Faid
Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006
|
Crap. the stupid software vanished a long reply I had almost ready... And now I'm too irritatred to start again.
I just want to explain my points in brief:
KIMURA: I'm glad you agree that he has dealt with beneficial mutations (not denied them), and that he didn't include them in the same model, because that would give abnormally HIGH evolution rates. Now, what do you have to say about what Kimura says in his conclusions about the accumulation of mutations? You cannot call this "wild speculation", since he is evaluating the same data you accept...
CROW: Also glad that you decided to include the "100 generations" bit this time (any ideas why Sanford left it out?  ). But you tapdance around my question: Here, I'll help you.
This is what Crow says, and both you and Sanford keep ignoring: | Quote | | However efficient natural selection was in eliminating harmful mutations in the past, it is no longer so in much of the world. In the wealthy nations, natural selection for differential mortality is greatly reduced. A newborn infant now has a large probability of surviving past the reproducing years. There are fertility differences, to be sure, but they are clearly not distributed in such a way as to eliminate mutations efficiently. Except for pre-natal mortality, natural selection for effective mutation removal has been greatly reduced. |
So, Crow is saying that his concerns come from the fact that natural selection does not work the way it used to in the human genome. Few could disagree with that; But it seems that many would be willing to twist his words into supporting that "all higher genomes are naturally headed for extinction- FAST" or something. Hmm.
KONDRASHOV'S QUOTE: Seriously, stop it. Either give us the actual paper (you have read it, right?), or, at least, the quote the way it stands in the text, not in this hideously butchered state. Then we can talk. Forgive me for not trusting your precious authority Sanford, but I think I have good reasons to. And anyway, the way this quote is presented is laughable. Link?
QUASI-TRUNCATION AND SYNERGISTIC EPISTASIS:
Dave, you have miserably failed to "deal" with those, as you say you have. Claiming that makes you a demonstratable liar. You have only handwaived them away as "Alladin's lamps", and "Magic wands", hiding your own ignorance on these issues. Your greatest (your ONLY) "argument" against them was that SE actually means "interactive interaction" (!!!! ), and even that is totally wrong, as I told you. I'm Greek, in case you forgot.
Oh and, you have NOT answered my question. I'd very much like to see all the papers you read that made it clear that the "primary axiom" is void, but that is moot; I asked you: Since small populations seem to have a greater danger of becoming extinct due to accumulation of deleterious mutations, for which theory do you think this presents the most problems?
In short: Please construct a coherent argument, instead of appealing to misquotes and distortions of scientists' words, and we might talk.
--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:
"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"
"...mutations can add information to a genome. And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."
|
