on genetic resistance to malaria has been shown in a multitude of
contexts (Kwiatkowski, 2005). Indeed, the sickle-cell variant (i.e., the HbS allele) has been identified in four distinct genetic backgrounds in different African populations, suggesting that the same mutation arose independently several times through convergent evolution. Beyond HbS, other
distinct mutations in the HBB gene have generated the HbC and HbE alleles, which arose and spread in Africa and in Southeast Asia, respectively” From: https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/natural-selection-uncovering-mechanisms-of-evolutionary-adaptation-34539/
Next up: “The sickle cell trait is widespread throughout Africa with low frequencies (<1%–2%) in the north and south of the continent and high but
variable frequencies throughout much of equatorial Africa. Characterization
of the DNA structure flanking the β-globin locus of HbS suggests that the mutation has arisen on at least three independent occasions in the African continent, referred to as β-globin haplotypes and named after the areas where they were first described: Benin, Senegal, and Central African Republic or Bantu (Pagnier et al. 1984; Nagel et al 1985; Chebloune et al. 1988). The HbC trait is believed to be a relatively recent mutation limited
to West Africa where it occurs at high frequencies (>20%) in central Ghana and Burkina Faso, in only 2% in Nigeria, and does not occur, except in peoples of West African origin, in East and Central Africa. Only limited data are available on the type and distribution of α- and β-thalassemia genes in the African continent.”*
From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3784812/
But there’s this: “There are two models of the origins of the sickle allele. The multicentric model posits five independent occurrences of the same mutation within the last few thousand years. The unicentric model posits a single occurrence and an older age. We used whole-genome-sequence data to provide insight into this issue. Using haplotypic classification and phylogenetic network analysis, we found clear and consistent evidence for a single origin of the sickle mutation. After accounting for recombination, we estimated that the sickle mutation is 259 [123,395] generations old.”
From: https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(18)30048-X
This last article was referenced in https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-43373247.amp
Where is was said: “In a study published on Thursday in the American Journal of Human Genetics, Daniel Shriner and Charles Rotimi from the Center for Research on Genomics and Global Health presented findings from analysing the genomes of nearly 3,000 people, 156 of whom had sickle cell. The researchers say they traced the mutation back for 7,300 years, and found it started with just one child.”
[…]
“But Frederick B. Piel of Imperial College London has told the New York Times that he wants to see bigger studies to see if they come to the same conclusions.”
“For decades scientists have wondered whether the mutation happened just once, or whether it happened at different times in different places. Sickle cells were first found in the US in people of African origin, but they are also common in people from the eastern Mediterranean (particularly
Greece), the Middle East and parts of Asia.”
[…]
“So is Dr Rotimi certain of what his study has found?
At that question, he laughs out loud: "As a scientist it's always a bad idea to say something is final. I never really take the position that this is the final answer."”
“But, he says: "The information that we have now seems to make it quite clear that the multiple origin is not supported."”
So I dunno if it’s multicentric or unicentric in origin. Do you?
Crickets chirping in the gentle topical breeze.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 10:05:34 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <[email protected]d> wrote:
Crickets chirping in the gentle topical breeze.
'Tis Hawaiian crickets, proof of devolution but contrary to ID.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 12:16:20 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 10:05:34 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<[email protected]d> wrote:
Crickets chirping in the gentle topical breeze.
'Tis Hawaiian crickets, proof of devolution but contrary to ID.
Not contrary, just compatible with the absence of ID.
Is the "devolution" part correct? That is, did Hawaiian crickets
devolve from their ancestors due to the breaking of genes?
By "devolve" is meant that the evolutionary changes were due to the degradation of the genome.
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 12:16:20 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 10:05:34 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<[email protected]d> wrote:
Crickets chirping in the gentle topical breeze.
'Tis Hawaiian crickets, proof of devolution but contrary to ID.
Not contrary, just compatible with the absence of ID.
Is the "devolution" part correct? That is, did Hawaiian crickets
devolve from their ancestors due to the breaking of genes?
By "devolve" is meant that the evolutionary changes were due to the degradation of the genome.
How is that different from the predominate mode of neutral evolution aside from being an implicit value judgment?
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 3:41:21?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:help with the next change of environment. Perhaps that contributed to eventual mammoth extinction."
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 12:16:20?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:How is that different from the predominate mode of neutral evolution aside >> from being an implicit value judgment?
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 10:05:34 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<[email protected]d> wrote:
Crickets chirping in the gentle topical breeze.
'Tis Hawaiian crickets, proof of devolution but contrary to ID.
Not contrary, just compatible with the absence of ID.
Is the "devolution" part correct? That is, did Hawaiian crickets
devolve from their ancestors due to the breaking of genes?
By "devolve" is meant that the evolutionary changes were due to the
degradation of the genome.
If by "neutral evolution" you mean no effect on the fitness of the organism,
the clearest form is when a nucleotide is replaced by another one in such
a way that the triplet to which it belongs still codes for the same amino acid.
Is that what you were referring to as the predominate mode?
