Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational:  :whyyou:

Recent Posts

1
... But the point is that without some imperfection in the reproduction process, i.e. without most, or at least some, offspring being unique, populations are doomed not to adapt. Which is why small populations tend to be vulnerable to extinction. Which is also why the Ark story is so bloody silly, but I do realise that the subtext here is that somehow you've got to get a lot of extra genetic variance into those animal pairs but you can't bring yourself to call them "errors".  But you won't get them from recombination either.  You need new alleles, which means that at least some of the gene sequences need to split and recombine mid-gene in a manner that will produce a gene different from both parents.  Some would call this an "error" in the recombination process.
This was the crux of the issue back in the "Who says Adam didn't have HUNDREDS of alleles?"  days, and Hawkins seems to have made no progress on it since.

Where DID the tens / hundreds / thousands of alleles per locus in animal genomes come from ?

Hint: Spoiler (click to show/hide)

2
So[1], Dave:

You think that HGT, recombination, and presumably transposable elements are all mechanisms that can produce useful genetic variation in a population.  And you would not call any of these "errors".

However, you think that genetic variation that occurs because during reproduction a "wrong" nucleotide is incorporated into the sequence and escapes correction cannot produce useful genetic variation in a population.  You would call these "errors".

Am I right?

If so, can you provide evidence to support the claim?


sorry VoxRat
3
Quote
I told you how I personally was defining error in the context of my post.
Yeah and it's a goofy, useless definition.

It was entirely useful for my point, which is for a population to survive, at least some offspring HAVE to differ from their parents, i.e. "reproduction" needs to be done "with variance".  You can call a ginger-haired child from two black haired parents a "copying error" if you like, or not, if you don't like.  But the point is that without some imperfection in the reproduction process, i.e. without most, or at least some, offspring being unique, populations are doomed not to adapt. Which is why small populations tend to be vulnerable to extinction. Which is also why the Ark story is so bloody silly, but I do realise that the subtext here is that somehow you've got to get a lot of extra genetic variance into those animal pairs but you can't bring yourself to call them "errors".  But you won't get them from recombination either.  You need new alleles, which means that at least some of the gene sequences need to split and recombine mid-gene in a manner that will produce a gene different from both parents.  Some would call this an "error" in the recombination process.

You should adopt a mainstream definition of "error" ... you're always on me about that.  Practice what you preach.

I have never ever insisted on a "mainstream" definition of anything, Dave.  I have said that explicitly.  I don't care how people use words as long as they make it clear what their definition is, in the context in which they are using it, and stick to that definition throughout the argument. It's why we talk about "operational definitions" in science.  If you want to define "holistic" as "cares about pasture quality as well as animal productivity", or whatever, feel free. But don't assume people will take you to mean that if you don't spell it out, and don't then turn round and talk about Darwinists not being "holistic" when by then you are using some quite different definition.

4
OK listen ...

Let's adopt a definition of "error" that we can both use ...

How about this ... "a difference from the parent sequence that escapes the error correction mechanism because of an error correction system malfunction" ... this would not include recombination or HGT.

Can we agree on this definition?

If so, then I'd like to know if you stand by your statement 
Quote
Therefore populations in which the "error" rate is low but non-zero are likely to adapt best and thus leave long lineages.

You can use that definition if you like, Dave, but it makes no sense in the context of my post.  I am NOT restricting sources of deviation from the parent lineage to those unconnected with the process of reproduction.  What I'm saying that the "error rate" (my definition, which INCLUDES those mechanisms you want to include but ALSO includes other variance-producing mechanisms) has to be non-zero for a lineage to survive, because without variation there can be no adaptation.

I assume you agree that without variation there can be no adaptation?

If so, all we disagree on is whether that variation can usefully include variation that you would call an "error" (your definition).  If you think it can't, please supply the evidence.

5
Fucking weasel Darwinists.

Dave, what you see as "weaselling" is simply what "Darwinists" always meant.  The fact that it turns out that you have always misunderstood it doesn't mean anyone has been trying to confuse you.  It means that you didn't pay enough attention or were too rigid to understand what they actually meant.
It could also mean he's never bothered to crack an introductory text on genetics.
6
Fucking weasel Darwinists.

Dave, what you see as "weaselling" is simply what "Darwinists" always meant.  The fact that it turns out that you have always misunderstood it doesn't mean anyone has been trying to confuse you.  It means that you didn't pay enough attention or were too rigid to understand what they actually meant.
7
DAVE'S DEFINITION OF "ERROR"

(AND AYALA'S ... AND EVERYONE ELSE'S EXCEPT PINGU)

"a difference from the parent sequence that escapes the error correction mechanism because of an error correction system malfunction ... HGT and sexual recombination are excluded"

Well, that's another definition.  If you want to use the metaphor to define a specific mechanism for producing genetic variants, that's fine. But don't ascribe that definition to me in the context in which I made my post and in which I defined the word very clearly.  I do NOT mean ONLY variants that arise during copying.  I used it to refer to ANY mechanism, INCLUDING but not RESTRICTED TO variants that arise during copying.

Now, if you want to make the case that a sequence that is different from the parent sequence because it "escape[d] the error correction mechanism" is necessarily deleterious in all environments, be my guest.

I await support for this claim with interest.
8
DAVE'S DEFINITION OF "ERROR"

(AND AYALA'S ... AND EVERYONE ELSE'S EXCEPT PINGU)
Nope.

Show me any mainstream paper that agrees with your definition.

Sauce for the goose...
9
"Errors" as I have defined them above ...

ARE NOT NEEDED

To ensure long lineages.

Well I realise this is your view.  Restating it without evidential support doesn't make it any more persuasive.
Quote
Pingu is wrong if she thinks they are needed.

Dave, for the gazillionth time I did NOT specify that some specific variance-producing mechanism is essential.  I mentioned several that produce variants.  I did NOT define "error" in the narrow way you did, and so I did NOT make the point that you are so anxious to rebut.  It is a STRAW MAN. 

However, if you want to make the case, and you clearly do, that somehow variants that arise during the copying process cannot result in viable and potential variants, whereas variants that arise because of HGT or some other mechanism can, then please provide support for this cases.

Simply typing it in ALL CAPS doesn't provide that support,  Nor does linking to papers that do NOT make the case you want to make, provide support.  duh.
10
DAVE'S DEFINITION OF "ERROR"

(AND AYALA'S ... AND EVERYONE ELSE'S EXCEPT PINGU)

"a difference from the parent sequence that escapes the error correction mechanism because of an error correction system malfunction ... HGT and sexual recombination are excluded"