Re: Macroevolution Mechanism Demonstrated
- From: Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-bloody-spam@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:23:28 +0000 (UTC)
Windy <pikaia@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Good stuff but contains a very strange comment by author.
"The creationists' argument rests in part on the fact that animals
have two sets of chromosomes and that in order to get big changes,
you'd need to mutate the same genes in both sets of chromosomes,"
explains McGinnis. "It's incredibly unlikely that you would get
mutations in the same gene in two chromosomes in a single organism. But
in our particular case, the kind of mutation that's in this gene is a
so-called dominant mutation, so you only need to mutate one of the
chromosomes to get a big change in body plan."
*What* is he going on about? Did someone disprove Mendelian inheritance
while I was on my coffee break? Otherwise I fail to see what is
"incredibly unlikely" about two copies of a recessive gene turning up
in the same organism.
Well, Creationists have come up with some pretty kooky
arguments. I think the one the author is referring to here is a
variant of one found here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/pinkoski_again_how_stupid_can.php
which is, "it's not enough for the left eye to evolve. The right eye
has to evolve as well, and what are the odds of that?!" (After you
read that, you should also read
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/if_you_doubt_this_is_possible.php
which explains the whole "If you doubt this is possible, how is it
there are PYGMIES + DWARFS?!" thing.)
This argument has also been seen here as "who did the first
sexual being have sex with?"
So I think what the author's saying is that changes in
replicated or symmetric structures (in this case, a gene on a
chromosome) don't have to occur twice in the same organism in order to
have a visible and lasting effect.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-bloody-spam@xxxxxxx Office of Information Technology
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge, others just gargle.
.
- References:
- Re: Macroevolution Mechanism Demonstrated
- From: Windy
- Re: Macroevolution Mechanism Demonstrated
- Prev by Date: Re: The biggest non sequitur in history
- Next by Date: Re: "ID Says Nothing About the Designer": a Weakness, not Strength, of the Design Argument
- Previous by thread: Re: Macroevolution Mechanism Demonstrated
- Next by thread: Re: Macroevolution Mechanism Demonstrated
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