That is incompatible with the breaking of a gene, which not only prevents it >from coding for the same polypeptide, it even prevents it from coding for anything.
Behe put it colorfully and informally about mammoth genes:
"The point is that these gene losses aren’t side shows — they are the events that transformed an elephant into a mammoth, that adapted the animal to its changing environment. A job well done, yes, but now those genes are gone forever, unavailable to
-- https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
Jillery took the words "gone forever" literally,
but with the extinction of the woolly mammoth, it's a moot point.
There are some who hope to resurrect mammoths by cloning, which would "unmoot" it,
but the epigenetics of the situation make us unsure of success. That's because >the germ cell into which the nucleus of a mammoth cell is placed has an effect on which genes
are expressed. The embryonic development is influenced by the mitochondria of the "mother" elephant,
and that means that it's problematic that we would have a phenotypical mammoth on our hands.
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 3:41:21 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 12:16:20 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:How is that different from the predominate mode of neutral evolution aside >> from being an implicit value judgment?
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 10:05:34 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<[email protected]d> wrote:
Crickets chirping in the gentle topical breeze.
'Tis Hawaiian crickets, proof of devolution but contrary to ID.
Not contrary, just compatible with the absence of ID.
Is the "devolution" part correct? That is, did Hawaiian crickets
devolve from their ancestors due to the breaking of genes?
By "devolve" is meant that the evolutionary changes were due to the
degradation of the genome.
If by "neutral evolution" you mean no effect on the fitness of the organism, the clearest form is when a nucleotide is replaced by another one in such
a way that the triplet to which it belongs still codes for the same amino acid.
Is that what you were referring to as the predominate mode?
That is incompatible with the breaking of a gene, which not only prevents it from coding for the same polypeptide, it even prevents it from coding for anything.
Behe put it colorfully and informally about mammoth genes:
"The point is that these gene losses aren’t side shows — they are the events that transformed an elephant into a mammoth, that adapted the
animal to its changing environment. A job well done, yes, but now those
genes are gone forever, unavailable to help with the next change of environment. Perhaps that contributed to eventual mammoth extinction."
-- https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
Jillery took the words "gone forever" literally, but with the extinction
of the woolly mammoth,
it's a moot point. There are some who hope to resurrect mammoths by
cloning, which would "unmoot" it,
but the epigenetics of the situation make us unsure of success. That's because
the germ cell into which the nucleus of a mammoth cell is placed has an effect on which genes
are expressed. The embryonic development is influenced by the
mitochondria of the "mother" elephant,
and that means that it's problematic that we would have a phenotypical mammoth on our hands.
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 3:41:21 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:Or a duplicate gene degrades while the original still remains functional.
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 12:16:20 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:How is that different from the predominate mode of neutral evolution aside >>> from being an implicit value judgment?
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 10:05:34 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<[email protected]d> wrote:
Crickets chirping in the gentle topical breeze.
'Tis Hawaiian crickets, proof of devolution but contrary to ID.
Not contrary, just compatible with the absence of ID.
Is the "devolution" part correct? That is, did Hawaiian crickets
devolve from their ancestors due to the breaking of genes?
By "devolve" is meant that the evolutionary changes were due to the
degradation of the genome.
If by "neutral evolution" you mean no effect on the fitness of the organism,
the clearest form is when a nucleotide is replaced by another one in such
a way that the triplet to which it belongs still codes for the same amino acid.
Is that what you were referring to as the predominate mode?
Or retroviruses and transposons litter the genome and remain as fossils. There are multiple ways junk accumulates. The point mutational view of evolution is a bit blinkered.
Devolution conjures the dichotomy of the Morlocks and Eloi reflecting a
turn of the century obsession with degeneration.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/devolve
“…to degenerate through a gradual change or evolution”
Reminds me of popular fears of inbreds that inspire horror movies like “Wrong Turn”.
Degradation of genes from an adaptive state such as with our remnant
yolking genes is not devolution but merely evolution. Are we devolved from our egg-laying ancestors because we don’t yolk our eggs?
Degradation of yolking genes in our ancestors should have done them in. Yet here we are with those broken genes. Amazing!
That is incompatible with the breaking of a gene, which not only prevents it >> from coding for the same polypeptide, it even prevents it from coding for anything.
Behe put it colorfully and informally about mammoth genes:
"The point is that these gene losses aren’t side shows — they are the
events that transformed an elephant into a mammoth, that adapted the
animal to its changing environment. A job well done, yes, but now those
genes are gone forever, unavailable to help with the next change of
environment. Perhaps that contributed to eventual mammoth extinction."
-- https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
Ah yes epigenetics and the EES.
Jillery took the words "gone forever" literally, but with the extinction
of the woolly mammoth,
it's a moot point. There are some who hope to resurrect mammoths by
cloning, which would "unmoot" it,
but the epigenetics of the situation make us unsure of success. That's because
the germ cell into which the nucleus of a mammoth cell is placed has an
effect on which genes
are expressed. The embryonic development is influenced by the
mitochondria of the "mother" elephant,
and that means that it's problematic that we would have a phenotypical
mammoth on our hands.
