JAM
Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 29 2008,20:11) | | Quote (JAM @ Feb. 27 2008,16:43) | | Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 27 2008,17:58) | | Again I'll ask, how many of those papers have you read? |
I looked at the two you most recently cited, but I have no idea why you cited them. They are about karyotypic changes within mammalian families (I'm only sure that Canidae is a family; I'm just guessing that the others are too).
Are you claiming that you see anything resembling Schindewolf's morphological gaps within any of those taxa?
If not, what's your point? |
Both of these papers advance a saltational mechanism for evolution, similar to what Schindewolf proposed. |
No, they don't. You're evading.
Schindewolf defined "saltation" MORPHOLOGICALLY, the papers you cited only discuss KARYOTYPIC differences. Fossils don't have karyotypes.
I'll ask you again: do any of these KARYOTYPIC events result in MORPHOLOGICAL "saltation" events? If you don't know, was it ethical for you to have cited these papers?
"That such mechanisms require far fewer transitional steps than the gradualism Darwin proposed is IMO vindication for Schindewolf."
Dan, it's 2008.
Darwin didn't know about genetics. These are single mutational events. At the genetic level, it's impossible to be any more gradual than single mutations.
Schindewolf and you are using a straw man fallacy. If Darwin was wrong, how do you infer that we must also be wrong?
| Quote | | If these karyotypic changes resulted in morphological changes, these transitional steps would be next to invisible in the fossil record - thus explaining Schindewolf's gaps between types. |
Hence my question--are there any morphological correlates to any of the karyotypic changes described in those papers? If not, or if you don't know, this has nothing to do with Schindewolf and your citation of them constitutes a deliberate violation of the Ninth Commandment.
| Quote | From Kinetochore reproduction in animal evolution: Cell biological explanation of karyotypic fission theory: | Quote | | Karyotypic fission theory recently applied to lemurs (prosimian primates) explains their karyotypic diversity (2n = 20–70) with a minimum of four evolutionary steps, whereas prior explanations required at least 100 independent chromosomal mutations (4). |
|
Therefore, macroevolution is within easy reach of mutations. This has nothing to do with Darwin, as Darwin came before Mendel, Morgan, et al.
| Quote | | Quote | | Recent advances in cell-cycle regulation, chromosome behavior, fossil record, and phylogenetic inferences dispute that the primary direction of karyotypic evolution by sequential fusion of chromosomes is toward an arbitrary reduction in diploid number. Rather the tendency of kinetochores to reproduce, of telomerases to cap newly synthesized chromosome ends, and of mitotic checkpoints to regulate disjunction and generate freshly fissioned karyotypes in ancestral animals supports Todd's concept of saltatory chromosomal evolution. |
|
Schindewolf's hypothesis was about MORPHOLOGICAL saltation. Can't you read and comprehend the adjective CHROMOSOMAL?
Did Schindewolf even mention chromosomes in his Bib--er, book?
| Quote | From Karyotypic fissioning and Canid phylogeny:
| Quote | | This theory accounts for the wide variation in diploid number among the Mammalia and relates the presumed episodes of karyotypic fissioning with known periods of explosive speciation and adaptive radiation. Finally, the traditional evolutionary concept of mutant allele substitution through gene frequency shift under the influence of natural selection is placed in a new perspective. While it is still seen as a primary mechanism of evolution, it is seen as more significant as a “fine-tuning” mechanism, perhaps often responding to exigencies precipitated by chromosomal changes. |
|
There's nothing in there that supports your position.
| Quote | | This is almost exactly what Schindewolf's theory proposed - that types |
...which he defined MORPHOLOGICALLY. | Quote | | were produced saltationally, ...I'm not sure how you can not see the parallels with Schindewolf JAM, but then you know a lot more about this stuff than I do. |
Yes, but that doesn't seem to matter to you. You only see what you desperately want to see (you can't see the important difference between karyotypic and morphologic events), but what I find immoral about your actions is that you lie like a rug when your wishful thinking is pointed out to you.
Let me summarize: Darwin didn't know genetics. Claiming that creationism is correct because Darwin didn't know that all mutations are particulate, digital events is ludicrous.
|
