I understand perfectly that natural selection does NOT have to be continuous throughout evolution in order to create new form, or new adaptations. In fact the concept that has recently popped up as being instructive in evolutionary adaptation is pre-adaptation. In fact natural selection may well go back and forth as it pleases till the right circumstances are reached for the appearance of a certain adaptation. It wouldn't matter at all for creating the genetic diversity required for the new adaptation. In fact, as I was suspecting and have pointed out many times already, you seem to attack a form of evolution that only resides in your head. A form of evolution that doesn't seem to match the current understanding of evolution by the scientific community.
Most adaptations did not come about in all probability in a straight line with natural selection pushing in a certain direction of adaptative space. In fact, most adaptations come about with tinkering. A haphazard modification of what is present, that can induce large and small phenotypic changes, but mostly small. Moreover, the nature of the developmenta genetic pathways actually stimulates robustness of micro-change by means of extensive inhibitor-activator feedback loops in the major signalling pathways involved in the developmental biology of the organism. There are many fine papers on books on it, but I am sure my advice to read up on the topic will fall on deaf ears with you. After all, it is easier to disprove your own fantasies than reality.
The nature of genetic modulation also dictates that changes in form do not have to be straightforward from one point to the other. In fact nature didn't know that it eventually would come up with a grasping hand when it changed the continuous finline of primitive chordates into finlike structures. Nor did it know it was going to do that.
What did happen was that the changes couldn't come about without the necessary genetic pre-adaptations. Hox clusters needed to be duplicated to be able to assign new functions to them, other signalling factor genes underwent a similar process. New genetic possibilities were created by mutation.
And for absolutely no good reason whatever. It just happens. yet some of these mutations were maintained in the gene pool, and they were used to modify the existing ontogeny and small phenotypic changes were the result.
This isn't speculation btw. It is merely a summary of countless scientific papers. Papers who could be read by you. But you will not.
In fact you are so ignorant on the mechanisms of development that you do not even understand the true function of a gene, and its relationship to changes in form and function.
You talk about harmful mutations. Shit, do you really think an organism is particularly worried about the duplication of a HOX cluster? So it started off with one FGF gene. And most mammals carry around 22 of them right now. And they don't perform the same function any more. their function has diversified to increase the genetic interaction of the signalling pathways increasing not only the robustness of them, but also gave the organism a way to trying out things (in the metaphorical sense). A blank gene was given that was already functional. All you need to do is change the promotor affinities (easily done with mutations in the promoter region) and sometimes slightly change the target. And whoopla a whole new function was born.
that's only the tip of the iceberg of course, because nature has added a shitload of inhibitors to developmental processes. it seems like a total waste, because there are shitload of activators, but it actually increases the reliability and at the same time allows for reliable modification of form. It saves from excesses that could be lethal.
But all we hear here are you one-dimensional ideas of evolution and your constant moaning about how hostile everybody is to your revolutionary ideas.
The simple fact is that you know shit about anything. And that your theory is a bucket of poop.
And every time someone corrects you, you just ignore it or put words in their mouth they haven't used.
It's slightly entertaining what you do, but I wouldn't call your mind scientific in any way: it's more like a bag of salty crisps. Salt and fat enhanced factory flavour.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Originally Posted by Dictionary
), and after some juvenile stage of keeping to the surface this generation began to segregate. They're easy to track because each individual guppy has unique markings, tail length, etc. Some hang out by the bubbles, some keep to the corners, etc. They have these haunts and even some odd characters won't surface during feedings but rather nibble algae off the plastic plants. I'm sure that in a larger tank, they'd segregate farther, and rarely mate outside their group. What is happening? The way you see it, please.