On 28/10/2023 08:26, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 3:41:21 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >>>> [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:Or a duplicate gene degrades while the original still remains functional.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 12:16:20 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 10:05:34 +0000, *Hemidactylus*How is that different from the predominate mode of neutral evolution
<[email protected]d> wrote:
Crickets chirping in the gentle topical breeze.
'Tis Hawaiian crickets, proof of devolution but contrary to ID.
Not contrary, just compatible with the absence of ID.
Is the "devolution" part correct? That is, did Hawaiian crickets
devolve from their ancestors due to the breaking of genes?
By "devolve" is meant that the evolutionary changes were due to the
degradation of the genome.
aside
from being an implicit value judgment?
If by "neutral evolution" you mean no effect on the fitness of the
organism,
the clearest form is when a nucleotide is replaced by another one in
such
a way that the triplet to which it belongs still codes for the same
amino acid.
Is that what you were referring to as the predominate mode?
Or retroviruses and transposons litter the genome and remain as fossils.
There are multiple ways junk accumulates. The point mutational view of
evolution is a bit blinkered.
Devolution conjures the dichotomy of the Morlocks and Eloi reflecting a
turn of the century obsession with degeneration.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/devolve
“…to degenerate through a gradual change or evolution”
Reminds me of popular fears of inbreds that inspire horror movies like
“Wrong Turn”.
Degradation of genes from an adaptive state such as with our remnant
yolking genes is not devolution but merely evolution. Are we devolved
from
our egg-laying ancestors because we don’t yolk our eggs?
Degradation of yolking genes in our ancestors should have done them
That is incompatible with the breaking of a gene, which not only
prevents it
from coding for the same polypeptide, it even prevents it from coding
for anything.
Behe put it colorfully and informally about mammoth genes:
"The point is that these gene losses aren’t side shows — they are the >>> events that transformed an elephant into a mammoth, that adapted the
animal to its changing environment. A job well done, yes, but now those
genes are gone forever, unavailable to help with the next change of
environment. Perhaps that contributed to eventual mammoth extinction."
-- https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
in. Yet
here we are with those broken genes. Amazing!
Ah yes epigenetics and the EES.
Jillery took the words "gone forever" literally, but with the extinction >>> of the woolly mammoth,
it's a moot point. There are some who hope to resurrect mammoths by
cloning, which would "unmoot" it,
but the epigenetics of the situation make us unsure of success.
That's because
the germ cell into which the nucleus of a mammoth cell is placed has an
effect on which genes
are expressed. The embryonic development is influenced by the
mitochondria of the "mother" elephant,
and that means that it's problematic that we would have a phenotypical
mammoth on our hands.
The interaction between the mitome and nucleome isn't epigenetics. The
term that applies to traits that result from the interaction of
different genes is polygenic.
There's also the point that if one could assemble a mammoth nucleome one could assemble a mammoth mitome. The first step in resurrecting mammoths might even to be create an elephant with mammoth mitochondria.
There does remain questions about the interaction between the uterine environment and the genome. (Nurture, not epigenetics.) Cross-species surrogacy is a technique used in conservation, so there is some
knowledge as to how significant this is.
And there is the question of the interaction between the ovum proteome
and the genome. Elephant and mammoth DNA binding proteins may bind to
the mammoth genome with different avidities, with impacts on gene
regulation. This is at least getting close to epigenetics.
Genomes can produce very different results - sexual dimorphism (are
there species with non-chromosomal sex determination and significant
sexual dimorphism beyond the reproductive system?), social insect
castes, et alia. It's not beyond the bounds of conceivability that the cloning process kicks mammoth development into a different
generationally persistent (epigenetically determined) phenotypic
attractor, but my expectation that any impacts from the last two issue
above could be eliminated by a few rounds of mammoth reproduction,
presuming that you could produce a viable mammoth in the first place.
With current technology it strikes me as more feasible to modify
elephant genomes step by step using CRISPR and hope that the
intermediates selected are viable than to recreate mammoths in a single generation. I suspect that we're closer to directed abiogenesis that to
the latter.
On 28/10/2023 08:26, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
the germ cell into which the nucleus of a mammoth cell is placed has an >> effect on which genesAh yes epigenetics and the EES.
are expressed. The embryonic development is influenced by the
mitochondria of the "mother" elephant,
and that means that it's problematic that we would have a phenotypical
mammoth on our hands.
The interaction between the mitome and nucleome isn't epigenetics.
The term that applies to traits that result from the interaction of different genes is polygenic.
There's also the point that if one could assemble a mammoth nucleome one could assemble a mammoth mitome. The first step in resurrecting mammoths might even to be create an elephant with mammoth mitochondria.
There does remain questions about the interaction between the uterine environment and the genome. (Nurture, not epigenetics.) Cross-species surrogacy is a technique used in conservation, so there is some
knowledge as to how significant this is.
