Promiscuous Domains and Motifs Are Better Explained by Common Design than Common Descent, (Sal’s module Hypothesis)

Dr. Winston Ewert put forward his module hypothesis, but I put forward an alternate module hypothesis at the domain and motif level of proteins. It is based actually on papers by evolutionists who have pointed out that the problem of “Promiscuous Domains” remains an unsolved problem in evolutionary biology.

When I put Promiscuous Domains on the table in the Common Design vs. Common Descent thread, the TSZ Darwinists ignored the problem and then declared victory. I viewed their non-response as evidence they didn’t understand the problem and/or preferred to ignore it.

Perhaps pictures are worth ten thousand words. From the NIH, that great source inspiration for the Intelligent Design community, we have the CDART database viewer.

From the CDART viewer, I provide a few of the thousands of diagrams that show the promiscuity of protein domains. The diagrams below show the classical zinc finger ZF-C2H2 “ZF” domain and the Plextrin Homology “PH” domains. Note how the location of domains is “shuffled” to different locations in different proteins. It’s as if proteins are made by different lego-like parts in different order and position. My preliminary look into small 4-amino acid motifs that are the target of phosphorylating kinases suggests the the problem of promiscuity goes all the way down to small motif levels.

Such promiscuity is more consistent with common design than common descent.

Click to Enlarge Classical ZF-C2H2 Zinc Finger Page 5
zf 5

Click to Enlarge Classical ZF-C2H2 Zinc Finger Page 157
cf 157

Click to see all CDART Classical ZF-C2H2 Zinc Finger Architectures

Plextrin Homology Page 1
ph 1

Click to Enlarge Plextrin Homology Page 5
ph 5

Click to see all CDART Plextrin Homology Architectures

1,004 thoughts on “Promiscuous Domains and Motifs Are Better Explained by Common Design than Common Descent, (Sal’s module Hypothesis)

  1. John Harshman: No.

    Ok, here again is a definition of objective

    quote:

    without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

    end quote:

    How can a person possibly come to a conclusion that is totally with out personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations?

    Keep in mind that data does not interpret itself and decisions about what data to look at as relevant and what to exclude as noise are by necessity personal decisions.

    peace

  2. newton: Sounds like an objective assertion, if we grant it does it refute your statement?

    Nope, it simply means that that fact did not come (originally) from me.

    peace

  3. PeterP: you, I, and everyone following this thread know that wasn’t what question was asked of you.

    I sure thought it was the question you asked.

    I even asked if you were speaking about actual atoms for clarification and you said you were.

    PeterP: Nothing weird at all about the question.

    That is your opinion. It seemed to me to be out of place to talk about numbers of protons in the context of this conversation.

    Different strokes I suppose

    John Harshman: Would you then have objective knowledge of the number of protons in that atom?

    Nope it would just be my individual subjective opinion. You might come to another conclusion entirely.

    John Harshman: would that only be a tentative notion of the number of protons you were looking at?

    Tentative in the extreme. I’m not even sure I could pick a proton out of a lineup.

    That is one of the reasons why the question seems very odd to me

    peace

  4. PeterP: If not answering and then being less than forthcoming about what was actually asked of you is considered nice it says a lot more about your worldview than anything else.

    I was being as forthcoming as I can be, I really have no idea what you are getting at with your question.

    Elements have an atomic number.

    you can use it to figure out what the number of protons that a hypothetical atom of a particular element should have statistically speaking.

    but that was not your question at all,

    You were asking about the number of protons actual atoms have for some reason.

    I’m being completely forthcoming when I tell you that you’d have to show me one before I could say

    peace

  5. fifthmonarchyman: I sure thought it was the question you asked.

    Here is the question(s) I posed to you: How many protons do sodium atoms have? How about hydrogen? Or oxygen?

    Your mischaracterization of what I asked you is duly noted!

    fifthmonarchyman: That is your opinion. It seemed to me to be out of place to talk about numbers of protons in the context of this conversation.

    It appears you have a completely different view of the context of the conversation than everyone else participating.

    fifthmonarchyman: you can use it to figure out what the number of protons that a hypothetical atom of a particular element should have statistically speaking.

    What is the probability, statistically speaking, that sodium atoms have more, or less, than 11 protons? A citation to published data describing the variance you suggest exists would be appreciated.

    fifthmonarchyman: You were asking about the number of protons actual atoms have for some reason.

