Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Natural selection as negative principle only

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A friend writes to note what philosopher of science, John Elof Boodin (1869-1950), had to say about natural selection:

The principle of natural selection is indeed an important contribution to biology. But it is a negative, not an architectonic, principle. It does not explain why variations appear, why they cumulate, why they assume an organization in the way of more successful adaptation. Organisms must, of course, be able to maintain themselves in their life environment and in the physical environment, in order to leave descendants and determine the character of the race. But that is all natural selection tells us. It does not explain the traits and organization of organisms nor why they become well or badly adapted to their specific environment.

Can’t seem to find this online, but it’s consistent with something we did find:

Even in such fields as science, where reason is supposed to be most at home, we drift invariably into traditions and schools. Darwin’s hypothesis of chance variations and natural selection has not merely become a dogma of science, but has been erected into a philosophy of the universe; and the limitations of the hypothesis and the empirical spirit of its creator have been lost sight of in an intolerant tradition which has had serious consequences, not only for the development of natural science but for the social ideals and progress of the race. This is only one instance where mysticism has supplanted reason in science and where the authority of facts has been forced to yield to the authority of tradition. In every field of science we are haunted by ghosts of the past to which lesser minds pay superstitious reverence and by which even greater minds are misled into false assumptions. And the most dangerous ghost of all is that mechanical materialism which, while it has no scientific credentials but is simply a false dogma tacked on to science, has become fashionable among scientists. If science is always in danger of subordinating reason and experience to dogmas, the danger is even greater iii philosophy and art where the emotional element naturally plays a greater part – John E. Boodin. “The Law of Social Participation”, American Journal of Sociology, 27, 1921: 22-53.

Imagine, 1921… Well before Mencken on the Scopes Monkey Trial (1925) and Buck v. Bell (1927). Also:

The modern point of view which finds its typical expression in Darwinism emphasizes change, history, mechanical causes, flux of species, determination of the higher by the lower. History runs on like an old man’s tale without beginning, middle, or end, without any guiding plot. It is infinite and formless. Chance rules supreme. It despises final causes.

More on Boodin’ approach here. See also: Natural selection: Could it be the single greatest idea ever invented?

Comments
EugeneS & KF
However, the bottom line is, as soon as it demonstrably functional, it is teleologic and, consequently, choice contingent. Function points to decision making.
Is there are similar classification of what is meant by "function"? For example, there's inorganic, mechanical, physical "functions". Those are obviously different than biological function.Silver Asiatic
March 31, 2016
March
03
Mar
31
31
2016
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
Origenes: What is it that a gene is “supposed to do”? FGF5 is one of a family fibroblast growth factors. A mutation to this gene causes dog hair to grow long. Origenes: It’s hard to envision when it comes in handy to have long fluffy wire hair completely covering one’s eyes. Long hair can be an advantage in hunting or herding dogs in cold or damp climates, such as the Skye and Tibetan Terriers. In any case, a peculiar species of ape will provide food and shelter to dogs with long hair. They'll even cut their hair! You might think of it as a parasitic relationship, but the ape seems to derive some benefit from the dog. Origenes: Yes, a 167-bp deletion at the 3? end of the R-spondin-2 (RSPO2) gene is strongly associated with wire hair and furnishings, the latter being the moustache and eyebrows characteristically seen, for instance, in the schnauzer. Furnishings are not the ancestral state.
To genotype the insertion in RSPO2, the size of each segment was checked on agarose gels to determine the presence or absence. (Figure S5)... Figure S5: For the mutation in RSPO2 , the size of each segment was checked on agarose gels to determine the presence or absence of the insertion (167 bp).
