Read Darwin's "The origin of Species" first before you mouth off with these
ignorant rantings.
This is typical of you, you claim expertise and cloud the debate with
irrelevancy and write long boring, tiresome irrelevant essays hoping that
people don't read it. It's working for me sometimes, I tire of your lengthy
hot air.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <a...@lomaxdesign.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
At 09:18 PM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
David,
The different physical characteristics of individuals within a species is
the result of microevolution. Microevolution is different from Darwinian
Evolution.
Sure. However, the difference is not a sharp dividing line. Populations
diverge when isolated, and can become mutually infertile, the classic
definition of a species.
As I've posted before, Darwinian Evolution says that random mutations
cause changes that result in some feature that confer a survival advantage
resulting in Natural Selection.
That's a straw man presentation. Random mutations change DNA. That
happens. Some DNA changes are expressed as a "feature," most are not.
However, changes accumulate over time.
Darwinian Evolution postulates that if you accumulate enough of these
random changes, the individual becomes a "new" species.
No. This is not worth pursuing. Essentially, the tactic is a common one,
present what you want to attack or debumk as X. And X is preposterous. But
X is not what advocates of the target idea or philosophy or practice
actually propose or believe.
There is no accumulation of random changes that suddenly becomes a new
species. What is accumulated is a combination of random changes and
functional changes (those few mutations that affect survival, and
obviously, to accumulate, they must affect survival positively.) If a
population is cofertile, the genes will keep mixing, and an individual
becoming non-cofertile is not likely to survive. But there is another
factor influencing the gene mixing that keeps populations together:
isolation. Relatively isolated populations will share traits that will be
*different* for other originally similar populations. Eventually these
shifts accumulate until the cause a failure of co-fertility.
And that is normally considered a species boundary. That's not any
organized philosophy, it's just my own understanding.
What a species is; we don't know other than the rough physical
classifications we use. If something "looks" different from another, it's
a different species
No, the definition is usually that normal members can mate with any other
member of the same species. At least that applies to species that mate.
Such is the problem with Darwinian Evolution. Before we can say
whether Darwinian Evolution is correct; we have to ask ourselves whether
it is clear enough to be correct. Heck, we don't even know what a
"species" is. The process of "species" classification is more an art and
an exercise in consensus building. Before we can even say that Darwinian
Evolution is correct and cram it down people's throats, ala AGW, we need
to establish without a shadow of a doubt, what we mean by "species". We
need to build a new "Genetic Classification" of species instead of our
current physical features classification system. My friends, establish
the science first before you cram it down people's throats.
Microevolution on the other hand is in the simplest term called
"adaptation". The changes occur because of genetic expression of what is
ALREADY encoded in the DNA. When we turn black under the sun, that is not
a random mutation of our DNA to give us black skin, that is an expression
of what we already have.
That is not evolution at all. It's just a respose to the enviroment. These
responses are not inherited, the idea that they were was Lysenkoism,
promoted by Stalin.
An organism can only change its features within the coding already in its
DNA.
Organisms don't really change their features, they simply express what is
already in their DNA. Is this agreement?
Microevolution does not cause DNA changes, it causes expression of the
changes that is dormant in the DNA.
That's made-up. There is no such distinction, and that can easily be
shown. But it's not a job for me. Mutations happen, and mutations are not
*what is already in the DNA.* But some mutations do activate sequences
already in the DNA. That, in fact, is how compex genes can form out of a
sequence of mutations, even if the protogene has no function and is not
expressed. Those would be an example, one might imagine, of what Jojo is
saying, but the changes were not "dormant in the DNA," they happen from
random mutation that hits the jackpot once in a while.
If you believe in some sort of conscious purpose to evolution, you could
say that everything that happened was part of this plan, and what appears
to be a random process is not. But "random process" *is* how it appears.