And there is the question of the interaction between the ovum proteome
and the genome. Elephant and mammoth DNA binding proteins may bind to
the mammoth genome with different avidities, with impacts on gene regulation. This is at least getting close to epigenetics.
Genomes can produce very different results - sexual dimorphism (are
there species with non-chromosomal sex determination and significant
sexual dimorphism beyond the reproductive system?), social insect
castes, et alia. It's not beyond the bounds of conceivability that the cloning process kicks mammoth development into a different
generationally persistent (epigenetically determined) phenotypic
attractor, but my expectation that any impacts from the last two issue
above could be eliminated by a few rounds of mammoth reproduction,
presuming that you could produce a viable mammoth in the first place.
With current technology it strikes me as more feasible to modify
elephant genomes step by step using CRISPR and hope that the
intermediates selected are viable than to recreate mammoths in a single generation. I suspect that we're closer to directed abiogenesis that to
the latter.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:25:42 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:to help with the next change of environment. Perhaps that contributed to eventual mammoth extinction."
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 3:41:21?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 12:16:20?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:How is that different from the predominate mode of neutral evolution aside
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 10:05:34 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<[email protected]d> wrote:
Crickets chirping in the gentle topical breeze.
'Tis Hawaiian crickets, proof of devolution but contrary to ID.
Not contrary, just compatible with the absence of ID.
Is the "devolution" part correct? That is, did Hawaiian crickets
devolve from their ancestors due to the breaking of genes?
By "devolve" is meant that the evolutionary changes were due to the
degradation of the genome.
from being an implicit value judgment?
If by "neutral evolution" you mean no effect on the fitness of the organism,
the clearest form is when a nucleotide is replaced by another one in such >a way that the triplet to which it belongs still codes for the same amino acid.
Is that what you were referring to as the predominate mode?
That is incompatible with the breaking of a gene, which not only prevents it
from coding for the same polypeptide, it even prevents it from coding for anything.
Behe put it colorfully and informally about mammoth genes:
"The point is that these gene losses aren’t side shows — they are the events that transformed an elephant into a mammoth, that adapted the animal to its changing environment. A job well done, yes, but now those genes are gone forever, unavailable
-- https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
Jillery took the words "gone forever" literally,
To be accurate, Behe dishonestly exaggerated the facts.
but with the extinction of the woolly mammoth, it's a moot point.
If so, then mammoth extinction would also moot Behe's entire line of reasoning.
There are some who hope to resurrect mammoths by cloning, which would "unmoot" it,
but the epigenetics of the situation make us unsure of success. That's because
the germ cell into which the nucleus of a mammoth cell is placed has an effect on which genes
are expressed. The embryonic development is influenced by the mitochondria of the "mother" elephant,
and that means that it's problematic that we would have a phenotypical mammoth on our hands.
What you allude to above is a point I made previously about Dolly the
sheep "clone" which was more accurately a chimera.
Another problem with resurrecting extinct species is there are no
parents to teach these organisms how to act appropriately. For these
reasons and others, these experiments produce approximate models of
extinct species.
On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 7:56:23 AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
On 28/10/2023 08:26, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
The interaction between the mitome and nucleome isn't epigenetics.the germ cell into which the nucleus of a mammoth cell is placed has an >>>> effect on which genesAh yes epigenetics and the EES.
are expressed. The embryonic development is influenced by the
mitochondria of the "mother" elephant,
and that means that it's problematic that we would have a phenotypical >>>> mammoth on our hands.
Thanks for the correction.
The term that applies to traits that result from the interaction of
different genes is polygenic.
Is there a term which applies specifically to the interaction
between the genes of the nucleus and those of the mitochondria?
There's also the point that if one could assemble a mammoth nucleome one
could assemble a mammoth mitome. The first step in resurrecting mammoths
might even to be create an elephant with mammoth mitochondria.
There does remain questions about the interaction between the uterine
environment and the genome. (Nurture, not epigenetics.) Cross-species
surrogacy is a technique used in conservation, so there is some
knowledge as to how significant this is.
So, if by some miracle we could obtain a viable oocyte from a female
mammoth, and viable sperm from a male, and get them to unite somehow, implanting the resulting blastocyst into an elephant could produce a
genuine mammoth, no?
And there is the question of the interaction between the ovum proteome
and the genome. Elephant and mammoth DNA binding proteins may bind to
the mammoth genome with different avidities, with impacts on gene
regulation. This is at least getting close to epigenetics.
Genomes can produce very different results - sexual dimorphism (are
there species with non-chromosomal sex determination and significant
sexual dimorphism beyond the reproductive system?), social insect
castes, et alia. It's not beyond the bounds of conceivability that the
cloning process kicks mammoth development into a different
generationally persistent (epigenetically determined) phenotypic
attractor, but my expectation that any impacts from the last two issue
above could be eliminated by a few rounds of mammoth reproduction,
presuming that you could produce a viable mammoth in the first place.