Try reading the actual paper instead of relying upon a secondary source. Origenes: Dogs have numerous health problems compared to wolves. Some, but not all, breeds of dog do have specific genetic health problems. However, wolves have their own health issues. In any case, the curly-hair mutation is not the trigger for canine health problems — as evidenced by the existence of healthy curly-haired dogs. Origenes: Not one of the dog races can survive in the wild — with the exception of the Dingo. Actually, many dog breeds are capable of feral behavior.Zachriel
March 31, 2016
March
03
Mar
31
31
2016
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
KF, I think that this classification is not invariant. It is relative to the concrete information context. In particular, what may appear to be an unspecified random sequence, may in fact be specific in a given information processing system (e.g. it can be used as a cryptographic key). Again, what seems redundant may actually be there for a reason. In a biological context, this is exemplified by the C-value paradox. Basically, the determinant is whether the sequence is functional i.e. serves to achieve a pragmatic goal. The information context is represented, in Abel's terms, by the pair {data,processor}. However, the bottom line is, as soon as it demonstrably functional, it is teleologic and, consequently, choice contingent. Function points to decision making.EugeneS
March 31, 2016
March
03
Mar
31
31
2016
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
I became interesting in Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig's work about 8 years ago and found him to be brilliant and original. I've followed him ever since. I notice from the press release cited above:
“We could,” says Paul Schulze-Lefert, executive director of the Institute, “[be] ridiculed, [if] we would continue to tolerate this amalgamation of scientific findings and personal opinion on our sites.” ... Personal opinions, even if they “appear superficially abstruse” (Schulze-Lefert), [are] explicitly tolerated – but must be clearly labeled.
In none of that was Dr. Lönnig's 'scientific findings' questioned or rejected. They just don't like the addition of his "personal opinions", to his papers. I find that humorous. Just about 100% of peer reviewed scientific papers include personal opinion. That's what "interpretation of the data is" - it's just opinion. Evolutionists draw supposed conclusions about data always based on personal opinion and a materialistic bias. In fact, I don't recall any "clearly indicating" opinion from the actual findings, as the M.P. Institute is supposedly requiring. Finally, they could merely have appended footnotes to Lönnig's work stating that some of what he said was opinion. Instead, they deleted links to everything. That's the classic sign of over-reaction to the uncomfortable evidence that Lönnig provided so wonderfully. The key phrase in the press release is "we could be ridiculed ..." That's not a very good motive for shutting off free inquiry in science. But it's understandable since evolutionists are known to be extreme and filled with hatred when it comes to ridiculing people. And the rank and file academics are not accustomed to that. So, it's better to unjustly tarnish the reputation of one scientist rather than face the wrath of hostile opponents. That's what's known as intimidation.Silver Asiatic
March 31, 2016
March
03
Mar
31
31
2016
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
KF #156
First, you are talking to a man subjected to online and on the ground stalking, outing and attempted career busting by darwinist anti-ID activists — including uninvolved family members, who has had to go to the police on the matter. So, I suggest you put things in proportion.
Fine, but I wasn't talking to or about you.
Second, the key in-focus facts I have cited are patent and it is your side’s refusal to face such facts that is material, let me again clip from 1984 in Thaxton et al, TMLO . . . literally the first ID technical work:
If you want to change the topic that's fine but I think you should open up a new thread.
What your side is asked to do is to acknowledge, as a test, a patent and readily recognised fact, one put on the table in literally the first ID technical work, a decade before Dembski et al.
Again, is this part of this thread? And why do we/I have to agree with you?
First, OSC with an example of a regular repeating array similar to a crystal — though there is some info content there also. Second, a typical case of RSC . . . and yes in principle randomness can produce any pattern but the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of gibberish so a typical gibberish case is shown, yielding complexity without functional specificity. Third, a textual message that is instantly seen as functional and configuration-specific. In addition, relevant examples at molecular level are also given. What is the reaction? What looks a lot like stubborn resistance to patent facts multiplied by a resort to polarisng, atmosphere poisoning talking points. Revealing. And telling on why the debates over design inferenceon signs deadlocks and often ends in polarisation. Also, a sign that the issue at stake is not really facts and inference to best empirically grounded explanation but instead ideology. There is a dominant worldview, evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers, and the design inference on signs patently threatens it.
We've been over all this many, many times before. Now you bring it up because you didn't like the term I used to refer to someone whose self-publications are very questionable. Again, if you want to discuss all that then start another thread.
The attempts to “get” Loenig seem to me a case of poisoning the well rather than simply facing the fact that it is inappropriate to characterise a fellow of the Max Planck Institute — whatever onward debates he may have had and whatever the pros and cons of such — as an unpublished loon. The refusal to respond appropriately to such is an all too revealing sign of witch-hunt tactics.
