I thank you for taking time to comment on my posts.
The issue of C. Elegans was cited by Michael Denton which referenced C. Kenyon's article: A perfect Vulva Every time. If that 1995 paper is not longer accurate, I will happily cite another redundant system.
Regarding redundancy, I am purchasing Andreas Wagner's book based on your recommendation.
You may have your feelings about Sanford, but he was a die-hard Old-Earth Darwinist before changing his mind. I felt his arguments from population genetics were very substantive. I'd be willing to be informed of any theoretical refutations.
In any case, thank you for taking the time to engage my thesis. It will help my presention of the material in it's next incarnation.
regards,
Salvador T. Cordova
The paper by Kenyon references Sternberg's work, but I think there may be dispute here.
In any case here is a PdF copy I was lucky enough to dig up:
A perfect Vulva Every Time
In summary, the great debate between the champions of gradients and cascades may end in a draw. In C. ele-
gans, it looks as though the pattern of vulval cell fates can be specified in either way: by using a single graded signal that emanates from a central source or by using a relay
system in which one signaling cell tells its neighbors to produce a second signal, which, in turn, patterns more remote cells. When either system is eliminated, all the
vulval cell fates can still be produced. If these two systems both operate during normal development, then together they could produce the ever-perfect tiny vulvae that C.
elegans is so famous for.
Salvador wrote:
The issue of C. Elegans was cited by Michael Denton which referenced C. Kenyon's article: A perfect Vulva Every time. If that 1995 paper is not longer accurate, I will happily cite another redundant system.
Thanks for clarifying that, at last. Now we know what piece of redundancy you and Denton were alluding to. However, I stand by my comments -- Cynthia Kenyon's speculation in the paper you cite (written over 10 years ago) does not warrant your conclusions: the two mechanisms are only partially redundant. I'll explain in my blog later today.
Regarding redundancy, I am purchasing Andreas Wagner's book based on your recommendation.
That's an excellent idea: you might learn something. Wagner does a fine job of bringing together many different types of biological robustness (genetic code, RNA folding, signal transduction, metabolism, development, etc) -- certainly more fields than I'm competent to evaluate. It even discusses it in the context of engineering systems, which should appeal to you. Let me know what you think.
You may have your feelings about Sanford, but he was a die-hard Old-Earth Darwinist before changing his mind.
Evidently he wasn't so die-hard after all. It's just that changing his mind on the age of the earth doesn't speak well to his scientific acumen. As far as I'm concerned, it's like believing in perpetual motion, astrology or homeopathy.
I felt his arguments from population genetics were very substantive. I'd be willing to be informed of any theoretical refutations.
I don't know about any of his arguments since he has chosen not to share them with the population genetics community. But I'd be happy to consider any of his arguments if you'd like to explain (or point me to) them. I just won't buy the book until I'm persuaded that there's some value to it.
In any case, thank you for taking the time to engage my thesis. It will help my presention of the material in it's next incarnation.
I'm happy to do so. But before you go on to find another example of redundancy to trumpet, could you please clarify exactly what the "argument from redundancy" for ID creationism is.
As a scientist specializing in informatics of the genome "in toto" (this is the latest codeword to do away with formerly "junk" DNA), I have two comments to make.
The first one is rather general. John Mattick would probably agree (ask him) that after so many decades of biological insights into "junk", time has come to turn to professional information science to help decode DNA. (The DNA is information, the whole information, and nothing but information for living organisms).
One such approach is "FractoGene" ( http://www.fractogene.com , see also the latest results at http://www.fractogem.com )
Yes, while it is an algorithmic approach, it is predictive, moreover the prediction for the fugu DNA (1/8 of the human DNA) were supported by experimentation, and yes, the results have been published by a peer-reviewed science journal (http://www.junkdna.com/fractogene/
05_simons_pellionisz.html)
For some (those who may not be too deeply into math) Fractals and DNA may sound like a chapter from SciFi.
Indeed, the just released SciFi (Threshold) does exactly that:
-- [clip from review of Hollywood movie, "Threshold"]"
In the lab, the mysterious fractal pattern that shows up on the ship's electronic scopes, is analyzed and reveals a triple-helix DNA pattern
--
In short, FractoGene holds that (demonstrated) fractality of DNA is in a cause-and-effect relationship with the (demonstrated) fractality of organelles, organs and organisms (e.g. the so-called Purkinje neuron of the brain, see above article in the Journal "The Cerebellum").
My second note is about Dr. John Sanford. Some may not know that he is a highly qualified geneticist (Ph.D. with dozens of peer-reviewed papers and dozens of issued patents, just one of which, the "Gene Gun" produces the overwhelming majority of plant for food as well as ornaments with enhanced genomic features - generating an unprecedented wealth to Cornell University).
It is simply not true that Dr. Sanford "did not share" his advanced thinking about evolution. (His book "Genetic Entropy" is available for everyone at Amazon.com).
It is correctly stated that he - just like most anyone in Biological Sciences - Dr. Sanford started with the simplistic and, not surprisingly, in many regards dogmatic and obsolete "Darwinism". (Mind you, primitive "Darwinism" is not exactly a 21st Century discipline...)
True, that recently Dr. Sanford arrived at some conclusions that would, no doubt, simply arrest one's thinking. His thesis is that yes, there is an evolution - but in the wrong direction, since (as he makes a hard-to-refute point in his book) the "Genetic Entropy" seems to explode, and the human genome actually appears to deteriorate.
If one reads CAREFULLY the drafted testimony of this soft-spoken academic with more accomplishments under his belt than probably all lawyers in the "monkey trial" (combined), one is rather disgusted about the cut-throat and deliberately co
...deliberately confusing barrage by the epitome of "American Lawyers" (regular jokes skipped here...), dumped on Dr. Sanford.
He donated some time as a drafted witness whose thinking advanced a bit from "simplistic Darwinism".
As he was punched into a corner by an incredibly arrogant cross-examiner, what he appeared to mean by the surprisingly recent development of "our World", was the time when "MODERN HUMANS" appeared.
When one compares Dr. Sanford's very low number of thousands of years, one should keep in mind that it all depends on what the definition of "MODERN HUMANS" would be.
Looking at the 15,000 (or so) years, according to Scientific American, when sub-species of homo sapiens branched out from Africa to Australia (in one direction) and to South America (in the other direction), Dr. Sanford's numbers don't seem to be a basis for his outright dismissal.
In fact, those prone for "quick dismissal" should keep in mind that most (not all) Darwinists were simply wrong to have labeled 98.7% of the (human) DNA "junk". Dr. Mattick argued in Sci.Am (2004) that it was "the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology" to dismiss "junk" DNA.
Just because Dr. Sanford no longer needs to put up with the cut-throat academic career-back-stabbing, it does not follow that Academia is right to dismiss a soft-spoken independent thinker.
Regards,
Dr. Pellionisz
pellionisz@junkdna.com
Commenting by HaloScan
