Complexity of gene codes (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, August 26, 2010, 22:36 (5202 days ago) @ David Turell

David,
> 
> > Fine. Then look at the evolution of horses which when I visited the Smithsonian this July, was pretty conclusive. Several (sometimes hundreds of ) thousands of years between each form. Your argument is identical to the creationists here. "Because we have gaps in the fossil record, and some of the gaps are far too short for it to have evolved by natural selection."
> 
> I am a form of creationist. I am not dismissing natural selection. Competition has to act on epigentic progress. I've said so to dhw. My point is that we have NEVER found any evidence of step by step. I think the reason is the rapid responses of epigentics creating new species which then face survival in the face of selection. Both processes are at work and work together.
> > 
> > This argument fails for the following reasons:
> > 1. We must be able to demonstrate what the normal rate of mutation actually was; for this we can only go by modern measurements which just like weather--are far too recent to be able to accurately push backwards into the model. Only by comparing actual to expected can the argument be made that "it's just too fast."
> 
> Answered by the above comment. You misunderstand my thinking. -I've admitted as much... I'm still unclear. Probably just because of our differences in normative argumentation...-> > 
> > 2. We must be able to demonstrate that the conditions during these periods were happening under some kind of balance--we need to be able to remove environmental and predatory conditions. This must be done because in order to establish "epigenetics" as the "prime mover" we need to be able to demonstrate change without selection pressure. Epigenetics can only be the cause of speciation if and only if it can create species without selective pressure. 
> 
> This is exactly opposite my point of view. Epigenetics can drive speciation under pressures for adaptation.-Here's the rub; if you're right and epigenetics are the "cause" of speciation, then we should be able to force evolution artificially without need of reproduction or intervening generations. If we can't do this, then the argument must go "Stimulus-->Response-->Filter" where as the response (epigenetics) is only the middle step from stimulus to new species. The cause is clearly the stimulus, and the end result is clearly via natural selection (Filter). Again, via computer science, the filter is the only thing that matters in the end, because we only care about what gets left behind...-> > 
> > > at 3.6 bya had to face enormous environmenal changes. The Earth was still cooling down, CO2 and O2 were still altering their levels enormously,'snowball' Earth was still to be experienced, etc. Without those initial adaptive abilities
> > > it is unlikely life would have survived. I believe as research advances, it will be fully confirmed that the earliest organisms had adaptation built in. Your answer will be that we can only study living organisms now, and more simplistic organisms preceded what we see presently. That is no more proveable than my theory which views life as surviveable only if complete with good adaptive defenses.
> > 
> > The present evidence shows clear movement from uncomplex to complex. No research can be done of the kind you're talking about if we don't have access to the information needed for my points 1 & 2. Especially the environmental issues. Before you can demonstrate that the world was truly hostile to life, we need a really good example of what it actually was. Shapiro claims that we don't have a good enough picture of this.
> 
> Shapiro' book is about 25years old in publication, older than that in preparation. Presently, we do know a tremendous lot more about ancient climate, throuht ice core studies, etc. For example, Shapiro did not know about extremophiles at the writing of his book. I admire Shapiro, but you are misusing him.-Ice cores can be discarded--we know that the early earth was too hot. As for the rest of this here, we have no firm basis to argue from at this point (and this goes for abiogenesis as well.) The oldest rocks are 4.5Bn years old; everything prior to that was recycled into the earth's crust and we can only glean small glimpses into what happened prior--which might well be necessary if life began in extremophile conditions.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"