    Hmmm, wonder what that reason might be?

    fifthmonarchyman: I’m being completely forthcoming when I tell you that you’d have to show me one before I could say

    But you ‘said’ that even then you wouldn’t be able to determine what type of atom you were looking at. According to your statement you have no way of determining if it the atom’s protons you counted were an oxygen, sodium, or argon atom. A pointless request on your part given your admission of ignorance.

  6. fifthmonarchyman: Nope, it simply means that that fact did not come (originally) from me.

    ETA: You are sure it is objectively true, which means that you believe that a finite mind can be objective given the right evidence.

    “Keep in mind that data does not interpret itself and decisions about what data to look at as relevant and what to exclude as noise are by necessity personal decisions.”

    peace

  7. fifthmonarchyman: you can use it to figure out what the number of protons that a hypothetical atom of a particular element should have statistically speaking.

    Do you think it possible that hydrogen (a atom of the element) can have more than one proton? If yes, what is that belief based upon and if no, congratulations for the getting the correct answer.

  8. fifthmonarchyman: Ok, here again is a definition of objective

    quote:

    without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

    end quote:

    How can a person possibly come to a conclusion that is totally with out personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations?

    Nothing in the definition you posted suggests that an individual must be devoid of personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations only that there is not distortion of the representation of the facts or in other words:

    (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

  9. PeterP: Nothing in the definition you posted suggests that an individual must be devoid of personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations only that there is not distortion of the representation of the facts or in other words:

    I agree

    How can it be possible that a person’s choices are not influenced by their own personal characteristics?

    peace

  10. PeterP: Do you think it possible that hydrogen (a atom of the element) can have more than one proton?

    I don’t think it’s possible to know how many atoms an actual isolated atom of any element will have.

    That is because I don’t think a single atom can exist in isolation.

    I’m open to being wrong on this one of course.

    That is why I asked you to show me the atom you wish for me to evaluate.

    peace

  11. fifthmonarchyman: I agree

    How can it be possible that a person’s choices are not influenced by their own personal characteristics?

    peace

    Seems simple to me you just set aside those personal feelings and prejudices when presenting/representing facts.

    Seems it is nothing more than your personal credulity that is getting in the way here.

  12. PeterP: Seems simple to me you just set aside those personal feelings and prejudices when presenting/representing facts.

    The choice to set aside personal feelings and prejudices is itself a personal choice that will by definition be influenced by personal feelings and prejudices.

    come on man think

    peace

  13. PeterP: Seems it is nothing more than your personal credulity that is getting in the way here.

    And I don’t think you are adequately considering what it means to be a person

    peace

  14. fifthmonarchyman: Ok, here again is a definition of objective

    quote:

    without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

    end quote:

    How can a person possibly come to a conclusion that is totally with out personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations?

    Scientific methods are an attempt to guard against personal feelings and prejudices by forcing a person to describe his methods and to make clear arguments. Interpretations are of course necessary. But you seem to be missing the important word: distort. While interpretations are necessary, distortions are not.

    Keep in mind that data does not interpret itself and decisions about what data to look at as relevant and what to exclude as noise are by necessity personal decisions.

    But they need not distort the question. Your problem, apparently, is that you think distortion is necessary and inevitable. It isn’t, and proper methodology can prevent it. So people can be objective despite having opinions, making choices, and so on.

  15. fifthmonarchyman: I don’t think it’s possible to know how many atoms an actual isolated atom of any element will have.

    This doesn’t make any sense. Try to rephrase it so others can understand what point you are trying to get across.

    That is because I don’t think a single atom can exist in isolation.

    What do you mean by isolation? The universe or something smaller?

    Once you explain that would you be so kind as to inform us how many atoms of an element there must be in order for ‘it’ to exist?

  16. Hey, FMM:

    How many toes do you have on your left foot? Are you sure, or is it just a tentative conclusion based on your personal prejudices? Do you have a subjective notion of the number of toes? Are you in fact agnostic on how many toes you have on your left foot? Does only God actually know how many toes you have?

  17. The ironic thing is that FMM must essentially be saying, that it is an objective fact, that we only make subjective statements of opinion. Which seems to undermine itself.

    If the claim is that we can only know things subjectively, then that claim is itself subjective.

