GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012
|
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 04 2013,04:40) | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,22:31) | Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 03 2013,12:08) | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,14:45) | Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 03 2013,06:36) | ...and hence (to add) helps Gary not one bit. Which rearrangement, if any, is the 'good guess'? |
All of the rearrangements are a "good guess". |
But if they don't lead to the speciation you invoke them for, what's good about them? |
I'm just following the current information on the fusion event, including:
Francisco J. Ayala and Mario Coluzzi, “Systematics and the Origin of Species: Chromosome speciation: Humans, Drosophila, and mosquitoes”, PNAS 2005 102:6535-6542; doi:10.1073/pnas.0501847102 http://www.pnas.org/content....35.full
Harewood Louise, Schuetz Frederic, Boyle Shelagh, et al., “The effect of translocation-induced nuclear reorganization on gene expression”, Genome Research, Volume: 20, Issue: 5, Pages: 554-564, DOI: 10.1101/gr.103622.109, May 2010 http://genome.cshlp.org/content....54.full
The 44 Chromosome Man, And What He Reveals About Our Genetic Past, The Tech Museum, 2010 http://genetics.thetech.org/origina....news124 |
Yes, but there are frequent problems with chromosomal rearrangements, and only occasionally does one slip through the filter of negative selection (the 'good guess'). Even more rarely can we say that such an event was involved in speciation. One possible mechanism of spread, incidentally, is that an increase in miscarriage could, in certain circumstances, be beneficial. When resources are scarce, producing few pregnancies can lead to fewer but better-invested offspring. This could drive the change part-way to fixation, but at 50% the advantage dissipates. But if the limit is lifted, the 'old' arrangement is as likely to become the one disfavoured, as it no longer has the numerical advantage. This could lead either to speciation or to elimination of one type within the species. Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,14:45) | The word "guess" is simply from the scientific terminology use in cognitive science. Self-learning systems "take a guess" not "take a mutation". |
DNA does indeed 'learn' about the environments through which it recently passed, and selection filters the generality of 'guesses', good and bad, to leave principally the ones to which we can, post hoc, ascribe the label 'good'. It's not a new idea, though.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,14:45) | That's what happens when DNA is studied as a self-learning system. Even you are required to use the proper terminology. Ones in this forum who demand cognitive science conform to Darwinian terminology are just making asses out of themselves. |
If you are arguing about evolution, people who use the biological terminology are hardly the ones making asses of themselves. I think that's your #1 problem: wading into a field you aren't expert in and telling them how to express matters.
I sympathise; I once tried to discuss an idea out of my area of expertise and was leapt upon from a great height, in part because of my misuse of terms and misapprehension of my jocular attempts to shake people out of what I saw as an entrenched way of thinking. It did not go down well! But instead of blaming them, I went off and got a better grounding in the subject matter. I still think I'm right, but I'm not going round lecturing people. |
What I'm describing are statements which amount to "We already have Electronics Theory to explain light therefore Relativity Theory is pseudoscience" while telling astronomers and physicists the universe can only follow Ohm's Law, so they must stop using words like "gravity" to describe "gravomagnetic attraction" which they believe they proved to be a fact because of an electromagnet attracting things too. Where you tell them that plastic is not attracted, they verbally attack you until you're discredited out of science for disagreeing with them.
This is a matter of another area of expertise (cognitive science) being trashed by ones who only have expertise in evolutionary biology. Ones like me who keep up with "Cellular Intelligence" and other fields now being pioneered, are being hammered by these guys. I saw even Guenter Albrecht-Buehler get dragged through the mud because of not conforming to what the anti-ID movement deemed scientific. The vigilante science from ones with no experience in the sciences they attack, is a scientific disgrace. I find it unbelievable that academia usually sides with that crap.
The phrases "random guess" and "good guess" are required in cognitive theory, especially this particular theory. What you would rather use instead from another field, is not open for discussion in a field that already has this established terminology. And since a living genome is in fact a "self-learning" system it is possible to study it within the framework of cognitive science, regardless of what ones outside the field personally believe.
-------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
|