In my last blog, I received repeated accusations of being \"anti-evolution\" from John Kwok and Keith Roragen. These accusations puzzled me, and I tried to explain why I was puzzled in my online answers to them. But they continued to insist. <\/p>\n
My basic argument on the blog (and in my book) was the following: We need to pay far more attention to non-random cell-mediated genome change (\"natural genetic engineering\") in evolution. <\/p>\n
Here's what John Kwok said: <\/p>\n
And here's what Keith Roragen said: <\/p>\n
Both John and Keith invoked natural selection and population genetics in a way that makes no logical sense. They seemed to believe that incanting \"natural selection\" would somehow invalidate what I said about the importance of natural genetic engineering. (Readers are invited to dig out the full exchanges and judge for themselves.) <\/p>\n
The Jerry Coyne statement that John quoted does not even make sense within the context of the neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis. Population geneticists recognize the need to use \"mutation rates\" and recombination events (i.e., genome changes) to generate new allelic variants and combinations as the raw material for selection. There is no way that natural selection can substitute for natural genetic engineering; by definition, it can only work after heritable change has occurred. <\/p>\n
Keith simply sticks his head in the sand and introduces stubborn ignorance in place of explanation. <\/p>\n
It is difficult to imagine how evolution could occur without genome change according to virtually any theory. Perhaps a purely neo-Lamarckian process, depending exclusively on epigenetic modifications, might conceivably generate heritable (and hence selectable) organism change without alterations to DNA sequences. But I do not think this is what my antagonists had in mind. <\/p>\n
The curious responses to my position exposed a fundamental difference in understanding of biological functions between molecular geneticists and these particular proponents of population genetics. Because I can only speak for the molecular side, let me elaborate. I will leave it to John, Keith, and Jerry to explain their assertions. <\/p>\n
Molecular geneticists recognize the essential roles of genome structures and multi-molecular networks for cell activities and for morphogenesis. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Read this article: <\/p>\n
James A. Shapiro: Natural Genetic Engineering and Natural Selection: Perplexing Delusions of Certain Neo-Darwinist ...<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In my last blog, I received repeated accusations of being \"anti-evolution\" from John Kwok and Keith Roragen. These accusations puzzled me, and I tried to explain why I was puzzled in my online answers to them. Continue reading