It probably also depends a bit what you mean by Darwinian. If you mean by that the central dogma is satisfied, then no - prebiotic evolution probably did not satisfy the central dogma, so variants like Larmarkianism may well be possible.
BTW, even anthropic selection from a large number of extant possibilities I still consider to be a form of evolution (in the general sense of satisfying Lewontin's criteria) - see "Evolution in the Multiverse", or the discussion in my book. Its a very fecund research area right now :). Cheers On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 03:53:03AM +0000, chris peck wrote: > Hi Brent > > >>But random mutations *don't* result in catastrophe. Your body has hundreds > >>of cells with > copying errors in their DNA. Of course only those in gametes can get passed > to progeny. > But even gamete DNA can have copying errors without catastrophic results. > > When youre talking about common-all-garden mutations within strands of DNA > ofcourse there is no catestrophic result. Infact, evolution via natural > selection depends on the possibility of copying error. Its a good source of > mutation. The genetic code is high fidelity but not *that* high fidelity. > > When you're talking about mutation and evolution of the code itself, between > the mapping of codons and amino acids for example then that is genuinely > catestrophic. That doesn't seem to me to be contentious, btw. > > All the best > > > Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 20:28:41 -0700 > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong > > > > On 8/8/2013 8:10 PM, chris peck wrote: > > > Hi Prof. Standish > > > > > > Thanks so much for the offer. I actually hunted the paper down from a > > > link in the > > > original springer resource you posted. Some of it flies over my head, but > > > not all of it, > > > so I'll persevere... > > > > > > "ISTM that you are implicitly assuming that these replicating > > > hypercycles only emerged once, whereas I would think that replicating > > > RNA probably arose many times quite easily when life wasn't around to > > > gobble them up." > > > > > > Not really, but re-reading your original post I'm actually quite > > > persuaded by the idea > > > that even if these replicating mechanisms emerged very rarely it would be > > > possible and > > > enough to invoke the anthropic principle. After all, it only had to > > > emerge once in the > > > whole universe for these questions to get asked... > > > > > > Whats niggling me though is something else. Dawkins sometimes intimates > > > that the current > > > code was something that itself evolved from low to high fidelity. For > > > reasons I've made > > > I can't see how that can be so. Evolution is a process where beneficial > > > but random > > > changes accumulate and are passed on through successive generations. But > > > if a random > > > mutation in the code results in catastrophe as Dawkins acknowledges then > > > that can't happen. > > > > But random mutations *don't* result in catastrophe. Your body has hundreds > > of cells with > > copying errors in their DNA. Of course only those in gametes can get > > passed to progeny. > > But even gamete DNA can have copying errors without catastrophic results. > > > > > > > > This is to say that if the code evolved then that evolution could not be > > > Darwinian in > > > nature. > > > > Sure it could. Random mutations, most of which are bad, many of which are > > neutral, and a > > few of which are beneficial relative to subsequent natural selection. If > > DNA copying were > > perfect there could be no evolution, so if some organisms developed with > > perfect (or just, > > "too good") error correcting codes, they almost certainly got left behind > > in the > > evolutionary arms race and have left no descendants. > > > > Brent > > > > > > > > I find it reassuring that there is research underway addressing this > > > issue. I found this > > > paper over my lunch break: > > > > > > http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10696.full > > > > > > They emphasize ambiguity over error in early coding mechanisms and > > > suggest a kind of > > > Lamarkian evolutionary dynamic that existed prior to and eventually gave > > > way to > > > Darwinian evolutionary dynamics. Horizontal vs. vertical heredity etc. In > > > many ways that > > > might be seen as heresy by the biological community but laymen like me > > > don't mind a > > > little heresy here and there. We don't know any better. :) > > > > > > Anyway, it seems to offer the following response to Statham. His argument > > > is underpinned > > > by the assumption that all evolution is Darwinian. If one sheds that > > > assumption then the > > > code could evolve without the consequent catastrophe. > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Everything List" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to [email protected]. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