With current technology it strikes me as more feasible to modify
elephant genomes step by step using CRISPR and hope that the
intermediates selected are viable than to recreate mammoths in a single
generation. I suspect that we're closer to directed abiogenesis that to
the latter.
Directed abiogenesis might be something to shoot for, but with
a simpler goal than "life as we know it."
I've often wondered how diverse the earth biosphere could have become if the final stages of the "protein takeover" had not taken place, but stopped with ribozymes being the main catalysts rather than protein enzymes.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
U. of South Carolina in Columbia
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett still can't
get the hang of what makes for a good chez watt:
In the category of a case of begging the question being mistaken for a Chez Watt:
In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
"IDers" is false. Even if the more nearly true word " creationists" is substituted, there are plenty of them who allow for new species or even new generaNote: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
new species came from.
to evolve, by calling it "microevolution." The family Equidae, with tight sequences of
genera, forces the more intelligent ones into this group.
The IDer Behe, who has argued *for evolution* (more than I've seen Daggett do)
goes a step further than most in _Darwin Devolves_. He considers a
great deal of evolution as being due to breaking genes.
For instance, the woolly mammoth
has been confirmed as having had close to a hundred genes broken
that held it back from being adapted to very cold weather.
If Daggett had done some "spying" to see where the strengths and weaknesses of IDers lay, he would have seen an article in Evolution News
about these broken genes.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:51:05 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett still can't
get the hang of what makes for a good chez watt:
In the category of a case of begging the question being mistaken for a Chez Watt:
In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where new species came from.
"IDers" is false. Even if the more nearly true word " creationists" is substituted, there are plenty of them who allow for new species or even new genera
to evolve, by calling it "microevolution." The family Equidae, with tight sequences of
genera, forces the more intelligent ones into this group.
The IDer Behe, who has argued *for evolution* (more than I've seen Daggett do)
goes a step further than most in _Darwin Devolves_. He considers a
great deal of evolution as being due to breaking genes.
For instance, the woolly mammoth
has been confirmed as having had close to a hundred genes broken
that held it back from being adapted to very cold weather.
If Daggett had done some "spying" to see where the strengths and weaknesses
of IDers lay, he would have seen an article in Evolution News
about these broken genes.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Now that the month is over, I'm curious if you actually know who wrote "Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
new species came from." and what the context was, and for that matter,
how it has evolved.
Or are you distracted by the pyramids?
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 3:41:21 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 12:16:20 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote: >>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 10:05:34 +0000, *Hemidactylus*How is that different from the predominate mode of neutral evolution aside
<[email protected]d> wrote:
Crickets chirping in the gentle topical breeze.
'Tis Hawaiian crickets, proof of devolution but contrary to ID.
Not contrary, just compatible with the absence of ID.
Is the "devolution" part correct? That is, did Hawaiian crickets
devolve from their ancestors due to the breaking of genes?
By "devolve" is meant that the evolutionary changes were due to the
degradation of the genome.
from being an implicit value judgment?
If by "neutral evolution" you mean no effect on the fitness of the organism,
the clearest form is when a nucleotide is replaced by another one in such a way that the triplet to which it belongs still codes for the same amino acid.
Is that what you were referring to as the predominate mode?
Or a duplicate gene degrades while the original still remains functional.
Or retroviruses and transposons litter the genome and remain as fossils. There are multiple ways junk accumulates.
The point mutational view of
evolution is a bit blinkered.
Devolution conjures the dichotomy of the Morlocks and Eloi reflecting a
turn of the century obsession with degeneration.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/devolve
“…to degenerate through a gradual change or evolution”
Reminds me of popular fears of inbreds that inspire horror movies like “Wrong Turn”.
Degradation of genes from an adaptive state such as with our remnant
yolking genes is not devolution but merely evolution.
Are we devolved from
our egg-laying ancestors because we don’t yolk our eggs?
That is incompatible with the breaking of a gene, which not only prevents it
from coding for the same polypeptide, it even prevents it from coding for anything.
Behe put it colorfully and informally about mammoth genes:
"The point is that these gene losses aren’t side shows — they are the events that transformed an elephant into a mammoth, that adapted the animal to its changing environment. A job well done, yes, but now those genes are gone forever, unavailable to help with the next change of environment. Perhaps that contributed to eventual mammoth extinction."
-- https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
Degradation of yolking genes in our ancestors should have done them in.
Yet here we are with those broken genes. Amazing!
Jillery took the words "gone forever" literally, but with the extinction of the woolly mammoth,
it's a moot point. There are some who hope to resurrect mammoths by cloning, which would "unmoot" it,
but the epigenetics of the situation make us unsure of success. That's because
the germ cell into which the nucleus of a mammoth cell is placed has an effect on which genes
are expressed. The embryonic development is influenced by the
mitochondria of the "mother" elephant,
and that means that it's problematic that we would have a phenotypical mammoth on our hands.
Ah yes epigenetics and the EES.
If by "neutral evolution" you mean no effect on the fitness of the organism,
the clearest form is when a nucleotide is replaced by another one in such >>> a way that the triplet to which it belongs still codes for the same amino acid.