I'm not trying to 'get' him. I'm not the only one who finds his 'findings' wrong and a bit bizarre. Go out an have a look. 'Loon' is far nicer of a term that what I've been referred to by people on this site including Barry. It took you two tries to get rid of Joe even though he admitted it was him creating his 'Virgil' persona the second time. Mapou has been rude and abusive for a very long time and it wasn't until I pointed it out that anyone did anything about it. I don't HAVE to agree with your interpretation of the genomic data. I don't HAVE to convince other people to do that either. I am generally a pretty placid and courteous commentator on this blog, especially considering the abuse I've suffered over the years. I use one word you object to and you come down on my head. Where were you when Mapou was abusing people right and left? How many times did you have to tell Joe/Virgil to calm down until someone finally banned him? Twice. Have you even looked at the times Barry has called people he disagrees with liars and fools? I won't use the term 'loon' anymore since it bothers you so much. And you won't have to tell me again because I am better behaved than some of your cohorts. And I'm not going to raise to your bait on this occasion again. If you want to discuss those other issues that's fine: start another thread.ellazimm
March 31, 2016
March
03
Mar
31
31
2016
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
A few notes based on Wolf-EkkehardLönnig’s “Unser Haushund: Eine Spitzmaus im Wolfspelz?“ Dawkins argues in favor of “progressive evolution” towards more and more complexity, however he doesn’t seem to notice that the evolution from wolf to Chihuahua goes into the wrong direction: backwards! ------ Not one of the dog races can survive in the wild — with the exception of the Dingo. ----- The Irish Wolfhound (the largest dog) is not clearly larger and heavier than a wolf. The life span of a wolf is about 20 years. The Irish Wolfhound: 28% dies before the age of five; 63% before the age of eight, 91% before the age of ten.
Wiki: Dilated cardiomyopathy and bone cancer are the leading cause of death and like all deep-chested dogs, gastric torsion (bloat) is common; the breed is affected by hereditary intrahepatic portosystemic shunt.
Epilepsie, Rückenmarksembolien, Primäre Ciliäre Dyskinesie/Rhinitissyndrom, Progressive Retinaatrophie, Von-Willebrand-Krankheit, Calcinosis circumscripta. And much much more …. -------- Small dogs. "Dackelbeine" — short stumpy bow legs. Achondroplasie, Chondrodysplasie, Osteochondrodysplasie. Parker und Elaine A. Ostrander, Cancer Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.") "In the case of short-legged dogs, the inserted retrogene results in the overproduction of the FGF4 protein, which researchers hypothesize may turn on key growth receptors at the wrong times during fetal development. Veterinary researchers already know that in certain dog breeds the development of long bones is curtailed due to calcification of growth plates, resulting in short legs with a curved appearance. The trait, called disproportional dwarfism, or chondrodysplasia, is an American Kennel Club standard for more than a dozen domestic dog breeds, including the dachshund, corgi, Pekingese and basset hound.” http://www.science20.com/news_articles/fgf4_evolutionary_origin_dachshunds_and_what_it_may_tell_us_about_human_dwarfism. Originalartikel: Parker et al. (2009): An Expressed Fgf4 Retrogene Is Associated with Breed-Defining Chondrodysplasia in Domestic Dogs. Science 325: 995-998: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5943/995.short. ------ Türkischer Nackthund, Afrikanischer Nackthund, American Hairless Terrier, Mexikanischer Nackthund, Peruanischer Nackthund, Chinesischer Schopfhund. Loss of teeth. "Mutations in the EDA, EDAR, and EDARADD genes of the ectodysplasin signalling pathway produce a closely related phenotype called anhidrotic ectodermal dysplasia. Anhidrotic ectodermal dysplasia is characterized by the absence of hair, dentition abnormalities, and alterations in certain exocrine glands, the latter feature seen not at all or less severe in CED." ---- White skin and wrong colors. Related to deafness, albinos. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10390790 (G.M. Strain 1999): "Congenital deafness in dogs and cats is primarily of the hereditary sensorineural form associated with white pigmentation genes, although acquired forms of deafness are possible. Highest prevalence is seen in white cats, especially those with blue eyes, and the Dalmatian, with many other dog breeds affected to some extent. This deafness results from degeneration of the cochlear blood supply at age 3-4 weeks, presumably resulting from suppression of melanocytes by the white (cat) or merle or piebald (dog) genes.” --- Chihuahuas, and other toy breeds, are prone to the sometimes painful disease hydrocephalus. It is often diagnosed by the puppy having an abnormally large head, or hydrocephalus, during the first several months of life, but other symptoms are more noticeable since "a large head" is such a broad description. Chihuahua puppies exhibiting hydrocephalus usually have patchy skull plates rather than a solid bone and typically are lethargic and do not grow at the same pace as their siblings. A true case of hydrocephalus can be diagnosed by a veterinarian, though the prognosis is grim. Chihuahuas have moleras, or a soft spot in their skulls, and they are the only breed of dog to be born with an incomplete skull.Origenes
