Text 1022, 222 rader
Skriven 2004-12-15 06:28:00 av John Edser (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Article: Birds of a f
=================================




Wirt Atmar wrote:-
> I suspect that you, like a great many other people, are under the
> impression
> that there is a great underlying "genetical program" ensconced
> somewhere in the
> genome of a species, not unlike the kind of program that an engineer would
> write. But that's not true. Genes actually don't code for much.
> They certainly
> don't code for grand designs.
>
> Rather, genes only encode the information on how to construct the
> little things
> of life, the pawls, cogs, screws and fasteners, each of which is
> a protein.
> Genes certainly don't encode wings or eyes or fingers, at least not in any
> direct sense.

JE:-
Gene centric Neo Darwinists delete all non additive
gene information (genetic epistasis) using Fisher's
dictum: only non epistatic genetic information constitutes
heritable and therefore selectable information. Fisher's
oversimplification of the known truth was initially, a
very valuable model. However, his model has become hopelessly
misused within evolutionary theory. The worst possible
abuse of it remains Hamilton's Rule. Complex phenotypes
such as "wings or eyes or fingers" if they are coded via
the genome at all, could only be coded using genetic epistasis.
This being tghe case genetic epistasis must constitute over
99% of inherited information.

It remains a possibility that "wings or eyes or fingers"
are coded above the DNA/RNA system. Proteins would be the
first guess. However this implies a RATIONAL theory of
Lamarckism. To suggest such a thing remains a gene centric
heresy. Anyone suggesting it would become excommunicated from
the church of Neo Darwinism (their grants would be stopped
by the high priests).

Because Popper has been thrown out of evolutionary theory
the witch hunters have moved in. Almost all of them are
mathematicians who remain biologically and epistemologically
ignorant. They intimidate hapless biologists
to conform to their NON refutable scientific view of thew world.
This Mad Hatter world was lampooned by Swift who was well aware
(long before Godel became aware) that mathematics is NOT self
consistent. One day, Hamilton's theory of spite will
become the number one exhibit within a museum of the
mathematically absurd.

The sciences are based on rational arguments that
can be tested against nature. Mathematics is only based
on logic. All rational propositions are logical but not all
logical propositions are rational. For a proposition to
be rational (refutable against nature) it is required to
contain at least one absolute assumption. Mostly this just
constitutes one total of soemthing. Mathematically,
a absolute assumption can be represented
by one constant term. Variables can only
work to maintain constant terms within a mathematical
expression, that is all. In the biological sciences
ONE constant term represents a maximand fitness value.
To refute a maximand all you have to do is show by
experimental observation that it is NOT a maximand.
This means that within a mathematical expression of
the theory a constant can be reduced to just a variable
where this transformation can be verified/refuted within
nature. This is only logically possible if any constant
that is reduced to just a variable can be replaced by another
constant. Providing a mathematical expression without
any constants at all, as Hamilton et al have done for
over 50 years, remains mathematically sound but
scientifically absurd.

> WA:-
> The machinery of life is -- perhaps astonishingly --
> self-assembling. It's been
> that way from the very beginning, from the first bi-lipid
> membranous walls that
> formed the first cellular vessicles to the modern embryological
> self-assembly
> of an eye or a wing. While this answer may sound on first hearing
> to verge on
> the mystical, there's nothing magical all about the process.

JE:-
"self assembly" is only a question and not an answer.
Until a refutable theory of self assembly is
produced it remains an irrational proposition.
I suspect that, yet again, mathematicians who
seem to know nothing of epistemology, are responsible
for turning a biological question into what they
think constitutes a biological answer.

> WA:-
> Proteins autonomously fold into their conformational shapes based on their
> distributions of electric fields, and they lock onto one another
> for the very
> same reasons.

JE:-
Prion proteins can code for protein folding.
A higher level of information transfer
acting with a lower DNA/RNA level could
provide a multiplicative system of information
storage.


> But proteins are most normally not the product of
> just one gene,
> but often the result of the actions of hundreds of genes. If one of the
> encoding genes is modified just a very little bit, a different
> amino acid may
> wind up being substituted in the ultimately realized protein, and
> that protein
> may fold in a completely different manner, making it structurally or
> catalytically more or less acceptable to the selective demands of
> the current
> environment.

JE:-
ALL proteins are epistatically coded in nature.
Gene centric Neo Darwinism simply deleted all this
information within their simplified models.
These models have been misused to contest
and win against they theory they were
simplified from where such an act remains
absurd.


> WA:-
> Selection chooses only among and between the available protein
> variants, and
> wholly then only on the relative appropriatenesses ("fitnesses")
> of the various
> alternatives to current environmental demands. Selection does not however
> choose among and between the various underlying genes, other than
> in the most
> indirect manner.

JE:-
It remains basic that selection only
acts on the phenotype, no exceptions because
of the (revised) central dogma:-

DNA/RNA ---> proteins  ...(1)

NEVER:-

proteins ---> DNA/RNA  ... (2)

WHERE: The above propositions
stand as anti-thesis to each other,
i.e. one represents a point of
refutation for the other. If any
view allows thesis and anti thesis
within the same view it is non sensical.

Amazingly, gene centric Neo Darwinism
simply deletes the central dogma,
along with all genetic epistasis
and Karl Popper to immunise the
deletions.




> WA:-
> As time passes, the machinery of cell inherently becomes more
> complex for no
> reason more complicated than the evolving phenotype is becoming
> increasingly
> more appropriate to the environmental demands it encounters and
> simultaneously
> more efficiently exploitive of those same environments. The most salient
> attribute of evolution is that it is a learning algorithm. But
> evolution is not
> a process that operates only through time. As phyletic lineages
> increasingly
> better learn their environments, they simultaneously become bound
> to the those
> environments as well. Species diversification, the evolution of
> complexity --
> both behaviorally and morphologically -- and the evolution of
> intelligence are
> all similar questions interwoven onto a biogeographic tapestry.
> But the one word remains: "Proteins."

JE:-
To put Dr Atmar's view in a more simple form the evolution
of complexity is just an addition of any
number of non reversible nodes:-


DNA/RNA --> proteins --> A ---> B  etc

Where A,B etc represent unknown levels of
information storage.


Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/15/04 6:28:20 AM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)