Is that what you were referring to as the predominate mode?
But not all junk is neutral. Some may be detrimental -- most birds have little of it,Or a duplicate gene degrades while the original still remains functional.
Or retroviruses and transposons litter the genome and remain as fossils.
There are multiple ways junk accumulates.
because of the excess weight involved (although ratites and other flightless birds may be an exception.
Some may be beneficial, since "junk" may just
mean "does not code for a polypeptide", but that is not the only function RNA has.
[It just now occurred to me, though: might "junk DNA" include "does not undergo transcription"?]
On 01/11/2023 20:49, [email protected] wrote:
If by "neutral evolution" you mean no effect on the fitness of the
organism,
the clearest form is when a nucleotide is replaced by another one in
such
a way that the triplet to which it belongs still codes for the same
amino acid.
I subscribe to nearly neutral evolution rather than neutral evolution.
(For selection coefficients below a population size dependent value
drift overwhelms selection.) Even synonymous changes to base pairs may
have an associated selection coefficient.
* it might change the energetic cost of replication
* it might change the energetic cost of transcription
* it might change the energetic cost of protein synthesis
* the mutant may be more or less liable to give rise to a non-synonymous mutation - for example if it creates a CpG pair.
* it might have an effective on DNA regulation, by changing the number
of methylation sites in a gene, or by creating a spurious promoter site.
* it might have an effect on protein synthesis by changing the rate the corresponding residue is added.
In principle the various factors may cancel to give a selection
coefficient of zero (rather than negligible), but since selection coefficients are real numbers I think that can be discounted.
For the first three my intuition is that even in bacterial populations
the selection coefficient is too small to be effectively seen by natural selection. But vertebrate genomes have a significant underrepresentation
of CpG dinucleotides, which would seem to imply selection is at least
strong enough to introduce a bias at least averaged across the genome.
In the case of the last, I recall reading of instances where a change
which results in using a commoner, or rarer, tRNA has the effect of
changing the rate at which that step of translation occurs and changes
the fidelity of protein folding.
A base substitution in junk DNA is closer to a neutral change, but a
some of the above factors still apply.
Is that what you were referring to as the predominate mode?
Usually when people refer to neutral evolution as the predominate mode
they are referring to neutral evolution as the predominant source of
genetic changes as opposed to adaptive selection, rather than to a
particular class of mutations. (One might add stabilising and disruptive selection, or might argue that stabilising selection is source of non-evolution rather than evolution, and disruptive selection is a form
of adaptive selection.)
But not all junk is neutral. Some may be detrimental -- most birdsOr a duplicate gene degrades while the original still remains
functional.
Or retroviruses and transposons litter the genome and remain as fossils. >>> There are multiple ways junk accumulates.
have little of it,
because of the excess weight involved (although ratites and other
flightless
birds may be an exception.
If junk is sufficiently detrimental it would get selected out. Junk is
nearly neutral. I would expect that on average junk is very slightly detrimental due to metabolic cost of replication. Though there might be complications such as removing too much junk breaks the coordination of
the cell cycle. (On the other hand the viability of polyploid cells
implies that is not an issue at least most of the time.) Common wisdom
is that with their large populations and short generation times the
metabolic cost is large enough to be under selection in bacteria, with
the result that they have little junk DNA, but in eukaryotes with longer
cell cycle times and smaller populations the metabolic cost flies under
the radar.
The story I recall about birds (and which comes up on a web search) is
that it's not the weight of the DNA that's the issue, but that birds
have smaller cells. The web tells me that the smaller cells support the metabolic costs of flight by improving oxygen intake (because of the square-cube law); how this translates to less DNA was not made explicit
but it might be that a smaller nucleus means more room for mitochondria.
Some may be beneficial, since "junk" may just
mean "does not code for a polypeptide", but that is not the only
function RNA has.
No, junk does not mean "does not code for a polypeptide" - that's a panadaptionist strawman.
[It just now occurred to me, though: might "junk DNA" include "does
not undergo transcription"?]
No, junk does not mean "does not undergo transcription", on both sides
of the coin. On the one hand centromeres, telomeres and regulatory
binding sites inter alia do not under the normal course of events
undergo transcription. On the other hand, introns do undergo
transcription, and there is a low level of transcriptional noise across
most of the genome.
You might benefit from reading Larry Moran's new book on the genome.
On 01/11/2023 20:49, [email protected] wrote:
I subscribe to nearly neutral evolution rather than neutral evolution.If by "neutral evolution" you mean no effect on the fitness of the organism,
the clearest form is when a nucleotide is replaced by another one in such
a way that the triplet to which it belongs still codes for the same amino acid.
(For selection coefficients below a population size dependent value
drift overwhelms selection.) Even synonymous changes to base pairs may
have an associated selection coefficient.
* it might change the energetic cost of replication
* it might change the energetic cost of transcription
* it might change the energetic cost of protein synthesis
* the mutant may be more or less liable to give rise to a non-synonymous mutation - for example if it creates a CpG pair.