    This is where FMM invokes The Grand Magical Solution: God. God somehow works his divine omnipotence in such a way that we can know objectively through God’s-Grand-Magical-Revelations-Inside-Our-Minds, that we only know things subjectively. Or something along those lines.

    Every time you run into FMM make a claim or statement that would entail a contradiction, or constitute a blind assertion he can’t support, simply insert God to “solve” it with omnipotence.

    For example his position is basically that we can’t know anything. But, we obviously do, but since we can’t, it must be God making it possible for us to know things. Those eyes you have in the front part of your head? Yeah, you don’t really see anything with those. God is making it possible for those eyes to see things such that they make sense to you. One wonders why you’d need eyes in the first place if God is required to reveal things to you inside your mind all the time, but never mind. That’s essentially FMM’s position. That nothing is possible, except through God.

  18. John Harshman: How many toes do you have on your left foot?

    5

    John Harshman: Are you sure, or is it just a tentative conclusion based on your personal prejudices?

    I am sure, my confidence is based on the fact that I trust that my sensory and reasoning faculties will lead me to truth when functioning acouriding to their intend design.

    I would not have this confidence if I accepted naturalistic evolution (ie Darwinism).

    My conclusion is personal ie subjective and not objective.

    John Harshman: Does only God actually know how many toes you have?

    He does know. and he is the only one who knows this objectively

    peace

  19. John Harshman: Your problem, apparently, is that you think distortion is necessary and inevitable.

    What you are calling “distortion” is simply subjective personal perspective. It is definitely inevitable when a finite human is in charge.

    John Harshman: It isn’t, and proper methodology can prevent it.

    Methodology is developed by finite biased persons as such it will reflect their finitude and personal bias.

    This is basic stuff.

    You can’t get to objective when you start with subjective.

    John Harshman: So people can be objective despite having opinions, making choices, and so on.

    No personal and subjective are synonymous.

    The only way for you to get to objective is to start there.

    Any time you make a choice your personal feelings will come into play or it’s not a choice

    peace

  20. PeterP: This doesn’t make any sense. Try to rephrase it so others can understand what point you are trying to get across.

    You are the one asking the question you need to rephrase it so that I can understand it.

    If you want to know how many protons an actual atom has you need to count them. It seems self-evident to me.

    PeterP: What do you mean by isolation? The universe or something smaller?

    I mean isolation. I don’t believe that a single atom can exist with out interaction with other atoms/particles etc

    peace

  21. Rumraket: If the claim is that we can only know things subjectively, then that claim is itself subjective.

    That is not the claim at all.

    I’ve repeatedly said that God can reveal things to us so that we can know them.

    Rumraket: One wonders why you’d need eyes in the first place if God is required to reveal things to you inside your mind all the time

    God give us eyes so that we can see.

    God can reveal things “inside your mind” if he chose to but he does not have to do it like that.

    He is omnipotent after all

    peace

  22. *peeks in after holiday absence*

    John Harshman: Does only God actually know how many toes you have?

    Fifth: He does know. and he is the only one who knows this objectively

    * leaves again *

  23. fifthmonarchyman: You are the one asking the question you need to rephrase it so that I can understand it.

    It is amazing that you actually think that this statement of yours:

    “fifthmonarchyman: I don’t think it’s possible to know how many atoms an actual isolated atom of any element will have.”

    actually makes any sense. Try reading your statement again and reassess if it makes any sense.

    Do you actually think a question of how many protons an element has is an incomprehensible question? Seems like extremely basic chemistry to me.

    fifthmonarchyman: If you want to know how many protons an actual atom has you need to count them. It seems self-evident to me.

    If you want a car do you go out and start by building your own engine? Forging your own steel/aluminum? Or do you stand on the shoulders of others that have come before you and trust their abilities.assessments, and discoveries?

    fifthmonarchyman: I mean isolation.

    When I ask for clarification on what you mean by ‘isolation’ stating ‘I mean isolation’ does not provide any clarity at all. Try again!

    I don’t believe that a single atom can exist with out interaction with other atoms/particles etc

    Why would you believe that? What interactions are necessary for a atom to exist.

    You do realize that individual atoms have been photographed.

  24. fifthmonarchyman: What you are calling “distortion” is simply subjective personal perspective.It is definitely inevitable when a finite human is in charge.