March 31, 2016
March
03
Mar
31
31
2016
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
Me_Think All your citations just point to one thing the Darwin lobby using its bullying tactics to supreme ID from getting equal air time. This has happened to allot of pro ID material and to deny it makes you a liar.Andre
March 31, 2016
March
03
Mar
31
31
2016
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT
EZ, First, you are talking to a man subjected to online and on the ground stalking, outing and attempted career busting by darwinist anti-ID activists -- including uninvolved family members, who has had to go to the police on the matter. So, I suggest you put things in proportion. Let us focus facts. Second, the key in-focus facts I have cited are patent and it is your side's refusal to face such facts that is material, let me again clip from 1984 in Thaxton et al, TMLO . . . literally the first ID technical work:
1. [Class 1, OSC in later terms:] An ordered (periodic) and therefore specified arrangement: THE END THE END THE END THE END Example: Nylon, or a crystal . . . . 2. [Class 2, RSC:] A complex (aperiodic) unspecified arrangement: AGDCBFE GBCAFED ACEDFBG Example: Random polymers (polypeptides). 3. [Class 3, FSC:] A complex (aperiodic) specified arrangement: THIS SEQUENCE OF LETTERS CONTAINS A MESSAGE! Example: DNA, protein.
What your side is asked to do is to acknowledge, as a test, a patent and readily recognised fact, one put on the table in literally the first ID technical work, a decade before Dembski et al. First, OSC with an example of a regular repeating array similar to a crystal -- though there is some info content there also. Second, a typical case of RSC . . . and yes in principle randomness can produce any pattern but the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of gibberish so a typical gibberish case is shown, yielding complexity without functional specificity. Third, a textual message that is instantly seen as functional and configuration-specific. In addition, relevant examples at molecular level are also given. What is the reaction? What looks a lot like stubborn resistance to patent facts multiplied by a resort to polarisng, atmosphere poisoning talking points. Revealing. And telling on why the debates over design inferenceon signs deadlocks and often ends in polarisation. Also, a sign that the issue at stake is not really facts and inference to best empirically grounded explanation but instead ideology. There is a dominant worldview, evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers, and the design inference on signs patently threatens it. KF PS: A further full decade prior to Thaxton et al, we have an astonishing set of points from Orgel -- in a book that has long been an ID sleeper:
. . . In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . . . [HT, Mung, fr. p. 190 & 196:] These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure. [--> this is of course equivalent to the string of yes/no questions required to specify the relevant "wiring diagram" for the set of functional states, T, in the much larger space of possible clumped or scattered configurations, W, as Dembski would go on to define in NFL in 2002, also cf here, here and here (with here on self-moved agents as designing causes).] One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. [--> so if the q's to be answered are Y/N, the chain length is an information measure that indicates complexity in bits . . . ] On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions. [--> do once and repeat over and over in a loop . . . ] Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all . . . . Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes. [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189, p. 190, p. 196. Of course, that immediately highlights OOL, where the required self-replicating entity is part of what has to be explained (cf. Paley here), a notorious conundrum for advocates of evolutionary materialism; one, that has led to mutual ruin documented by Shapiro and Orgel between metabolism first and genes first schools of thought, cf here. Behe would go on to point out that irreducibly complex structures are not credibly formed by incremental evolutionary processes and Menuge et al would bring up serious issues for the suggested exaptation alternative, cf. his challenges C1 - 5 in the just linked. Finally, Dembski highlights that CSI comes in deeply isolated islands T in much larger configuration spaces W, for biological systems functional islands. That puts up serious questions for origin of dozens of body plans reasonably requiring some 10 - 100+ mn bases of fresh genetic information to account for cell types, tissues, organs and multiple coherently integrated systems.]
