Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?

[S.A.M.]

Definitely. Mutation in some systems results in critical failure. Lemme think - if a gene were central to "being" something - a snail, say - then it stands to reason it would be 'insulated' against mutation. So an "old" gene - one involved in the formation of a lineage - should be well defended.

You're assuming a snail is "essential" or "must survive"; there is no such criteria though, is there? I think the persistence of a gene (or a meme if you must be Dawkinistic) is a tribute to its properties, which enable its survival in the present environmental conditions, rather than an assumption that it is immutable. Polymorphism probably requires greater changes than that gene has been subjected to, at least in quantifiable extent in the population.

 

[GeoffP]

You're assuming a snail is "essential" or "must survive"; there is no such criteria though, is there? I think the persistence of a gene (or a meme if you must be Dawkinistic) is a tribute to its properties, which enable its survival in the present environmental conditions, rather than an assumption that it is immutable. Polymorphism probably requires greater changes than that gene has been subjected to, at least in quantifiable extent in the population.

Actually, I'm just assuming that there are a few genes that are essential to "snailness". The size or colour of a snail may vary - and in time could lead to speciation, in allopatry, as the Darwinistic model - but the genes that determine "snailness" are in all likelihood fixed and largely protected against mutation.

 

[S.A.M.]

Actually, I'm just assuming that there are a few genes that are essential to "snailness". The size or colour of a snail may vary - and in time could lead to speciation, in allopatry, as the Darwinistic model - but the genes that determine "snailness" are in all likelihood fixed and largely protected against mutation.

Are you saying it is impossible for snails to become extinct?

 

[Enmos]

Actually, I'm just assuming that there are a few genes that are essential to "snailness". The size or colour of a snail may vary - and in time could lead to speciation, in allopatry, as the Darwinistic model - but the genes that determine "snailness" are in all likelihood fixed and largely protected against mutation.

How exactly do you propose these genes are protected from mutation ?

 

[GeoffP]

No - rather that it is impossible (or, rather, very unlikely) for them to be other than what they are: snails. The set of genes that make "snailness" are probably insulated against substantial mutation.

Oh, and also that snails can't go extinct. Because they have superpowers, you see. And clean, mucousy living.

 

[GeoffP]

How exactly do you propose these genes are protected from mutation ?

Dunno: not really my area (yet...). Probably obstruction by histone proteins or something. The simplest method, and my bet. Or maybe multigenic methylation.

 

[Enmos]

Dunno: not really my area (yet...). Probably obstruction by histone proteins or something. The simplest method, and my bet. Or maybe multigenic methylation.

Hmm it doesnt make much sense you know. The genes that 'make' a snail is actually all its genes together. Furthermore, i challenge you to find a biological antidote to radiation that is a 100% effective.

 

[S.A.M.]

Dunno: not really my area (yet...). Probably obstruction by histone proteins or something. The simplest method, and my bet. Or maybe multigenic methylation.

You mean controlled methylation ? But isn't that vulnerable to environmental signals?

Silencing genes? Again, are they causative or merely persist due to environmental advantages?

 

[iceaura]

I disagree and I've already explained my reservations.

No, you haven't. Your reservations remain unclear,with the only visible basis for them a personal objection to Dawkins's tone, which you find arrogant.

There is (as yet?) no "science" of mimetics, for example, so Dawkins discussions of it cannot count as misrepresentations of one.

I think Gould's criticism is right. Evolution is not directed, so any competition between genes with an eventual fit winner is complete nonsense.

That is a false presentation of Dawkins's arguments, at least the ones I have seen, however. Dawkins makes no assumption of "prior fitness" in his handling of gene competition (again,that I have seen).

Gould did not have a firm handle on the logical structure of evolutionary theory, despite his intellectual depth, and his occasional blind spots showed up clearly in discussions involving human evolution on the one hand, and basic creation on the other. His book on the Burgess Shale formation was one long invalidity, for example.

Yes, that's right. Hmm, I wonder if that is related to the age of the gene; ie are the older genes less plastic? Is there a point at which the gene can "defend" itself from mutation?

Certain areas of the chormosomes are better repaired than others, and certain areas are more easily broken in the first place, but as far as "defended" against mutation - the older genes still extant are simply those whose mutations did not prevail against them - for whatever reason, including simply not competing but instead taking a different "niche".

