Darwinist's Dilemma (Are I.D. Biologists Legit?)

If you haven't read the book, you should. It would confirm your statements almost 100%. It's called an Evolutionary Stable Strategy. And genes that do well in the presence of other "complementary" genes and environmental influences are the ones that will be most "fit".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I read the book the year it came out. I don't disagree with much of it, but any emphasis on genes ignores the fact that its all chance, evolution has no direction.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And recessive phenotypes can manifest (like webbed paws of polar bears) from mutations, thus increasing the potential adaptability of the gene pools of the respective syngameons.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And gobbledygook to you too.:bugeye:

 

Oops. I hope you're kidding? The mutations available for evolution to work on are random, yes (mostly horribly un-beneficial) but the selection process based on the environment (the physical and the other genetic presences) is very non-random. It is driven by unforgiving ability to survive (replicate) in a given environment and the best are selected for. Very much not random.

"chance" is at the heart of ill-informed arguments against evolution by natural selection. Yes?

 

Ah shucks mam.

 

When you say complementary genes, how is that driven?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Like syngameon?

 

I'll refer you to the elegant analogy of the rowing team Dawkins uses in his book. Do you still have it?

 

Sam says "evolution has no direction," so I don't think she'll go with the rowing team deal.

 

Not with me, my books have a tendency to be borrowed, never to be returned.

Anyway I know the example you mean, have you heard of linkage disequilibrium?

And you forget, its a purely theoretical argument with NO evidence.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think I understand what she meant. Evolution has no goal other than the survival of replicators into the next round. It has no higher "direction".

Right sam?

 

How can a process (evolution) have or not have a goal? A process is not a thinking being.

 

Survival is also not a goal of evolution. Its a side effect of gene-environment interaction that works.

 

Wow you made sense, I must be more ill than I thought.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, you are that ill (just kidding).

 

As in the somewhat nonrandom frequency of certain alleles in a population? Yep. But I'm not a geneticist so I don't really know what the far reaching implications or causes of this might be.

None? It's a testable hypothesis. Someone must have done some supporting research in the decades since he published the book?

 

Hence the italics, meaning DO NOT TAKE LITERALLY.

 

On behaviour as a consequence of gene complexes? I honestly don't know. I haven't delved deeply into the subject, most of my knowledge is from bits and pieces of popular science.

 

It can't. Can we assume that we will sometimes use anthropomorphization to make a point or clarify something and dispense with the nit-picking?