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

[Enmos]

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.)

Yes, but throughout evolution of a species they are not fixed. Only in the individual.

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

Unless a mechanism is 100% effective against mutation there is going to be a mutation at one time or another. Wether this mutation is carried over to the next generation is another story. Most mutations will be fatal or offer a disadvantage, but some do offer an 'unsuspected' advantage at some point in time. The gene will then be selected upon within the population.

If the 'protected genes' you are talking about really existed a species could not evolve into another species. You appear to be subscribing to some form of creationism.

 

[Repo Man]

Sad to say, its not only Disney that has you fooled; that last statement applies as well to Dawkins and his troupe of dancers.

I disagree. Dawkins holds his opinions tentatively, with the knowledge that they might not be correct. I have no doubt that if he is proven wrong on any point, he would admit it, and revise his future work accordingly.

The point of all of this isn't to displace religious dogma with some other form of dogma. That would accomplish nothing. "Scientificness", a new religion that deals with dissent by persecution and torture? No.

The hope and the goal, is to teach as many as can be taught to not hold opinions rigidly; to change your mind when you are proven wrong, rather than attack the messenger, and try and destroy the inconvenient evidence. To avoid the seduction of believing in things because you would like them to be true, and instead have the self discipline to only believe in things for which there is credible evidence. To realize that arguments from authority are worthless, and wisdom from the ancients should be respected only if it is truly wise.

 

[S.A.M.]

I disagree. Dawkins holds his opinions tentatively, with the knowledge that they might not be correct.

I disagree.

 

[GeoffP]

Frankly that's what I am trying to determine. Wtf is fixed epistacy? And how is it separate from environmentally induced mutations?

It's the condition of fixed genetic values at multiple loci responsible for inducing the typical construction of a species. It's unrelated to environmentally induced mutation, so long as mutation doesn't affect it.

 

[Enmos]

It's the condition of fixed genetic values at multiple loci responsible for inducing the typical construction of a species. It's unrelated to environmentally induced mutation, so long as mutation doesn't affect it.

Yeah and my car is blue unless its another color.... :bugeye:

 

[GeoffP]

So you're maintaining that "snailness" is as the syngameons of which Ice Age Civilizations spoke. Now we understand.

Nooooo, what I'm saying is that there is a fixed set of genes which produce the basic body form of "snail". Variation within that body form is probably from another set of genes; these constitute quantitative trait loci, or QTL; those genes which cause minor deviations in phenotype.

Oooh, I like my theory. Probably been done already tho.

 

[Enmos]

Nooooo, what I'm saying is that there is a fixed set of genes which produce the basic body form of "snail". Variation within that body form is probably from another set of genes; these constitute quantitative trait loci, or QTL; those genes which cause minor deviations in phenotype.

Oooh, I like my theory. Probably been done already tho.

GeoffP, since you seemingly decided not to answer to my previous posts ill ask you this:
How did the snailform arise if the genes for the basic bodyform are immutable ?

 

[S.A.M.]

It's the condition of fixed genetic values at multiple loci responsible for inducing the typical construction of a species. It's unrelated to environmentally induced mutation, so long as mutation doesn't affect it.

I think you are confusing persistence with design.

 

[Enmos]

I think you are confusing persistence with design.

Seems to me he is some sort of creationist. :shrug:

 

[S.A.M.]

.How can you pick up a newspaper and see what the Christians, Jews and Muslims are doing to each other in huge swaths of the world, and say that the Fraggles are the psychotics?.

I think we are dealing with a human characteristic rather than a religious one.

Forming groups with competitive ideologies and dissent between them is very human. I believe ignoring that is dangerous. I also believe, outside of religion there are very few bonds that tie strangers to each other.

 

[S.A.M.]

Seems to me he is some sort of creationist. :shrug:

He's an atheist and an evolutionary biologist. He's just fascinated by concepts, is all. Mostly he's a pineapple

 

[GeoffP]

Yes, but throughout evolution of a species they are not fixed. Only in the individual.

No, in the members of the species to the extant point; that is, today. "Snailness" is not an individualistic phenomenon to a single snail.

Unless a mechanism is 100% effective against mutation there is going to be a mutation at one time or another. Wether this mutation is carried over to the next generation is another story. Most mutations will be fatal or offer a disadvantage, but some do offer an 'unsuspected' advantage at some point in time. The gene will then be selected upon within the population.

No, really? Of course mutations will occur; where they cause radical deviation from the archetypal body plan, my Gouldian friend, they form Goldschmidt's "hopeful monsters", depending on the size of the mutation. This doesn't detract from my point that there epistacic (not epistatic) genes responsible for "snail" or "human".

If the 'protected genes' you are talking about really existed a species could not evolve into another species. You appear to be subscribing to some form of creationism.

That was laughable. Pick up an evolutionary textbook, please. I am not a creationist.

Yeah and my car is blue unless its another color.... :bugeye:

What exactly does this have to do with the points I'm making?

 

[GeoffP]

GeoffP, since you seemingly decided not to answer to my previous posts ill ask you this:
How did the snailform arise if the genes for the basic bodyform are immutable ?

Oy vay.

They aren't immutable, Gould-boy. They are occasionally exposed to mutation; but rarely. Saltation is possible; but probably rarer than the accumulation of allopatric differentiation.

Happy, slappy?

 

[GeoffP]

I think you are confusing persistence with design.

No. No one designed the genes for "snailness" or anything else. It's you who are attributing design to my arguments; I am not postulating any kind of watchmaker.

Seems to me he is some sort of creationist. :shrug:

No. Seems to me you've yet to crack a textbook open, or think about evolution.

He's an atheist and an evolutionary biologist. He's just fascinated by concepts, is all. Mostly he's a pineapple

Pineapple?

 

[GeoffP]

Yeah, but it's drawing flies. You're leaving the impression that you think certain parts of the genome are immune, intrinsically somehow, to evolutionary processes.

I never said any such insulation was 100%.

 

[GeoffP]

Sorry I flipped out. I take developmental epistacy very seriously.

 

[Nickelodeon]

I think GeoffP is totally wrong.

 

[Enmos]

No. No one designed the genes for "snailness" or anything else. It's you who are attributing design to my arguments; I am not postulating any kind of watchmaker.



No. Seems to me you've yet to crack a textbook open, or think about evolution.



Pineapple?

You are great at insults... :bugeye:
You suggested these genes were immutable, while they cannot be.
If the genes are not immutable whats your point ?

 

[S.A.M.]

I think GeoffP is totally wrong.

Yes, I think he is suffering from developmental stasis.

Sorry I flipped out. I take developmental epistacy very seriously.

Is that Mendelian or biometric?

 

[GeoffP]

I think GeoffP is totally wrong.

You be quiet or I'LL START TYPING IN ALL CAPS.

You are great at insults... :bugeye:
You suggested these genes were immutable, while they cannot be.
If the genes are not immutable whats your point ?

No, I stated that these genes are necessary to achieve the normal species form, and probably thereby fixed. (As in: monomorphic.) This is Fisher's developmental epistacy, and a concept I agree with. They should be only rarely mutable; less so than those coding for mere variation within type, because mutations in the latter only lead to quantitative change by line, whereas mutations to structural (you like Gould? huh? huh? spandrels, then) types might result in massively altered phenotypes that don't look like the type species which, I remind you, the hopeful mutant is going to have to breed with. This is partially or largely an old hat discussion.

I apologize for insulting you.