PPS: The attempts to "get" Loenig seem to me a case of poisoning the well rather than simply facing the fact that it is inappropriate to characterise a fellow of the Max Planck Institute -- whatever onward debates he may have had and whatever the pros and cons of such -- as an unpublished loon. The refusal to respond appropriately to such is an all too revealing sign of witch-hunt tactics.kairosfocus
March 31, 2016
March
03
Mar
31
31
2016
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT
Andre @ 150
If I have 2.8gb and I lose 167bp then I have loss of information. A loss always means less not same not more. Unless you are a materialist….. Then it’s no loss but an insertion. Phew it must be tough being dishonest with yourself.
I said 'reduction of gene function' @ 148, not reduction in information.Me_Think
March 31, 2016
March
03
Mar
31
31
2016
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT
Andre @ 153
Your link is of course incorrect, the spelling is wrong, also please can you give me a source from Max Planck Institute that verifies your allegations please.
Of course the spelling is right. Lönnig with double dot on O (Umlauted vowel) is 'oe'- Umlauted vowels can't be used easily in URL. In fact you will find the same link in Lönnig's own external webpage at http://www.we-loennig.de/ under heading 'Publikationen' There are multiple links to the sordid affair: http://www.zeit.de/2003/19/Kreationisten http://www.martin-neukamm.de/max-planck1.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v422/n6931/full/422460b.html He is even featured in ID Movie 'Expelled' complaining about the institute. The press release in German :
Der Präsident der MPG, Peter Gruß, verlangte von den vier Direktoren des Kölner Instituts eine Überprüfung der wissenschaftlichen Inhalte auf Lönnigs Seiten. Daraufhin wurden die Seiten zunächst gesperrt. Lönnig genoss zwar die Unterstützung seines direkten Vorgesetzten und MPI-Direktors Heinz Saedler ("Freie Meinung beflügelt die Wissenschaft"). Am Montag hat das vierköpfige Direktorium nach dreistündiger Debatte aber entschieden, dass Lönnigs Website in dieser Form "nicht akzeptabel" sei. "Wir hätten uns", sagt Paul Schulze-Lefert, geschäftsführender Direktor des Instituts, "lächerlich gemacht, würden wir diese Verquickung von wissenschaftlich abgesicherten Befunden und persönlicher Meinung weiterhin auf unseren Sites dulden." Nur eine "massiv entrümpelte" Web-Seite von Lönnig wird in Zukunft auf dem MPG-Server zu finden sein. Die am Montag beschlossenen neuen Regeln für das Gestalten von MPIZ-Websites seien jedoch keine "Lex Lönnig". Sie gelten für alle Mitarbeiter. Unter anderem dürfen nur Publikationen, die ein peer rewiew durchlaufen haben, aufgelistet sein. Persönliche Meinungen, auch wenn sie (Schulze-Lefert) "vordergründig abstrus erscheinen", werden explizit geduldet – müssen aber klar gekennzeichnet sein.
