> From: Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "evolutionary deterioration." > > > > Foget that all the papers sited reference only this one guy who's paper there > is no sign of, and who has not performed a single experiement in support of > his hypothisis (which is what it is). Zhang actualy references ED which is a > very questionable hypothysis.
So what you are saying is that doing extensive examinations and comparisons of DNA sequences from humans, chimps, varieties of other old and new world monkeys, mice, etc. is not research? Again you show a lack of understanding in how science operates. Not all science involves lab experimentation. > > IMMHO (and teaching)->(minor in bio) It's been 5 years but I did take a whole > class on evolution and diversity and the prof did spend a whole 2 sessions > debunking ED. Evolution only happens when there is a significant force, and > usualy a geographic seperation. Genes don't just deteriorate unless there is > a significant reason why that gene was a disadvantage. (over specialization > is still a disadvantage). Did that professor also teach that the earth is flat? There are SO many things wrong with what you just said. I will give two example of 'ED' as you like to put it and explain why they happened. 1. Vitamin C. No old world primates (humans, chimps, gorillas) produce vitamin C. Without an outside source of Vitamin C, humans get scurvy. Humans rely on Plant sources (fruits and vegetables) to provide the necessary nutrient. There is a reason for this seemingly irreducibly complex system. Their are four enzymes required to produce Vitamin C, The Gene for one of these enzymes which is present in all mammals, and new world primates, is a pseudo gene in old world primates. Without this enzyme Vitamin C cannot be produced in humans, and the gene that codes for it is so damaged that it does not work. The reason this gene is damaged is that far in the past the common ancestor to the old world monkeys had a diet that contained more Vitamin C than was necessary. In fact the diet was so Full of Vitamin C (from fruits presumably), that they didn't need to produce it themselves, it was redundant. So in one particular generation this gene was damaged, but because the diet was so full of VC their was no selective disadvantage. Random chance caused this damaged gene to spread throughout the genome of that common ancestor. This is an example of a neutral mutation. The mutation was not selected out, because their was no selection pressure against it, the ancestor had plenty of VC. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/ 2. The Gene that codes for the primary pathway in the VNO is damaged in old world primates, but not in new world primates. This gene exists in almost all mammals. It does not function at all in humans. Their may be secondary pathways in this organ, but that is not the point. With full color vision the need to have this pathway became superfluous. Another neutral mutation that damaged this gene, had little or no effect in the selection of sexual partners in the ancestor that had this mutation. Random chance caused this damaged version to spread throughout the genome and replace the non-damaged version. It is also quite probable that their was a selective advantage to having this gene not function properly. It is clear that in these two cases (and there are others), 'ED', in fact, happened. We have the evidence. We have the gene Sequences from humans and non humans that prove that this gene is damaged in humans and not damaged in animals that use pheromones. You can't argue against this. As a matter of fact, natural Selection occurs at all times and not just in isolated communities, it happens on everything that reproduces itself, from Ideas, to bacteria, to religion. Even a very small selection pressure will produce profound effects. Why don't you learn about evolution before you attack it? You clearly don't understand it. > So curious George Zhang needs to provide a test showing that pheramones do Again, you made personal attacks on scientists. > not work at all in humans. And have a model that explains why pheramones were No. He only needs to show that the gene that codes for this pathway in old world primates does not work. He Has. > a disadvantage. As it is George claims that the genes for our pheramone There is no disadvantage. It provided a function that was neutral. Trichromatic vision had superseded the function of this gene and it became superfluous. > erseptors are "pseudogenes---they don't function any more" but we know this > not to be the case. We know it to be fact. It's not the only gene for this but it is the _primary_ one, the most important one, and it does not function in humans. And it doesn't code for the receptors, those are other genes, this one codes for the primary pathway into the brain. > Unless of course you beleive that others have published "statistical bumps". > But that only happens in exploritories. You generaly don't get statistical > anomolies with a large enough sample space,and if you do, the secondaries > generaly find it. I don't think the 'sample space' was large enough. > Fool, why don't you run off and find us some nice papers on "statistical > bumps" and ED? Becouse this is really were we disagree. I have. We disagree because you attack science instead of trying to understand it. > BTW the paper seems to have been pulled from PNAS. Also you might want to > take a look at this > (http://www.eeb.lsa.umich.edu/eebfacultydetails.asp?ID=96) I am not sure I > trust this source for this sort of information. And why would the University of Michigan put forth incorrect information, as YOU are implying? _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