* it might have an effective on DNA regulation, by changing the number
of methylation sites in a gene, or by creating a spurious promoter site.
* it might have an effect on protein synthesis by changing the rate the corresponding residue is added.
In principle the various factors may cancel to give a selection
coefficient of zero (rather than negligible), but since selection coefficients are real numbers I think that can be discounted.
For the first three my intuition is that even in bacterial populations
the selection coefficient is too small to be effectively seen by natural selection. But vertebrate genomes have a significant underrepresentation
of CpG dinucleotides, which would seem to imply selection is at least
strong enough to introduce a bias at least averaged across the genome.
In the case of the last, I recall reading of instances where a change
which results in using a commoner, or rarer, tRNA has the effect of
changing the rate at which that step of translation occurs and changes
the fidelity of protein folding.
A base substitution in junk DNA is closer to a neutral change, but a
some of the above factors still apply.
Usually when people refer to neutral evolution as the predominate modeIs that what you were referring to as the predominate mode?
they are referring to neutral evolution as the predominant source of
genetic changes as opposed to adaptive selection, rather than to a particular class of mutations. (One might add stabilising and disruptive selection, or might argue that stabilising selection is source of non-evolution rather than evolution, and disruptive selection is a form
of adaptive selection.)
If junk is sufficiently detrimental it would get selected out. Junk is nearly neutral. I would expect that on average junk is very slightly detrimental due to metabolic cost of replication. Though there might be complications such as removing too much junk breaks the coordination ofBut not all junk is neutral. Some may be detrimental -- most birds have little of it,Or a duplicate gene degrades while the original still remains functional. >> Or retroviruses and transposons litter the genome and remain as fossils. >> There are multiple ways junk accumulates.
because of the excess weight involved (although ratites and other flightless
birds may be an exception.
the cell cycle. (On the other hand the viability of polyploid cells
implies that is not an issue at least most of the time.) Common wisdom
is that with their large populations and short generation times the metabolic cost is large enough to be under selection in bacteria, with
the result that they have little junk DNA, but in eukaryotes with longer cell cycle times and smaller populations the metabolic cost flies under
the radar.
The story I recall about birds (and which comes up on a web search) is
that it's not the weight of the DNA that's the issue, but that birds
have smaller cells. The web tells me that the smaller cells support the metabolic costs of flight by improving oxygen intake (because of the square-cube law); how this translates to less DNA was not made explicit
but it might be that a smaller nucleus means more room for mitochondria.
Some may be beneficial, since "junk" may justNo, junk does not mean "does not code for a polypeptide" - that's a panadaptionist strawman.
mean "does not code for a polypeptide", but that is not the only function RNA has.
[It just now occurred to me, though: might "junk DNA" include "does not undergo transcription"?]No, junk does not mean "does not undergo transcription", on both sides
of the coin. On the one hand centromeres, telomeres and regulatory
binding sites inter alia do not under the normal course of events
undergo transcription. On the other hand, introns do undergo
transcription, and there is a low level of transcriptional noise across
most of the genome.
You might benefit from reading Larry Moran's new book on the genome.
--
alias Ernest Major
On 31/10/2023 19:03, [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 7:56:23?AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
On 28/10/2023 08:26, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
The interaction between the mitome and nucleome isn't epigenetics.the germ cell into which the nucleus of a mammoth cell is placed has an >>>>> effect on which genesAh yes epigenetics and the EES.
are expressed. The embryonic development is influenced by the
mitochondria of the "mother" elephant,
and that means that it's problematic that we would have a phenotypical >>>>> mammoth on our hands.
Thanks for the correction.
The term that applies to traits that result from the interaction of
different genes is polygenic.
Is there a term which applies specifically to the interaction
between the genes of the nucleus and those of the mitochondria?
Not that I know of. (Cytoplasmic male sterility applies - assuming it's
the mitochondria rather than the plastids that are involved - but that's >only one of many possible interactions.)
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 12:46:22?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:to help with the next change of environment. Perhaps that contributed to eventual mammoth extinction."
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:25:42 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 3:41:21?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 12:16:20?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:How is that different from the predominate mode of neutral evolution aside
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 10:05:34 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<[email protected]d> wrote:
Crickets chirping in the gentle topical breeze.
'Tis Hawaiian crickets, proof of devolution but contrary to ID.
Not contrary, just compatible with the absence of ID.
Is the "devolution" part correct? That is, did Hawaiian crickets
devolve from their ancestors due to the breaking of genes?
By "devolve" is meant that the evolutionary changes were due to the
degradation of the genome.
from being an implicit value judgment?
If by "neutral evolution" you mean no effect on the fitness of the organism,
the clearest form is when a nucleotide is replaced by another one in such >> >a way that the triplet to which it belongs still codes for the same amino acid.
Is that what you were referring to as the predominate mode?
That is incompatible with the breaking of a gene, which not only prevents it
from coding for the same polypeptide, it even prevents it from coding for anything.