Google Translation: The president of the MPG, Peter Greeting, demanded that the four directors of the Cologne Institute a review of the scientific content on Lönnig pages. Then the pages were initially blocked. Although Lönnig enjoyed the support of his immediate superiors and MPI Director Heinz Saedler ( "Freedom of inspired science"). On Monday, the four-member Board has after three hours of debate, but decided that Lönnig site in this form "unacceptable" was. "We could," says Paul Schulze-Lefert, executive director of the Institute, "ridiculed, we would continue to tolerate this amalgamation of scientific findings and personal opinion on our sites." Only a "massive entrümpelte" web page of Lönnig will be found in future on the MPG server. However, the agreed on Monday new rules for the design of MPIZ websites are not "Lex Lönnig". They apply to all employees. Among others may only publications that have undergone a peer rewiew be listed. Personal opinions, even if they "appear superficially abstruse" (Schulze-Lefert), explicitly tolerated - but must be clearly labeled.Me_Think
March 31, 2016
March
03
Mar
31
31
2016
01:35 AM
1
01
35
AM
PDT
Andre @ 118 He worked at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research until 2008. He was such an embarrassment to Max Planck that it had to removed his publication list: http://www.mpipz.mpg.de/~loennig/literatur.html He surreptitiously ran personal homepage on Max Planck server to give credibility to his research
Your link is of course incorrect, the spelling is wrong, also please can you give me a source from Max Planck Institute that verifies your allegations please. I find it very peculiar that a Professor Emeritus was an embarrassment (your claim) to the institution.Andre
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
11:26 PM
11
11
26
PM
PDT
Insertions may add information and it may add function but almost always at a cost to the organism..... These terms are used incorrectly in most cases anyway. The Best example that you guys have is sickle cell anaemia, but no matter how awesome the trait that you gained resistance to malaria, sickle cell anaemia kills you. Here is probably the best lecture I know of about insertions' deletions, and function. http://mcb.berkeley.edu/courses/mcb142/lecture%20topics/Dernburg/Lecture6_Chapter8_screenviewing.pdfAndre
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT
.... so, insertions are always gains of information?wd400
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT
If I have 2.8gb and I lose 167bp then I have loss of information. A loss always means less not same not more. Unless you are a materialist..... Then it's no loss but an insertion. Phew it must be tough being dishonest with yourself.Andre
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT
one 167bp deletion out of 2.8 Gb ignoring other insertion is supposed to be reduction of gene function ?
It's an insertion -- supplimentary table 5 has the info (pdf). It doesn't actually matter, a deletion that leads to increase transcription and a new phenotype is just as much and addition of information as an insertion that does so. It also disproves the original claim that dog variation is just "culled from the wolf genome". But the mistake does suggest Lönnnig has only a superficial understanding of this paper.wd400
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT
Origenes @ 147
Yes, a 167-bp deletion at the 3? end of the R-spondin-2 (RSPO2) gene is strongly associated with wire hair and furnishings, the latter being the moustache and eyebrows characteristically seen, for instance, in the schnauzer.
one 167bp deletion out of 2.8 Gb ignoring other insertion is supposed to be reduction of gene function ?
Dogs have numerous health problems compared to wolves.
What are you trying to prove? We have more health problems than Dog. So?Me_Think
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
Zachriel,
Origenes: It is degeneration, reductions and losses of functions of genes.
Zachriel: You can attach your label, but doesn’t make the label appropriate. The gene does everything it’s supposed to do, and, depending on the particular mutations, also adds variety to the population.
What is it that a gene is “supposed to do”? It’s hard to envision when it comes in handy to have long fluffy wire hair completely covering one’s eyes.
Zachriel: The deletion refers to the ancestral state.
Yes, a 167-bp deletion at the 3' end of the R-spondin-2 (RSPO2) gene is strongly associated with wire hair and furnishings, the latter being the moustache and eyebrows characteristically seen, for instance, in the schnauzer.
Origenes: There may be some health problems related to keratin.
Zachriel: Sure, but the specific mutation involved is not the trigger, as evidenced by health curly-haired dogs.
Dogs have numerous health problems compared to wolves.Origenes
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
Origenes: It is degeneration, reductions and losses of functions of genes. You can attach your label, but doesn't make the label appropriate. The gene does everything it's supposed to do, and, depending on the particular mutations, also adds variety to the population. More variety means more information. Origenes: (“A 167-bp deletion, indicated by the small red rectangle, is located within all three haplotypes in the 3’UTR of the RSPO2 gene.”) The deletion refers to the ancestral state.
All exons and conserved regions of RSPO2 were sequenced in dogs from seven breeds (table S4). Only an insertion of 167 base pairs (bp) within the 3'UTR at position 11,634,766 was perfectly associated with the furnishings trait in dogs from both the case/control study and the extended pedigree (table S5). The result was further confirmed in a set of 704 dogs of varying phenotypes. In total, 297 of 298 dogs with furnishings were either homozygous (268) or heterozygous (29) for the insertion, and all 406 dogs lacking the trait were homozygous for the ancestral state, as is consistent with a dominant mode of inheritance (table S1).
