Can you please respond to this: what is left of evolution if there werent any genes? If there were no "bookkeepers"?
-
Features
Human freedom is constrained by the mind's content and physical ability
- Thread starter rousseau
- Start date
Can you please respond to this: what is left of evolution if there werent any genes? If there were no "bookkeepers"?
untermensche
Contributor
If there is no bookkeeping then the wins gained by phenotypes will not be recorded.
You need bookkeeping but bookkeepers record evolutionary success they are not causing it. They cause nothing.
Again, genes are acted upon, they are not actors, they are not agents of any kind.
untermensche
Contributor
A whale successfully mates and passes on a random haploid.
Which gene is a "selfish" gene and which is an "altruistic" gene in that haploid?
How is any single gene special or solely responsible for that mating?
They all just passively go along for the ride. None controlling anything.
To code for something is not to control the process of the transformation of that code into a part of a living thing.
Which gene is a "selfish" gene and which is an "altruistic" gene in that haploid?
How is any single gene special or solely responsible for that mating?
They all just passively go along for the ride. None controlling anything.
To code for something is not to control the process of the transformation of that code into a part of a living thing.
untermensche
Contributor
If there is no oxygen there is no evolution of land animals.
But oxygen is not controlling evolution.
In terms of evolution genes play a role. They mutate.
That is their contribution to evolution.
But staying the same and being "selfish" does not result in evolution.
Last edited:
Tou dont need oxygen to have evolution. You need genes, sexual reproduction and selection.
untermensche
Contributor
Ever heard of genetic computer algorithms?
Evolution is a bigger concept than mere life.
untermensche
Contributor
This is what you just said.
No oxygen, no genes, no life on this planet, no computers.
But you are getting tiresome.
Make some coherent point or criticism or just admit this subject is beyond you.
As Gould said, the idea of a "selfish gene" was a fruitful error, nothing more.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Yes. Except we find changes related to genes most probable, those related to kin less probable, those related to groups most improbable, and those related to species mere conjecture. It comes down to chain of evidence. Gould was't really a statistician so he just couldn't understand. Read your
Analysis of variance which serves as the mathematical tool for studying and making sense of genetics and Dobzhansky from whom Genetics and the Origin of Species. Uh, by the way he was actually a geneticist, an expert in the field of genetics who published thousands of refereed papers on the topic. In fact here is a paper from 2001, thirty years after Dobzhansky's death verifying his theory on speciation. EVIDENCE FOR DOBZHANSKY-MULLER INCOMPATIBILITESCONTRIBUTING TO THE STERILITY OF HYBRIDS BETWEEN MIMULUSGUTTATUS AND M. NASUTU https://www.researchgate.net/profil...M._nasutus/links/54cbf2bc0cf29ca810f482cd.pdf
As you know Gould was neither a geneticist nor a mathematician which is a big down side when understanding how genetics works. As you can see in your dependence on you'bible' it leads to a lot of words and a lot of need for interpretation when such as Gould tries to cast it. ..and, I might add, a lot of doubt about what he's talking about and why is he talking about it.
Last edited:
untermensche
Contributor
Meaningless criticism.
What he was that the others are not was a geologist and he knew the fossil record.
He had an encyclopedic knowledge of living things and on Darwin.
And to think Gould wasn't fully familiar with Dobzhansky and his work is a mistake. He makes reference to the man and his work 13 times in "Structures..."
But ultimate I don't care about Gould or any person. What I care about are the arguments made by Gould and others.
So I will begin to present Gould's argument. Page 613 "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory"
We clearly see what Gould thinks but the issue that decides if this goes on or not is his characterization of the gene-centered approach. Is that what the gene-centered approach is?
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Wow. Filled the air with waving hands. He did.
As for approach I provided you access to Dobzhansky's genetic theory which is laid out in "Genetics and Origin of Species" which I also provided.
I suspected you'd try your Gould shotgun so I also provided a specific an article on the state of the art of a theory originated by Dobzhansky on mechanisms of speciation. In that article the authors concluded
BTW this work connects directly to other animal speciation work so any waving off will have to be justified.
When you find anything that Gould did that gets to the specific nub of how speciation works as well as this pleez call us.
Gould is just Wynne-Edwards in paleo clothing. Neither know anything about robust SM or the mathematics associated with it.*
*I'm being generous. I could have justifiably related Gould to JP Scott.
untermensche
Contributor
A long winded refusal to even look at the issue.
The more you weasel about the less I suspect you have to say.
The more you weasel about the less I suspect you have to say.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Not look at the issue whether genes central to evolution? Really. What do you think experimental confirmation of purely (Dobzhansky-Muller invompatibiilities) genetic incompatibilities being central to speciation isn't evidence for gene centered evolution? Where are you roaming sir?
untermensche
Contributor
You beg to hear Gould's arguments, since you have never read them nor can seem to find them.
When I begin, you immediately change the subject.
You are not serious.
You have the things you believe but cannot in your own words defend them.
ryan
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2010
- Messages
- 4,668
- Location
- In a McDonalds in the q space
- Basic Beliefs
- a little of everything
Untermensche, even if you knew, somehow, that all organisms alive and all organisms that have ever lived did not evolve without the use of oxygen, how do you know that it could never happen? This shows a misunderstanding of present theories of evolution.
Secondly and most importantly, gene expression is needed to assemble protein molecules. If you don't believe me, read it here, https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/glossary=geneexpression . If the genes are not in the cell, then there is no formation of the organism. So of course genes must have an impact what becomes of the organism.
Secondly and most importantly, gene expression is needed to assemble protein molecules. If you don't believe me, read it here, https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/glossary=geneexpression . If the genes are not in the cell, then there is no formation of the organism. So of course genes must have an impact what becomes of the organism.
untermensche
Contributor
Your knowledge is not a part of the issue here.
The issue is not whether genes have coded information that cellular machinery turns to proteins.
The issue is this:
The issue is "units of selection".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_selection
And it will not be settled here.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
For me its not about testimonials. I choose to use studies because they bring the real impact of applied theory to life. That you refusal to consider such says volumes about your washed brain.
untermensche
Contributor
If the issue is as Gould contends, a fundamental error in logic, then all the studies in the world will not change it.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
I don't know about you but I think objective study and experiment supersedes even strongly held belief. As far as I can tell Gould had a strongly held belief that there is an error in gene centered geneticist's logic.
If there is such an error it will be revealed when experiment demonstrates it doesn't handle result. The study I provided clearly demonstrate gene centered theory handles results for genetic interference being at core of speciation for several species.
Yet you just continue to wave your arms and flail about Gould's unsupported assertion. I also presented the case of Williams selfish gene versus Wynne-Edwards group selection which went oh so badly for Wynne-Edwards. We now have numbers showing what can possibly accounted for by group (Sage Grouse) is less than one in 10,000 while gene attribution is well above 99%. Trace the studies I provided and the truth will be found my son.
If there is such an error it will be revealed when experiment demonstrates it doesn't handle result. The study I provided clearly demonstrate gene centered theory handles results for genetic interference being at core of speciation for several species.
Yet you just continue to wave your arms and flail about Gould's unsupported assertion. I also presented the case of Williams selfish gene versus Wynne-Edwards group selection which went oh so badly for Wynne-Edwards. We now have numbers showing what can possibly accounted for by group (Sage Grouse) is less than one in 10,000 while gene attribution is well above 99%. Trace the studies I provided and the truth will be found my son.