Behe put it colorfully and informally about mammoth genes:
"The point is that these gene losses aren’t side shows — they are the events that transformed an elephant into a mammoth, that adapted the animal to its changing environment. A job well done, yes, but now those genes are gone forever, unavailable
-- https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
Jillery took the words "gone forever" literally,
To be accurate, Behe dishonestly exaggerated the facts.
Not so fast. There is more than one gene involved here.
Excerpt from linked article:the extremely cold environments that the mammoth roamed.”
In Darwin Devolves, I also mentioned work on DNA extracted from frozen woolly mammoth carcasses that showcased devolution: “26 genes were shown to be seriously degraded, many of which (as with polar bear) were involved in fat metabolism, critical in
[end of excerpt]
Even if one of those genes somehow got resurrected from its broken
state to its original state -- unlikely in the time from the first woollymammoth
to historical times [1]-- the probability of it happening to the majority >of the relevant genes is so small as to make it a practical impossibility.
[1] "once in a million blue moons" was the way I put it, and I don't think >that's an exaggeration
Moreover, junk DNA alters more quickly than the genes that are
expressed, due to the effects of natural selection not applying to them.
If one of the broken ones did come to be expressed again,
it could be that it would no longer code for its original polypeptide,
but for another one that is not useful for the purpose of suppressing
the amount of insulating fat. This would put the individual at
a disadvantage in times of global warming.
but with the extinction of the woolly mammoth, it's a moot point.
If so, then mammoth extinction would also moot Behe's entire line of
reasoning.
It was quite strong while the mammoth was in existence.
And it still applies to polar bears, another species discussed
by Behe in the linked article. Also to musk oxen and other cold-adapted mammals.
There are some who hope to resurrect mammoths by cloning, which would "unmoot" it,
but the epigenetics of the situation make us unsure of success. That's because
the germ cell into which the nucleus of a mammoth cell is placed has an effect on which genes
are expressed. The embryonic development is influenced by the mitochondria of the "mother" elephant,
and that means that it's problematic that we would have a phenotypical mammoth on our hands.
What you allude to above is a point I made previously about Dolly the
sheep "clone" which was more accurately a chimera.
Another problem with resurrecting extinct species is there are no
parents to teach these organisms how to act appropriately. For these
reasons and others, these experiments produce approximate models of
extinct species.
Good points.
On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 20:20:16 +0000, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 19:03, [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 7:56:23?AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
On 28/10/2023 08:26, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
The interaction between the mitome and nucleome isn't epigenetics.the germ cell into which the nucleus of a mammoth cell is placed has anAh yes epigenetics and the EES.
effect on which genes
are expressed. The embryonic development is influenced by the
mitochondria of the "mother" elephant,
and that means that it's problematic that we would have a phenotypical >>>>> mammoth on our hands.
Thanks for the correction.
The term that applies to traits that result from the interaction of
different genes is polygenic.
Is there a term which applies specifically to the interaction
between the genes of the nucleus and those of the mitochondria?
Not that I know of. (Cytoplasmic male sterility applies - assuming it's >the mitochondria rather than the plastids that are involved - but that's >only one of many possible interactions.)
A genuine mammoth would require being raised by genuine mammoth
parents.
The case described above would be at best a biological model
of a mammoth.
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 11:16:27?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 20:20:16 +0000, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 19:03, [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 7:56:23?AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
On 28/10/2023 08:26, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
The interaction between the mitome and nucleome isn't epigenetics.the germ cell into which the nucleus of a mammoth cell is placed has anAh yes epigenetics and the EES.
effect on which genes
are expressed. The embryonic development is influenced by the
mitochondria of the "mother" elephant,
and that means that it's problematic that we would have a phenotypical
mammoth on our hands.
Thanks for the correction.
The term that applies to traits that result from the interaction of
different genes is polygenic.
Is there a term which applies specifically to the interaction
between the genes of the nucleus and those of the mitochondria?
Not that I know of. (Cytoplasmic male sterility applies - assuming it's
the mitochondria rather than the plastids that are involved - but that's >> >only one of many possible interactions.)
A genuine mammoth would require being raised by genuine mammoth
parents.
Why? might not the habits of Asian elephants [the nearest extant relatives of the
woolly mammoths] be close enough to the habits of mammoths to make
the social interaction of the "resurrected" mammoths with the other members of the herd
to be within normal bounds for each species?
I'm assuming that the hypothetical researchers who produce a mammoth zygote >and implant it into an elephant uterus can pick a suitable surrogate mother >from a normal wild herd.
The case described above would be at best a biological model
of a mammoth.
Depending on your (sketchily described) standards on the one hand,
and their family history of captivity on the other, zoo elephants
and circus elephants may already be far enough from their wild ancestors, >socially speaking, to be considered "at best a biological model of Asian elephants."
Please explain more about your standards if you disagree with this assessment.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 166:10:06 |
| Calls: | 12,096 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,001 |
| Messages: | 6,517,807 |