Insertion is mentioned repeatedly throughout the text in relation to furnishing. Origenes: There may be some health problems related to keratin. Sure, but the specific mutation involved is not the trigger, as evidenced by health curly-haired dogs.Zachriel
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
Zachriel,
Origenes: those genes are found in wolves but certain mutations in those genes are not found in wolves.
Zachriel: That’s right. They are new information not found in the wolf genome.
Nope. It is degeneration, reductions and losses of functions of genes.
Origenes: Loennig explains in his manuscript that the RSPO2 mutation found in dogs is a ‘167-bp deletion’.
Zachriel: No. It’s a 167-bp *insertion*. See Cadieu et al., Coat Variation in the Domestic Dog Is Governed by Variants in Three Genes, Science 2010.
Funny that you cite this paper. Lönnnig comments on that paper: “Die Autoren sprechen hier im Text der Originalarbeit einmal von "insertion" und zur Erklärung ihrer Fig. 1 (p. 151) von einer "deletion" ("A 167-bp deletion, indicated by the small red rectangle, is located within all three haplotypes in the 3'UTR of the RSPO2 gene.”) und nennen das Rechteck indel (insertion/deletion). Im Review sprechen sie jedoch nur von einer Deletion und im Supporting Online Material158 lesen wir: "Only the deletion at position 11 634 766 is perfectly associated with the dominant phenotype.” Der entscheidenede Punkt ist, dass es sich – gemessen am Wildtyp – um eine Deletion handelt (…).“
[my translation] The authors use the term „insertion” only one time in the main text and use the term “deletion” in the explanation of Fig. 1 (p.151) “("A 167-bp deletion, indicated by the small red rectangle, is located within all three haplotypes in the 3'UTR of the RSPO2 gene.”) and use the term rectangle indel (insertion/deletion). However in the review the authors use the term deletion and in the supporting online material we read: ”Only the deletion at position 11 634 766 is perfectly associated with the dominant phenotype.” The crucial point is that it is — relative to the wild type — about a deletion (…)
Origenes: Again we witness degeneration of a highly conserved (1A) region. Several related health problems have been studied
Zachriel: The R151W mutation that causes curly hair in dogs does not result in health problems.
There may be some health problems related to keratin.
Mouse/human: "A number of independent spontaneous mutations in this gene result in a similar dominant phenotype, with curved vibrissae and wavy hair. ENU mutants have also been characterized for abnormalities of keratinization in the inner root sheath of the hair follicle, including one recessive allele” (http://www.informatics.jax.org/marker/MGI:1861586). Dog: "R151W occurs within the highly conserved 1A region of the keratin alpha-helical rod domain, which is important for keratin dimerization (Hatzfeld and Weber, 1990) and which is a frequent site for curly/wavy coat mutations in other species” [several references] (Kaelin and Barsh 2012, p. 75). It seems to be more complex (related is the discovery of a "keratin cluster distinct from KRT71 cluster" - Kaelin and Barsh). [Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig. p. 90] [my translation]
Origenes
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
Origenes: those genes are found in wolves but certain mutations in those genes are not found in wolves. That's right. They are new information not found in the wolf genome. Origenes: Loennig explains in his manuscript that the RSPO2 mutation found in dogs is a ‘167-bp deletion’. No. It's a 167-bp *insertion*. See Cadieu et al., Coat Variation in the Domestic Dog Is Governed by Variants in Three Genes, Science 2010: "Only an insertion of 167 base pairs (bp) within the 3'UTR at position 11,634,766 was perfectly associated with the furnishings trait in dogs from both the case/control study and the extended pedigree." Origenes: Lastly the KRT71 mutation found in dogs (associated with curly fur) is a coding SNP (single-nucleotide substitutions of one base for another). Yes, and therefore represents new information in the dog genome. Origenes: Again we witness degeneration of a highly conserved (1A) region. Several related health problems have been studied The R151W mutation that causes curly hair in dogs does not result in health problems.Zachriel
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
Origenes So, given your view, where did the wolf genome come from? And, by extension, was there some 'first' creature from which all modern life forms descend? What kind of critter would that have been? Did plants come from the same 'root'? Is there fossil evidence of this ultimate ancestor?ellazimm
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
Zachriel: The dog genome has many features not found in wolves.
