Re: Mendel refutes evolution

Marc wrote:
Please learn the definition - in scientific usage - of microevolution.

There isn't one. The traditional concepts of macro and micro evolution
are meaningless...totally nonsensical. That is the point.

Please cite a reference for your (limited, absolute) definition of
what "evolution" is and is not.

Evolution is change in the frequency of alleles in a population. You
are free to expand upon that as you see fit. I have no issues with
what evolution is an is not. I'm talking about the nonsense pretend
concepts of "macro" and "micro" evolution, which are complete nonsense,
and which you can't put any sensible definition on. I don't know how
many times I have to spell that out for you folks.


Some questions.... what does "gene duplication" contribute to
the process of evolution and is it a "mutation" in your view?

It can contribute lots of things. It can add an extra vertebrae or
pair of haltares to an organism. It can allow some new substance to be
created via mutation of one of the copies, because as long as one of
them is functioning, the organism has a chance to survive while that
second copy is being mutated to potentially form some new beneficial
compound.

The blood coagulation system, that Behe beats to death, shows clear
evidence of this sort of process.

"For example factors X, IX, VII and Protein C share domain structure,
gene organisation, mechanism of activity and activation, means of
binding to phospholipid surfaces to name only some of their common
characteristics. Factors VII and X are actually linked right next to
each other on chromosome 13 in men and the synteny is retained in
mice...".

Does evolution via selection occur in the "junk" DNA?

There is no selection pressure with respect to mutations that occur
within exons. Hence the respective differences in homologous stretches
of exons can be used to roughly date the time since two species
diverged. This is how the ascorbic acid gene comes in handy within the
various primate species. If there was some evolutionary significance
to this, now junk, DNA then this process wouldn't work, and we'd be
limited to analyzing the differences between homologous redundant
codons.

Does evolution occur in the absence of selection?

Absolutely. Mutations occur. There is also dumb luck...say a bunch of
brunettes get really frisky beneath the sheets, for no particular
reason. It's always possible that everyone with a broken allele for
color vision could just happen not to bear children.

Why are you asking me such basic questions like this?

In general, a larger area has a greater chance of having given rise to
the evolution of a more diverse array of species, and hence greater
competition for resources within the various ecological niches.

How does this differ from what Matt wrote?

What specifically are you referring to that Matt wrote? I don't
remember reading anything articulated like this.

Is there evidence you can cite about this?

It's a purely simple mathematical argument that requires no empirical
evidence. To debate me, you'd have to argue with the basic principles
of genetics. If you're prepared to do that, more power to you.

Perhaps there is a fair bit of theory others have thought of, or
are we only going to discuss those theories you think of?

It's on open forum, and you're a big boy. You can discuss whatever you
want to. But if you say something incorrect, that strikes my interest,
I'm going to call you on it, because there's a lot of myth in this area
of inquiry, which not enough people are working to actively quash out.

.