skeptic
Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006
|
| Quote | | Anyhow, I would think that the fact that mutations occur fairly regularly is in itself evidence of randomness. Planned mutations would seem to me to be more likely to occur in batches when needed, with long stretches in between of nothing much happening in that regard. |
Sounds a lot like the fossil record, doesn't it?
| Quote | | Another thing to check would be how evenly the mutations get distributed over the genome, when a large number of reproductive events are checked. Random would mean the events would be spread out over a large portion of the genome, and probably that more or less the same distribution would be observed regardless of what environment the sample population happens to be in. (And as pointed out above, this refers to occurance of the mutation, not its likelihood of spreading across the population once present in the gene pool.) Planned mutations, on the other hand, I would expect to occur at need, and in specific areas of the genome, without lots of irrelevant mutations also occurring all over the place as well. |
If that were true, but mutations do not occur evenly throughout the genome. There are areas that are highly conserved and these tend to be highly functional areas also. This, of course, may be just our perspective since these features show up throughout many different organisms and we just may not know what an alternative looks like.
Coyote, I certainly can not speak to what you were taught but as far as no mechanism give it a thought. We've always been given RM/NS with no real explanation about how that resolves into complexity. The fall back was always time but that doesn't necessarily jive with some estimates based upon rates. Now we have drifts and shifts and maybe evo/devo but none of it is very explanatory beyond a high level assessment. If you have a valid mechanism, I'd love to hear it because that's what I've been looking for for years.
|
