Re: Comments on Snoke's approach

From: Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri Sep 23 2005 - 11:07:17 EDT

Cornelius Hunter wrote:

>
>
>
> You also said that "One could argue effectively that once there exists
> a reproducing organism, the probability that in time there would be a
> vast diverse range of species is close to unity." Again, I don't know
> how one could defend this. Everything we understand about population
> genetics and adaptation points to limits to adaptation. And there is
> no effective argument for how the intricate complexities in biology
> could have arisen from a single cell. All we have are broad
> speculations based on the presupposition that evolution has occurred.
>

Could you elaborate about these limits to adaptation. How familiar are
you with the present theories of how complexities in biology may have
arisen from a single cell?
Let's not confuse our ignorance with actual problems. Yes, in many cases
we have broad speculations based on the fact of evolution and these
speculations lead to testable hypotheses which increase our knowledge.
This ways, science has found how neutrality seems to be essential for
evolvability and that neutrality itself can be selected for. Neutrality
helps explain the episodic nature of phenotype evolution: apparant
stasis followed by quick adaptation. Our knowledge of gene duplication
has helped us understand how complexities in evolution may arise. We may
miss many details but the general outline seems to strongly disagree
with your understanding.
How familiar are you with the work on the evolution of the genetic code?
Knight, Freeland, Landweber or Scale free networks in RNA? Walter
Fontana, Peter Schuster, Peter Stadler, Mark Toussaint? What about
Kauffman's work on complexity and self-organization.
They have proposed and tested fascinating hypotheses that further our
understanding of how life may have arisen and evolved.
Received on Fri Sep 23 11:08:42 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 23 2005 - 11:08:42 EDT