Re: The driving force of evolution
- From: "J.A. Legris" <jalegris@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:00:38 -0700
On Aug 10, 7:13 pm, Wolf <ElLoboVi...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
J.A. Legris wrote:
On Aug 10, 12:33 pm, Wolf <ElLoboVi...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
J.A. Legris wrote:
[...]
Nei argues that before selection can act on phenotypes, the underlyingThis (interpreted with a great dollop of charity) is merely paraphrase
genetic mutations must occur, most of which have insignificant effects
on the phenotype, as indicated by the large amount of neutral genetic
variation within species. The mutations that are significant drive the
phenotype down developmental pathways that are unpredictable and
tightly restrictive on subsequent viable mutations.
of what Dawkins and others have said explicitly, and what was implicit
in Darwin's claim that natural selection acts upon the "variations" in
organisms.
And as a matter of fact, it's not clear just what effect most mutations
have on the phenotype, since we have almost no statistics on failed
development of the zygote. That is, we just don't know how many
fertilisations of eggs, for example, fail to develop at all, never mind
what percentage develop in more or less abnormal ways. The few data I'm
familiar with suggest that roughly 2/3rds of mutations in humans prevent
development, period. BTW, at any given moment in your life, a large
percentage of your cells contain mutations. You are, molecularly, not
the man you used to be.
Natural selectionMutations just happen, is all. To say they set the agenda implies some
is the final arbiter of which mutations persist, but the mutations
themselves are setting the agenda.
sort of agency on their part. IOW, a metaphor, and a stupid one IMO,
though not nearly as stupid as taking it literally.
As I see it, an analogy is that ofThe selectivity of the market is secondary? That's like saying that
a highly creative artist producing new works that are released into
the market. The artist must update his materials and techniques to
follow popular trends, but the selectivity of the market is secondary
to his creative output.
[...]
digestion is secondary to eating (since you like analogies.)
You're in no position to criticise my analogies until you RTFP.
HTH
And what does the paper offer that isn't in the abstract?
I thought you'd never ask. If you send your email address to
jalegris@[Bell Canada's ISP] (I cannot see yours because Google groups
filters them) I will memorize the article to the last letter, destroy
all my copies and send you a PDF as per the terms of my access
agreement (praised be the Lord and Allah Akbar too).
--
Joe
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The driving force of evolution
- From: Wolf
- Re: The driving force of evolution
- References:
- Re: The driving force of evolution
- From: J.A.Legris
- Re: The driving force of evolution
- From: Glen M. Sizemore
- Re: The driving force of evolution
- From: J.A. Legris
- Re: The driving force of evolution
- From: Glen M. Sizemore
- Re: The driving force of evolution
- From: J.A. Legris
- Re: The driving force of evolution
- From: Wolf
- Re: The driving force of evolution
- From: J.A. Legris
- Re: The driving force of evolution
- From: forbisgaryg
- Re: The driving force of evolution
- From: J.A. Legris
- Re: The driving force of evolution
- From: Wolf
- Re: The driving force of evolution
- From: J.A. Legris
- Re: The driving force of evolution
- From: Wolf
- Re: The driving force of evolution
- Prev by Date: Re: The driving force of evolution
- Next by Date: Emergence
- Previous by thread: Re: The driving force of evolution
- Next by thread: Re: The driving force of evolution
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|