Text 1164, 113 rader
Skriven 2004-12-22 17:16:00 av Syvanen@ucdavis.Edu (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: "Genes are followers
================================



CNCabej wrote:
> M. Syvanen wrote:
>
> >Cabej wrote:
> >
> >" We are told that evolution of a gene (not just any change), takes
> >evolutionarily considerable periods of time, that evolution of a
> >structure may
> >need evolution of a varying number of genes, and evolution of a new
> >organ
> >requires evolution of an even greater number of genes and longer
> >periods of
> >time. Accordingly, it is to be expected that evolution of a new
Bauplan
> >for
> >transition from a class, such as fishto amphibians, requires
evolution
> >of a
> >still larger number of genes and longer periods of time. Have we
proven
> >this?
> >Certainly not."
>
> M.S.:
> >Who told you this? It is certainly not >believed by any gene centric
> evolutionist >of which I am aware.<
>
> N.R.C.
> Who told me this? Let me quote Richard Dawkins, if you consider him
to be a
> genecentrist (if not I can bring other examples): "Evolution by
natural
> selection could not be faster than the mutation rate, for mutation
is,
> ultimately, the only way in which new variation enters the
species...The
> mutation rate is bound to put an upper limit on the rate at which
evolution can
> proceed" (Blind Watchmaker")
>
> Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, after  Dobzhansky, in population
genetics
> evolution is essentially defined in terms of the change in
gene/allele
> frequencies in populations produced by the action of natural
selection,
> mutation, gene drift, and migration.
>
> M.S.:
> >Current thinking is that mutations
> >that give rise to major morphological changes does not involve the
> >evolution of new genes, but rather the rearrangement, frequently
> >involving duplication, of existing genes and/or subtle changes that
> >result in changes in temporal and/or spacial regulation.  This is
not
> >proven for any major morphological change accounting for metazoan
> >evolution, but it does have experimental support.
>
> N.R.C.:
> First, I do not  talk of "new genes", so you agree with me that the
prevailing
> opinion (including R. Dawkin's) is that evolution is essentially
evolution of
> genes by gene mutations.

Nonsense.  Your wrote: "evolution of a new organ requires evolution of
an even greater number of genes".  Now you do not use the adjective
'new' but it hard to decipher any other meaning from that sentence.

>
> Second, all those "rearrangements, frequently involving duplication,
of
> existing genes and/or subtle changes that result in changes in
temporal and/or
> spatial regulation" are mutations, changes in genes.
>
> Thank you for your constructive input and I look forward to hearing
from you on
> this and other issues considered in my post.
>
> Nelson R. Cabej

You most certainly wrote:

>" We are told that evolution of a gene (not just any change), takes
> >evolutionarily considerable periods of time, that evolution of a
> >structure may
> >need evolution of a varying number of genes, and evolution of a new
> >organ
> >requires evolution of an even greater number of genes and longer
> >periods of
> >time. Accordingly, it is to be expected that evolution of a new
Bauplan
> >for
> >transition from a class, such as fishto amphibians, requires
evolution
> >of a
> >still larger number of genes and longer periods of time.

Wrong.  No one believes this.  Your Dawkins quote above was to
something different. You obviously do not even begin to understand
existing theory. You need to go back and learn something first.
Mike Syvanen
---
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 12/22/04 5:16:17 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)