Punctuated Equilibria theories

[Biochemist]

...That page discusses AUTOphagy, NOT phagocytosis. In fact, the term phagocytosis doesn't even appear on that page you link to in order to supposely support your position.

 

2) The Wikipedia page for phagocytosis doesn't include the term AUTOphagy on it anywhere.

 

You have provided no evidence to support your assertion.

This is senseless, TM. What do you suppose autophagy means? Self-phagocytosis perhaps?

 

Speaking as a moderator, please contribute to thie discussion. These long-post rabbit trails to defend your use of terminology are not productive.

[TeleMad]

Again, TM, who cares?

 

I do.

 

This is a SCIENCE board, and a SCIENCE forum, and a SCIENCE thread, and you guys are discussing SCIENCE. Therefore, the SCIENCE matters. Biochemist got his scientific facts wrong.

 

If someone's in a MATH thread and says 2 + 2 = 5, people SHOULD correct him. When someone is in a BIOLOGY thread and says that lysosomes perform phagocytosis, people SHOULD correct him.

 

You don't liike that? Tough.

[TeleMad]

This is senseless, TM. What do you suppose autophagy means? Self-phagocytosis perhaps?

 

Nope. Wrongo.

 

Learn more science, that should solve your problem.

 

Biochemist: Speaking as a moderator, please contribute to thie discussion.

 

I have. I have corrected your scientific errors. You're welcome.

 

Biochemist: These long-post rabbit trails to defend your use of terminology are not productive.

 

My usage is correct. Yours is wrong.

[TeleMad]

So perhaps, any catastophic event that killed off a lot of members of a breeding population would "bring the recessive genes to the surface" through interbreeding with carriers. That's the heart of punctuated equlibrum, last I looked at it.

 

If you haven't done so already (I'm just now working my way through this thread from the beginning), can you support that?

 

What I've read about this leads me to believe that Gould and Eldridge just held that the then normal view of evolution, relying upon mutations in normal structural genes, weren't the key, but rather mutations in regulatory genes were.

[bumab]

If you haven't done so already (I'm just now working my way through this thread from the beginning), can you support that?

 

Gould mentions this as a possible mechanism as well.

 

What I've read about this leads me to believe that Gould and Eldridge just held that the then normal view of evolution, relying upon mutations in normal structural genes, weren't the key, but rather mutations in regulatory genes were.

 

They mention this as well (and they are not the only ones). Even Dawkins brings this up at some point (can't remember which book). It's certainly a possible mechanism, but to my knowledge, no experiments have been done to test the validity of these higher level rearrangments in animals. It's been done in plants, of course, but that's hardly comperable.

 

Do you know of any examples of chromosomal rearrangments (or anything of that magnitude) in animals?

[TeleMad]

Biochemist: This would suggest that the majority of animal and plant kingdom information content was reflected in the first prokaryote.

 

LOL! So the first prokaryote carried genetic information for hair, skin, fingernails, eyes (both camera-type, ommatidia, and ocelli), fingers and toes, arms and legs, brains (both with and without a cerebral cortex), hearts (with one chamber, with two chambers, with three chambers, and with four chambers), veins, arteries, and capillaries, both open and closed circulatory systems, muscle tissue (cardiac, smooth, and skeletal), skeletons (both exoskeletons and endoskeletons), penises and vaginas, ears, teeth, wings, blowholes, noses, neurons, flowers, leaves, root systems, and a whole boatload of other biological structures?

 

Gee, that’s not at all unreasonable Biochemist … snicker … giggle … snort …

 

Biochemist: Feel free to name my theory

 

How about … Front-loading BS? :-)

 

Really, what are the ramifications of your “theory”.

 

1) Why would we expect life to begin with all the vast information needed to make hearts, eyes, brains, muscles, kidneys, livers, bones, and so on, when that first organism had NONE of these? Gee, did some God poof that first prokaryote into existence, frontloading information for futuer evolution into it? That seems to be a natural conclusion from what you propose.

 

2) You are aware that non-functional genetic information IS LOST OVER TIME due to mutations, right? Do you know what a pseudogene is? Have you ever looked at the rate of mutations in non-functional sequences? In short, the less functional constraint a stretch of DNA is under the faster it accumulates mutations. Now what do you think that means for the vast stretches of DNA needed to code for something as complex as a brain (or a heart, or a kidney, or ....), considering that they don’t appear until about 3 billion years after the first prokaryote? The genetic information to build a brain (or heart, or kidney, etc...) would be completely gone, since it wouldn’t be under functional constraint for a period of about 3 billion years!

[bumab]

I do.

 

It wasn't the correction I was annoyed with, it was the tone of the post- aggresive and ill-tempered, especially in regards to a definition thats really tangental to the topic we were discussing. Correction of concepts is one thing, terms is another.

 

If I misinterprited you, sorry.

[TeleMad]

Biochemist: If so, consider how complex that first prokayote really was. If it sounds ludicrous to put all that information load back on the prokaryote ...

 

It IS ludicrous.