In the dog genome reductions and losses of functions of genes are found that are not found in wolves. If that’s what you are getting at, then we are in agreement.
Zachriel: Take dog coats, for instance. Three genes have been identified, RSPO2, FGF5 & KRT71 that work in combination. Mutations to these genes, mutations not found in wolves, (…)
To be clear, those genes are found in wolves but certain mutations in those genes are not found in wolves. Got it.
Zachriel: (…) result in coats that are wiry, curly, long, or have furnishings (moustaches and eyebrows). (Short is the ancestral wolf condition.)
Loennig explains in his manuscript that the RSPO2 mutation found in dogs is a ‘167-bp deletion’. Lönnig: “Der entscheidenede Punkt ist, dass es sich – gemessen am Wildtyp – um eine Deletion handelt (…).“ Second the FGF5 mutation found in dogs is a highly conserved Cys changed to Phe (Cys95-->Phe) in exon 1 of FGF5. Loennig remarks: “Highly conserved heißt hoch funktionell und normalerweise notwendig (…)“ — Highly conserved means highly functional and normally necessary. IOWs a degenerative mutation. Lastly the KRT71 mutation found in dogs (associated with curly fur) is a coding SNP (single-nucleotide substitutions of one base for another). Again we witness degeneration of a highly conserved (1A) region. Several related health problems have been studied — see p. 90 [Paragraph 9.10 “Haarformen des Haushunds” (p.86-91); Unser Haushund: Eine Spitzmaus im Wolfspelz? - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.]Origenes
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
Steve
IOW, a constantly increasing fitness is equal to no change in fitness.
That is a great insight. It requires some thought. It's good you didn't elaborate.Silver Asiatic
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
KF #125
The question now on the table for you is can you face patent facts, and — like onto it — are you willing to hold your fellow design objectors accountable to such patent facts?
You're asking me to insist that others who disagree with you should agree with you? Considering the comment of mine you are replying to, are they slandering you by disagreeing? Are they threatening you? Are they even calling you names? Not that I've noticed on this thread. And on this blog on a whole I'd say the abusive behaviour is much more likely to have come from ID supporters like Joe and Mapou and Barry. Remember when Dr Dembski posted a rude video of famous evolutionists farting? You yourself frequently use Nazi-themed metaphors to refer to your adversaries. I'm happy to call people on abusive and inappropriate behaviour but there is no way I'm going to tell anyone else how to think. How can you possibly think that Mapou's behaviour is in any way analogous to our disagreement over the interpretation of genomic data?ellazimm
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Steve
IOW, a constantly increasing fitness is equal to no change in fitness.
If you have to same something this stupid to maintain your original claim maybe it's time to change you claim?wd400
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Other evolutionists (I think I’ve heard of one, somewhere) simply claim that the environment is not “infinitely varying” with “never ending changes” but it’s actually {has many aspects that are} highly ordered, structured and predictable, just like {for example}, day following night. Fixed it for you. You're welcome.Zachriel
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Mung: Randomness in Natural Selection Population genetics deals with that problem. In a diploid population, if a trait results in an increase in the *average* number of fertile progeny of s, then the chance of fixation is 2s. The race is not always to the swift, but time and chance happens to all.Zachriel
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
KF, Many Thanks.EugeneS
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
Mung @ 134 That was an excellent response from W-E L. Dawkins tries to claim that selection is the cause of innovated traits in the population and that evolution is non-random because the fittest, supposedly, are necessarily selected. He just ignores the "... never-ending changes of various environmental parameters ... Hiding places of predator and prey, the distances between them, local differences of biotopes and geographical circumstances, weather conditions and microclimates [which] all belong to the repertoire of infinitely varying parameters. " That kind of randomness can't even be successfully modeled in the present day, much less for the distant past. Other evolutionists (I think I've heard of one, somewhere) simply claim that the environment is not "infinitely varying" with "never ending changes" but it's actually highly ordered, structured and predictable, just like day following night. :-) Others, I imagine, will counter W-EL's detailed and substantial argument by investigating his on-line academic profile.Silver Asiatic
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig brings up to me what appears to be a very valid point. Randomness in Natural SelectionMung
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 7

Leave a Reply