What happened to "random mutation"?
"Random mutation" has long been a basic part of evolution theory. However, an AOL news article reports a "molecular clock" theory of mutation:
Sounds a lot like John A. Davison's theory of "prescribed evolution."
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Chimpanzees and humans split from a common ancestor just 4 million years ago -- a much shorter time than current estimates of 5 million to 7 million years ago, according to a study published on Friday.
The researchers compared the DNA of chimpanzees, humans and our next-closest ancestor, the gorilla, as well as orangutans.
They used a well-known type of calculation that had not been previously applied to genetics to come up with their own "molecular clock" estimate of when humans became uniquely human . . . . .
. . . . ."Primate evolution is a central topic in biology and much information can be obtained from DNA sequence data," Dr. Asger Hobolth of North Carolina State University said in a statement.
The theory of a molecular clock is based on the premise that all DNA mutates at a certain rate. It is not always a steady rate but it evens out over the millennia and can be used to track evolution.
Sounds a lot like John A. Davison's theory of "prescribed evolution."
posted by Larry Fafarman | 2/24/2007 05:21:00 PM
5 Comments:
>>>"Random mutation" has long been a basic part of evolution theory. However, an AOL news article reports a "molecular clock" theory of mutation:<<<
Strings of random events often result in clock-like rates. One such example is radioactive decay. From wikipedia:
"Radioactive decay is the set of various processes by which unstable atomic nuclei emit subatomic particles (radiation). Decay is said to occur in the parent nucleus and produces a daughter nucleus. This is a random process, i.e. it is impossible to predict when an atomic nucleus will decay or which nuclei in a sample will."
The molecular clock is a direct and predicted result of random mutation.
>>>>> Strings of random events often result in clock-like rates. One such example is radioactive decay. <<<<<<
Radioactive decay is not a good model for evolution. Radioactive atoms don't evolve, but go through one or just a few simple changes -- in contrast, evolving organisms must go through hundreds or thousands of successive changes, many of them complex. The result of radioactive decay of an atom is predictable -- the result of a random mutation is not. Decaying atoms are not concerned with natural selection, co-evolution, sexual reproduction, etc.. The randomness of chaos theory and the butterfly effect are better models for evolution. If evolution were like radioactive decay, species would have half lives.
The dimwit proves again that he doesn't understand the articles that he cites. Try to read the post of anonymous again and perhaps if you read it 51 times over four hours, you may understand at least a bit of it.
Jackass in the Wilderness,
People like you assure me it was a good ideal to stop believing Darwinian fairytales. You do know how obvious it is to see you have no insight no knowledge on the topic, just dumb, blind, faith.
George said...
>>>>>Jackass in the Wilderness,
People like you assure me it was a good ideal to stop believing Darwinian fairytales. You do know how obvious it is to see you have no insight no knowledge on the topic, just dumb, blind, faith. <<<<<
Right on, George. It is typical of VIW to just say that I am wrong without saying why. He just clutters up this blog with comments that do not make worthwhile contributions to the discussions.
BTW, George is not a "sockpuppet."
Post a Comment
<< Home