    I’m not the one who introduced the word “distortion”. It was in the definition of “subjective” that you cited. According to your definition, there is no subjectivity if there isn’t distortion. I’m pointing out that distortion is not a necessary outcome, and therefore subjectivity by your definition isn’t either. You could alway retract your support for that definition, but I don’t see another way out.

    Methodology is developed by finite biased persons as such it will reflect their finitude and personal bias.

    Finitude seems to have no necessary connection to subjectivity, and there is no necessary bias in every human action.

    This is basic stuff.

    The assertion that this is basic stuff seems designed to assert your authority, but it serves no other purpose.

    You can’t get to objective when you start with subjective.

    By your definition, you have not shown that we start with subjective. Nor is that any more than an unsupported assertion.
    No personal and subjective are synonymous.
    Yet another assertion, but it isn’t backed up by the definition you cited.

    Any time you make a choice your personal feelings will come into play or it’s not a choice

    Shall we start an argument about free will vs. determinism?

  25. fifthmonarchyman: I am sure, my confidence is based on the fact that I trust that my sensory and reasoning faculties will lead me to truth when functioning acouriding to their intend design.

    I would not have this confidence if I accepted naturalistic evolution (ie Darwinism).

    My conclusion is personal ie subjective and not objective.

    John Harshman: Does only God actually know how many toes you have?

    He does know. and he is the only one who knows this objectively

    fifthmonarchyman: Rumraket: If the claim is that we can only know things subjectively, then that claim is itself subjective.

    That is not the claim at all.

    I’ve repeatedly said that God can reveal things to us so that we can know them.

    So you can’t know anything objectively, including how many toes you have, but God can reveal things so you know them other than subjetively, but other than subjectively isn’t objectively, and you know that because god revealed it, but it may or may not be subjective or objective or something. Got it.

  26. : I don’t believe that a single atom can exist with out interaction with other atoms/particles etc

    Good times.

    You can’t really know that an atom exists unless it interacts with another particle.

    So there, Mr. science man.

  27. Corneel:
    *peeks in after holiday absence*

    * leaves again *

    I know, right? Unfuckingbelieavable.

    Hey, this thread needs derailing. Where did you go for your holiday?

  28. dazz: Hey, this thread needs derailing. Where did you go for your holiday?

    Iceland. Amazing place. The landscape is absolutely bizarre. We made some wonderful hikes over there.

  29. fifthmonarchyman: etc etc etc

    “I like apples” is a statement concerning the state of mind of the utterer, and the person can change their mind at any time. Also, keep in mind that it’s just a type-statement. You can probably come up with others: “Led Zeppelin is the greatest!” “Suzie is foxy.” “The apple was delicious.” “The book was boring.” Regardless, the ‘liking’ can’t be observed.

    On the other hand, the number of toes on your foot can be observed by any number of observers, can be tested in a number of different ways, an abacus can be used to keep track of the number (in case of an unusually large number), photographs taken, studied, podiatrists and statisticians brought in, papers written, reviewed by peers, a college established. At some point in the process, we might consider the result to be a fact, that is, “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”

  30. Corneel: Iceland. Amazing place. The landscape is absolutely bizarre. We made some wonderful hikes over there.

    Awesome! Glad you enjoyed it

  31. fifthmonarchyman: I’ve repeatedly said that God can reveal things to us so that we can know them.

    In fact, you have repeated it far too many times.

    God give us eyes so that we can see.

    Not worth mentioning.

    If, using those eyes, you have seen something worth posting here, then tell us about that. There is no point in telling us your beliefs about why you have eyes.

    God can reveal things “inside your mind” if he chose to but he does not have to do it like that.

    Again, this was not worth mentioning. If you have ideas that are of interest, then post those ideas. Don’t waste our time and yours telling us about what you imagine to be the source of those ideas.

  32. Neil Rickert: Don’t waste our time and yours telling us about what you imagine to be the source of those ideas.

    I’m only answering questions. If you think the answers are a waste of time don’t ask the questions

    peace

  33. Zachriel: “I like apples” is a statement concerning the state of mind of the utterer, and the person can change their mind at any time.

    That is your subjective opinion. I would disagree

    Zachriel: “The book was boring.” Regardless, the ‘liking’ can’t be observed.

    What can be observed are conditions consistent with the hypothesis that the “liking” exists.

