Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> DAVID: [i]Behe is a pioneer in theory just like Shapiro. He does use the polar bear as a prime example of species change. You are correct. it is really a massive adaptation to specific environment. He also discusses the mammoth and its DNA differences from elephants, in which it is found between 500-800 genes were degraded. His book is filled with such examples of adaptation by gene degradation. His prime thought early in the book to quote is: "Darwin's mechanism works chiefly by squandering genetic information for short-term gain." By this he means adaptation which aids survival "by damaging or breaking genes." (pages 37-38) By no means does he says he is positive full speciation in evolution is the cause of speciation, but he feels he is offering strong evidence in a 342 page book filled with adaptive examples. All dog varieties are due to damaged/degraded genes, but following your thought they are still really mostly wolves, as shepherd/wolves exist. Susan and I have been to a local breeding/rescue ranch out of curiosity.[/i].
> 
> dhw: [i]Thank you for this revealing summary. It's a far cry from “advances always result from loss of genes”, and indeed it is pretty clear that the examples don’t even deal with advances! A polar bear can hardly be called an advance on a grizzly bear! It is perfectly logical that adaptation should RESULT in loss of genes since genes necessary for one environment may be of no use in another. I would suggest that adaptations will primarily involve new functions for existing genes, though some new ones may be necessary, but [b]major innovations will certainly require new genes[/b].[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Relax from your old teachings and beliefs. The bold is specifically not proven. Much is shown to be accomplished by reduplication, alterations in expressions, and setting up of new genome-wide networks among existing genes.[/i]
> 
> What old teachings and beliefs? Initially you were sceptical about the very existence of new genes! I didn’t say it was proven – it is my suggestion, but what else do you think new genes would be required for if not for innovation? The rest of what you say is covered by new functions for old genes.
>  
> DAVID: T[i]he polar bear difference is somewhat more than fur color but I'll buy adaption along with you. The mammoth is very different in appearance, but again it is an elephant with a woolly hide and giant tusks. Phenotype used for classification is useless. DNA study is the true guide to evolution. We both know this. Behe, with his emphasis on DNA, is pursuing a valid approach to cracking open the issue of speciation.[/i]
> 
> That may be so, but his theory as you have presented it quite patently does not even begin to prove that speciation is caused by loss of genes, or that "advances always result from loss of genes", which was the claim that started this discussion.