Re: The last ancestor of all life
- From: "Ron O" <rokimoto@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 19 Aug 2006 08:32:19 -0700
Seanpit wrote:
Marc wrote:
Seanpit wrote:
**********************************************
Chez Watt in the "What kind of evolution are you having?" category:
Germline evolution isn't the only type of evolution out there.
Improvements in immune system specificity for a given foreign antigen
most certainly count as real evolution in my book. Just because it
isn't germline evolution doesn't mean it isn't evolution - improved
function via random mutation and function-based selection. That's
exactly what it is. It doesn't have to be passed on to the offpring of
the animal with the immune system in order to be "evolution" - passed
on to generations of immune system cells within the same creature.
That's right, "generations" of somatic cells are produced in the same
creature and the functions of these cells can "evolve" over time. It's
still evolution regardless of the fact that it isn't germline.
*********************************************
Marc wrote:
Yeah - my bad. Forgot the subject line change.... D'oh.
Seanpit wrote:
**********************************************
Chez Watt in the "What kind of evolution are you having?" category:
Tell me Marc, what is your definition of "evolution". Some people
define evolution as any change over time. Some people definte it as a
functional change over time. How do you define the term "evolution"?
Can the function of a single cell "evolve"?
Do antibodies undergo random changes that are preferentially
selectable, based on functional differences, over generations of immune
cells? How is this not a type of evolution? A new function is realized
over time via random mutation and function-based selection - right?
Are you really arguing that because this function isn't passed on to
the next human generation via coding changes in the gametes means that
it isn't a type of evolution at all? Really?
Antibodies that undergo random changes that are selected for based on
functional differences only demonstrates that your bogus notions of
probability are nonsense. It is an example of protein evolution in
real time that anyone can study. It demonstrates that even new enzyme
activities can develop in less than 10E12 events. It demonstrates that
your estimates are bogus and that proteins are more plastic than you
think and that it isn't difficult to evolve new functions from existing
protein sequences.
What an idiot, or is it simple dishonesty this time?
Ron Okimoto
I think many, even on your own side in this forum, would disagree with
you on this one. I've had extensive discussions in this forum on the
topic of antibody "evolution" and you are the first to argue with me
that the functional changes of antibodies over time don't count as any
form of evolution.
(signed) marc
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.
(signed) marc
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The last ancestor of all life
- From: Seanpit
- Re: The last ancestor of all life
- References:
- The last ancestor of all life
- From: Marc
- Re: The last ancestor of all life
- From: Seanpit
- Re: The last ancestor of all life
- From: Marc
- Re: The last ancestor of all life
- From: Seanpit
- Re: The last ancestor of all life
- From: Marc
- Re: The last ancestor of all life
- From: Seanpit
- Re: The last ancestor of all life
- From: Marc
- Re: The last ancestor of all life
- From: Seanpit
- The last ancestor of all life
- Prev by Date: Re: schlafly's new essay on evolutioun
- Next by Date: Re: Darwinism causes people to stop loving each other
- Previous by thread: Re: The last ancestor of all life
- Next by thread: Re: The last ancestor of all life
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading