Hi Ron, --- On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:26:00 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I agree that some, if not all, of what Darwin observed was the results of > natural selection. Since he observed the end results, I don't think it > would be technically appropriate to call that *scientific fact* (since > there was no reproducible series of controlled experiments). But, no > doubt, he was correct that adaptation to environmental factors was at > work in the environment. (I'm not disputing his observations, I'm just > trying to use the correct words). On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 "Ron Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > An observed fact is still a fact. Not to be confused with a > reproduceable experimental result. If it is actually a valid observation and not a mistaken conclusion. Since Darwin didn't actually stick around to replicate the changes, his observations were not based upon the *scientific method* (of developing and testing a hypothesis). I wouldn't personally make observations and call them *facts*, because that implies (to some people) something that isn't technically correct. Unless, of course, I included my research data or quoted references. <grin> I'm not implying that Darwin's observations about adaptation were incorrect. But, without research data or references, the basis of his observations cannot be replicated. Therefore, there is no valid research foundation for proving or disproving his conclusions. Thus, peer review cannot be applied. -------- (BOB) > > But, mathematically, neither can occur without somehow changing > > the DNA structure. > (RON) > Mathematics is probably not involved. :) I disagree. X can be subtracted from the set of XY, the resulting set is exclusively Y. Mutation requires a new element, Z. Mathematically, Z is not a subset of the set XY. Mendelian Genetics is strictly mathematical. Genetic diversity (when environment is excluded, as in a lab) is strictly mathematical. Variability follows statistical probability pretty closely. ------ (BOB) > > The evolutionary theories require both natural selection and > genetic > > mutation. Creationists (of all varieties) and Evolutionists (of > all > > varieties) would agree with the natural selection part (Mendelian > > Genetics). But, Creationists won't accept the (positive) mutation > part > > and Evolutionists do. Therein lies the difference. > (RON) > Genetic change is at the heart of evolutionary change, I agree. > > And genetic change happens all the time. It can happen from > being > hit by cosmic rays, by exposure to any number of chemical moities, > by > the natural process of ageing, and so on. DNA is a most fragile > thing. > > But a genetic change does not get passed on, intact, to the > next > generation if it is not present in the gametes, i.e. not heritable. > > Example: Seeds of the privet, in seed trays by the thousands, > look > for the occasional "sport" of a variegated seedling - genetic change > of > single individual organism that makes the leaves bi-coloured. But > seeds > of those "sports" breed back to the original plant stock, > i.e. non-variegated. > So that particular genetic damage/change is not heritable. > > But sometimes the genetic change IS heritable, and future > generations of such organisms may carry the change. If it is a > recessive > gene, it may not even be expressed. It may even disappear in the > normal > shuffling of chromasomes during conception. But sometimes it holds > the > change well. > > If it is a tiny change, it may not make any difference and may > well > disappear in the gene shuffle. A bad change will make it more > likely > that such individuals will be at a disadvantage in the reproduction > game, and will not get to make many heirs and successors. A really > bad > change may be lethal. > > But some changes may just give the individuals a tiny advantage > when > environmental changes occur - and the environment is ALWAYS changing > - > so that small difference pays off, and is passed on. That is when > Darwin's "natural selection" sorts out the winners and losers, even > when > the difference is minimal, and gives the winners just enough edge > to > matter. They will then out-compete those individuals without that > genetic change, who may then go into decline. > > If this happens enough times, and when the differences slowly > accumulate, the new individuals are eventually of a genetic profile > that > they are no longer compatible enough with the original organism > that > they cannot interbreed, then: > At that point, they are a new species BY DEFINITION. The position was articulated very well. It's difficult to summarize a subject that has been debated by so many people for such a long time, but I thought you did a good job. I would only interject that, without reproducible experiments to demonstrate that mutation can produce positive change to the DNA (meaning a genetic change that produces a competitive advantage and can be sexually reproduced in subsequent generations), that position lacks the force of scientifically reproducible experimentation. In other words, it violates the requirements set forth in *the scientific method* (which is a hypothesis based upon experimentation, subjected to peer review, with cannot be disproved by subsequent experimentation). I'm not saying that the position is wrong, only that the experimentation required by the scientific method hasn't yet been provided. A prerequisite for that is a complete genetic map (such as is the goal of the Genome Project), which would prove that Z was not an original component of the genetic set XY, but that mutation created Z (and the mutation provided a competitive adaptation and was reproductively successful). Again, I'm not presenting an argument for *faith* or a *new earth*, I'm only trying to follow the rules of science that I was taught. For that reason, I think it's valid to ask of the scientists, "My I have a reference, please". Not that I expect you to provide in your emails a reference that addresses all the secrets of the universe, but those who make a profession of teaching science should, as a matter of standard practice, provide a collection of references to validate their teachings. ----------- (RON) > This takes a long time, many many generations. But there has been > a long time since life appeared on earth, so that is not a problem > unless you believe in a "young earth". > > Now, in such a drastic condensation of the subject, what have I > missed ? Only the references, but I'll forgive you (er, um, I mean, I won't hold you accountable for your sins of omission - that is, ah, er, ... Oh ... never mind - condensation accepted). <g> Bob - ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com