    The verification is exactly the same for both statements.

    Zachriel: the number of toes on your foot can be observed by any number of observers

    Each of the observers are only reporting what they subjectively think are toes.

    The same goes for liking statement.

    Observers report what they subjectively think is liking.

    Zachriel: can be tested in a number of different ways

    Same goes for both statements

    Zachriel: an abacus can be used to keep track of the number (in case of an unusually large number),

    An abacus can be used to keep track of the number of times you report you like apples or you purchase apples. etc etc

    Zachriel: photographs taken, studied, podiatrists and statisticians brought in, papers written, reviewed by peers, a college established.

    The same can be said for the “liking” hypothesis except instead of podiatrists we would consult psychiatrists.

    Zachriel: At some point in the process, we might consider the result to be a fact, that is, “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”

    The same goes for both statements

    your point was???????

    peace

  34. Neil Rickert: Don’t waste our time and yours telling us about what you imagine to be the source of those ideas.

    If FMM’s ideas had value they would by the very nature of things spread despite him. That they are not is testament to the truth of “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.”
    .
    Poison like this can only be inculcated from the very start. How many grown adults convert to this sort of nonsense? It’s something people grow out of, not into. There are several ex-fundamentalists here.

    If FMM’s ideas had value they would be spreading of their own accord. Perhaps FMM can point to someone that thinks the idea that “god gave us eyes to see” is of value either in the theisic or scientific realm?

    FMM thinks that the objective nested hierarchy is there because John wants it to be there, not because it is really there.

    Demonstrate that scientifically and publish FMM. Or shut the fuck up. I mean, attempt to derive it. Then attempt to do the same for the examples colewd et al have given. You slander many genuine people with actual integrity with such claims. People whose only interest is the truth. What your interest is, I’ve no fucking idea. But it does not involve ever ever changing any opinion based on learnt knowledge it seems.

  35. Has Sal given his “better explanation” yet? Or was “design”, d-e-s-i-g-n literally it?

    Hey, Sal, is it really “design” if god did it? Was letting there be light really an act of design? How can something be design if there’s nothing to design it into in the first place?

    Something smells fishy……But that can’t be true, fish have not been created yet!

  36. John Harshman asks why I don’t consult evolutionary literature. My answer, “it’s next to worthless as far as mechanistic explanations. Phylogenetic assertions are not the same as credible physical models of events by ordinary processes.”

    Making phylogenetic trees of events involving ordinary random mutation is believable. Making phylogenetic trees where events would involve highly improbable events far from ordinary expectation is little different for statistical miracles, and at some point such statistical miracles are hardly different from acts of theological miracles or intelligent design. The question is at what point will someone decide the suggestion of statistical miracle is a real miracle, and if real miracles need some sort of deity. My view is that there is no formal resolution to the question, but like open question in mathematics that are not formally provable, there probably is a right answer whether something is true or not….

    Taxonomically Restricted Proteins are pretty much poofs. The following paper asserts rapidly co-evolving KZFPs (KRAB Zinc Finger Proteins). This is analogous to saying a set of 500 fair coins co-evolve to be 100% heads in the process of random flpping of the coins! The net result is not consistent with ordinary expectation. That’s something John Harshman and other here don’t seem to appreciate.

    Any way here is the paper. It’s another ridiculous non-sequitur based of bogus phylogenetic methods, but to its credit it acknowledges the amazing coordinated change that would have to happen:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21683

    I mention KRAB proteins as having as many as 14 promiscuous zinc finger domains. Below is a composite molecular machine with KRAB zinc fingers. Note the comb-like structure that attaches to the DNA/chromatin complex. That comb-like structure is constructed of multiple promiscous ZINC finger domains.

    How did those multiple ZINC finger domains arise? By “convergence”. Convergence is another word for “common design” not “common descent.”

  37. Some KRAB Zinc Finger proteins have up to 40 Zinc Fingers!

    Except for the evolutionary speculations, this is actually a good paper describing some of the functional aspects of KRAB Zinc Finger proteins.

    Like most evolutionary assertions, the paper merely asserts evolutionary events as happening, it doesn’t give any indication how likely an event should happen by ordinary processes. Other than that, it shows the marvelous convergences needed to implement the common design of promiscous domains into functionally coherent machines:

    http://dev.biologists.org/content/144/15/2719

  38. stcordova: How did those multiple ZINC finger domains arise? By “convergence”. Convergence is another word for “common design” not “common descent.”