 

1) You're rejecting a lot of small increments of genetic information and replacing them with a single HUGE, ENORMOUS, ASTRONONMICALLY LARGE appearance of genetic information! That doesn't solve any probabilistic problems, that CREATES them!

 

2) Worse, it's good, useful genetic information NOT EVEN USED by the prokaryote. How the hell did that happen? Gee, must have been God, huh.

 

3) Further, it's genetic information that, SOMEHOW, COMPLETELY UNKNOWN TO SCIENCE, has to survive intact, despite not being used, for billions of years!

 

Your "theory" is not scientific: in fact, science refutes your "theory" out of the gate.

 

What your "theory" is is religion dressed up like science.

[infamous]

It wasn't the correction I was annoyed with, it was the tone of the post- aggresive and ill-tempered, especially in regards to a definition thats really tangental to the topic we were discussing. Correction of concepts is one thing, terms is another.

 

If I misinterprited you, sorry.

 

Really bumab, Displays of this sort point out the evidence that some are only wise in their own conceits. Having the attitude: "Why dare you disagree with me" and, "if you do, I'll inflict as much humiliation upon you as I can muster". Some have come to this forum to learn, others have made there presence known to be known . While many of us want to ask questions, others only want to make their opinions known . If we all didn't have opinions, we most likely wouldn't be here but, the point is, those opinions should be shared, not forced down peoples throats.

[bumab]

Good thoughts, Infamous, although were you chiding me or TM? :Alien: I think that thought needs to be in all threads!

[TeleMad]

Really bumab, Displays of this sort point out the evidence that some are only wise in their own conceits. Having the attitude: "Why dare you disagree with me" and, "if you do, I'll inflict as much humiliation upon you as I can muster". Some have come to this forum to learn, others have made there presence known to be known .

 

And others, like you, have come here to lecture others on how to behave. Thanks dad.

 

And yet others, like Biochemist, come here PRETENDING to be what they are not. While at the same time, disquising their religious beliefs as science.

 

This is a science site, a science forum, and a science thread. If people stick to science - which Biochemist can't seem to do - their should be no problem.

[TeleMad]

This model accounts for that fact that extremely unlikely transitions occur reasonably frequently.

 

AT THE EXPENSE OF REPLACING SLIGHTLY UNLIKELI TRANSITIONS WITH A SINGLE BULK CREATION OF INFORMATION ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE GREATER!

 

You aren't solving any probabilistic problems with your "theory", you're just creating a MUCH WORSE one!

 

Well, unless of course you are relying upon God to poof things into existence. Gee, could that possibly be?

[infamous]

And others, like you, have come here to lecture others on how to behave. Thanks dad.

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A word to the wise is sufficient TeleMad.

[bumab]

This is a science site, a science forum, and a science thread. If people stick to science - which Biochemist can't seem to do - their should be no problem.

 

Speaking of which, I've only seen you propose one thing, which you culled from a freshman bio text, on a plant speciation event, which doesn't really apply (as discussed). You got any ideas? Any studies we've not seen?

 

Critiquing someone's position is one thing, attacking it in the same way over, and over, and over again is repitious and boring. We KNOW you think the information load is to large a hurdle. So do I. Don't drag religion into it every single chance you get.

 

I'll ask again- got any examples of large scale morphological changes in animals from chromosomal rearrangments?

[TeleMad]

Because this does nothing to address the primary punctuated equilibrium problem: How did so many species arrive so quickly?

 

And your offering does nothing to explain the VASTLY LARGER problem: How did all the genetic information to code for brains, hearts, limbs, kidneys, eyes, ears, teeth, bones, muscles, and so on get included in the genome of the first prokaryote?

 

And I might point out again that I gave an example of speciation that required only 4 generations.

[bumab]

http://www.evolutionpages.com/homo_pan_divergence.htm

 

Interesting paper, which lists a chromosomal rearrangement as a possible divergence mechanism for proto-chimps and proto-humans. However, it uses the K/K mechanism, which apparently is in doubt now... Hmmm....

 

I think the jury will still be out until the genomic investigation is finished, at least in this case.

[TeleMad]

Speaking of which, I've only seen you propose one thing, which you culled from a freshman bio text,

 

Which is also documented on the net, if you would look.

 

bumab: ... which doesn't really apply (as discussed).

 

I must have missed how it is irrelevant. It is verified speciation that takes only 4 generations.

 

bumab: You got any ideas?

 

Yes, besides what has already probably been pointed about changes in population size leading to different rates of evolutionary change, there is also the case of reduced competition that occurs when population enters a new habitat, or new niches are opened up after a catastrophe: with selective pressures reduced, evolutionary change can occur more rapidly.

 

bumab: We KNOW you think the information load is to large a hurdle. So do I.

 

It IS a large hurdle. An astronomically larger hurdle than the one it is intended to replace!!!

 

bumab: Don't drag religion into it every single chance you get.

 

Wake up dude. I didn't drag religion into this thread, Biochemist did.

 

Ask him to explain the ORIGIN of and PERSISTENCE of his vast information load using science. He can't. He's made matters worse, and the only way out is for him to call upon a deity. His position is religion dressed up to look like science.