No - rather that it is impossible (or, rather, very unlikely) for them to be other than what they are: snails. The set of genes that make "snailness" are probably insulated against substantial mutation.

A better way to put it might be that what we recognize as a snail will not contain substantially mutated forms of those basic genes.

What we recognize as a slug might, however.

 

[S.A.M.]

No, you haven't. Your reservations remain unclear,with the only visible basis for them a personal objection to Dawkins's tone, which you find arrogant.

I don't recall objecting to his tone, merely to his using science as a platform for his atheistic aspirations. And his contributions to the meme theory.

There is (as yet?) no "science" of mimetics, for example, so Dawkins discussions of it cannot count as misrepresentations of one.
That is a false presentation of Dawkins's arguments, at least the ones I have seen, however. Dawkins makes no assumption of "prior fitness" in his handling of gene competition (again,that I have seen).

You'd be hard put to find a Dawkins fan who does not fall victim to equivocation in understanding the concept.

Gould did not have a firm handle on the logical structure of evolutionary theory, despite his intellectual depth, and his occasional blind spots showed up clearly in discussions involving human evolution on the one hand, and basic creation on the other. His book on the Burgess Shale formation was one long invalidity, for example.

I am not aware of the wider aspect of Goulds work, but I support his criticism of Dawkins "selfish gene" theory.

[/QUOTE]

 

[GeoffP]

Hmm it doesnt make much sense you know. The genes that 'make' a snail is actually all its genes together.

Actually, it makes a great deal of sense, and for the reasons you provide. Correct development of a given member of a species requires epistacy (not epistasis, in the current usage) of action among fixed gene sets, which dates back to Fisher as I recall. In other words: fixation of those genes required to produce "snailness". (Or whateverness.)

Furthermore, i challenge you to find a biological antidote to radiation that is a 100% effective.

Well, I challenge you to find me an instance where I care.

Oh, very well: mortality. It removes highly disruptive mutations from the genepool at quite an impressive rate, I'm given to understand. Exceeding the structural boundaries of an organism usually results in death; where it doesn't, however, you might have a hopeful monster, or maybe just a West-Eberhardian novel construct.

 

[GeoffP]

A better way to put it might be that what we recognize as a snail will not contain substantially mutated forms of those basic genes.

What we recognize as a slug might, however.

I rather prefer my own very eloquent description. "Snailness" as a concept takes into account the limited depth of evolutionary lineage which conditions the existence of snaildom.

 

[GeoffP]

You'd be hard put to find a Dawkins fan who does not fall victim to equivocation in understanding the concept.

I thought it was Gould that was the one postulating pre-selection on the basis of spandrels and the like.

 

[S.A.M.]

I thought it was Gould that was the one postulating pre-selection on the basis of spandrels and the like.

See, you're already confused.

 

[spidergoat]

Why, then, should we be commanded to "respect" those who insist that they alone know something that is both unknowable and unfalsifiable?

Cristopher Hitchens

 

[S.A.M.]

Are we talking about the WMDs in Iraq? Or Osama's role in 9/11?

Hitchens is so full of it.

When I check into a hotel room and send my free and unsolicited copy of the Gideon Bible or the Book of Mormon spinning out of the window, I infringe no law, except perhaps the one concerning litter.

I wonder, is this what he wants the world to devolve to? And while he mentioned the Bible and book of Mormon, why did he not mention the Quran?

And he advocates intolerance as better than tolerance? So why isn't anyone invading Switzerland?

Never ceases to surprise me how attractive intolerance is to most people.

 

[GeoffP]

See, you're already confused.

Bah! You just don't want to admit that Gould likes spandrels.

 

[GeoffP]

I wonder, is this what he wants the world to devolve to? And while he mentioned the Bible and book of Mormon, why did he not mention the Quran?

Because people don't customarily leave free copies of the Quran in hotel rooms. The Gideons do.

 

[S.A.M.]

Bah! You just don't want to admit that Gould likes spandrels.

I dislike speaking ill of the dead.

 

[S.A.M.]

Because people don't customarily leave free copies of the Quran in hotel rooms. The Gideons do.

I'm willing to supply one.