    Where did you get that? The term “convergence” isn’t mentioned at all in either of the papers you cited. Do you really not know how the arrays of repeated zinc finger domains are believed to have arisen?

  39. The term “convergence” isn’t mentioned at all in either of the papers you cited

    No it’s not mentioned. How do you suppose it got there and persisted. You can invoke exon shuffling if you want, but how reasonable is it that one will get coherent function just by shuffling exons? Where is the demosntration from first principles this is an ordinary expectation of from random variation and common descent?

  40. Corneel,

    Look at all the ZF domains in the OP. Note how the ZFs are scattered in different proteins. So, if you invoke exon suffling or tandem repeats, are you going to argue the KRAB zfp’s just happen to have more repeats than other proteins with zinc fingers? And what about the zinc fingers in other proteins, how did they arise, did exons just happen to shuffle into the right location to make coherent functioning proteins?

  41. Here is are the SET domain proteins. How does one account for the zinc finger in the SET PRDM1 protein. Convergence through random point mutation, exon shuffling, gene fusion? When is a theory not much more than just mere assertions of “it just happened that way” vs. a mechanistic description of why this is consistent with ordinary expectation of ordinary processes? Evolutionary theory is not much more than saying, “it happened by ordinary mechanisms because it just happened, JUST SO” That’s not a mechanistic theory.

  42. Here is another protein with a zinc finger, it is on the left of the diagram. It is part of a complex mechanism whereby a linc RNA known as HOTAIR travels from human Chromosome 12 to Chromosome 2, finds the proper Hox cluster, then assembles a machine known as the Polycomb Repression Complex 2 (PRC2) that is composed of multiple proteins in the diagram below. The PRC2 finds Histone 3, then modifies the 27 amino acid, lysine, with a methylation. This is like recruiting a big robot to thread a needle!

    Part of that involves the AEBP2 protein binding the correct piece of DNA. Not surprisngly this is done through a Zinc Finger! This whole scheme of marking a specific amino acid on a specific histone in a specific location on chromatin causes skin at the soles of the feet to have different quality than the skin at the lids of the eye. John Rinn noticed the strange pattern of the lnc/linc RNA HOTAIR being expressed differently above vs. below the waistline. Now we know that isn’t a random accident, but rather programmed event!

    If there is a program, there must be a programmer. Phylogenetic “explanations” don’t explain why such programs and machines and promiscuous domains in those machines should arise via ordinary random processes and/or selection for survival. Note how many pieces are need to effect a PRC2 function. How is it reasonable that a half formed, malfunctioning PRC2 function would be favored by selection? Why should zinc fingers evolve in AEBP2.

    Common design is more reasonable explanation for the origin of promiscuous domains like zinc fingers.

  43. stcordova: Common design is more reasonable explanation for the origin of promiscuous domains like zinc fingers.

    How was it designed might be helpful in evaluating its reasonableness. Any ideas?

  44. stcordova:
    No it’s not mentioned. How do you suppose it got there and persisted.

    Recombination, of course. Convergence to something being recognizable as a zinc finger by a particular domain model, stats and all, would suggest common ancestry between such zinc fingers, not convergence.

    stcordova:
    You can invoke exon shuffling if you want, but how reasonable is it that one will get coherent function just by shuffling exons?

    Exon shuffling is one of the results of recombination, but recombination doesn’t have to happen in exon “bits.” Of course, coherent function cannot be obtained just by shuffling exons. That’s why evolution also happens to mention selection, both positive and negative. I have told you this four or five times in this thread alone. How many tines until you stop forgetting about selection?

    stcordova:
    Where is the demosntration from first principles this is an ordinary expectation of from random variation and common descent?

    What do you mean by first principles? Quantum mechanics? That ambitious equation with four forces and whatever else in particle/field physics? If that’s really what you’re looking for, then you won’t find it anywhere. If what you’re asking is something more coherent to the domain shuffling theme, then we see recombination all over the place, happening even in the cells of a single organism. Recombination is a natural phenomenon. We have also witnessed selection for and against some particular recombinations. Some recombinations have no effects whatsoever, which means that some stay just because they don’t matter.

Leave a Reply