tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3901272494781747563..comments2024-03-18T09:58:09.828-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Georgi Marinov reviews two books on junk DNALarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger206125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77162275506086456562016-04-21T13:17:03.580-04:002016-04-21T13:17:03.580-04:00"Tent" being so very appropriate. Send ..."Tent" being so very appropriate. Send in the clowns!judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63965427888188610212016-04-21T12:14:55.277-04:002016-04-21T12:14:55.277-04:00Most cranks, I find, think that other cranks are k...Most cranks, I find, think that other cranks are kooks, but they tend to agree one one thing: that mainstream scientists are wrong. And thus Erik and Gnomon fit into the big tent.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8083775888399743562016-04-21T06:45:10.062-04:002016-04-21T06:45:10.062-04:00Truth or science is whatever they assume it to be
...<i>Truth or science is whatever they assume it to be</i><br /><br />This is called "projection" (projecting on to others one's own faults) since the fellow who says it is the same person who assured us all there were no cutting implements among 3.3 million year old stone implements found in Kenya. This turned out not to be either truth or science but just plain wrong, though gnomon said it anyway since it fit with his agenda.<br /><br />And then of course there's Eric, who just knows that 5 years from now 150+ years of careful scientific research will be overthrown in favor of his millennia-old holy book.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91094006223205011242016-04-21T02:38:43.476-04:002016-04-21T02:38:43.476-04:00No Eric, you are full of crap. Evolution is not a ...No Eric, you are full of crap. Evolution is not a business. It is a fact and a scientific theory. In five years, evolutionary theory will just be five years more advanced. Science moves forward, while people who cannot "swallow" the truth get left behind. You try to create your own reality, Eric, and you can fool yourself, and maybe some others, but not most people. Your fantasies about how everyone will have to "adjust their views" are just that: fantasies. I will still be doing science five, ten, fifteen years from now. Anti-science losers motivated by their religious dogma will still be trying to prove evolution wrong, and failing. That's the nature of your business, and you could not care less if you are proved wrong, because no matter how many times you are proved wrong, you just come back again with the same lame arguments and revisionist history, as if it were brand new.<br /><br />The real test, of course, would be to compare notes in 5 years, and see where we're at. But you'll just be making the same terrible, repackaged arguments five years from now, and moving the goalposts back again ("in five years, I, Eric, will be vindicated!"). Like Robert Byers is wont to say, evolution will unravel any day now, just you wait. In the mean time, science, and reality, moves forward. You need some new material, Eric.Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04778164246719803780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26889362891216430392016-04-21T01:44:34.809-04:002016-04-21T01:44:34.809-04:00Hey Eric,
"I'm no gambler, but in 5 years...Hey Eric,<br />"I'm no gambler, but in 5 years all of them will have to swallow the truth."<br /><br />This is something the ID/ creationist crew have been saying for at least the last 150 years, ever since Darwin came up with a brilliant theory. <br />"Yes we expect ID to replace evolution theory in the classrooms in the next 5 years".<br /><br />But lo and behold, just like the invisible designer, ID and it's "within 5 years all will be different" has never materialized. <br /><br />Funny though you're coming up with the *ahem* business argument. Amusing tbh, while in fact every religious institution is modeled according to a business. There's a senior religious big wig, and his minions all bow and scrape to the boss, because this might be the route to their time as big wig in the future. The funds available for research and science is dwarfed by the revenues of the religious business. And the religious businesses don't even have to pay taxes! Yeah, it's clear evolution is a business and business is evil... LOL!Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15924368353226400878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82694455013868131532016-04-20T20:04:22.420-04:002016-04-20T20:04:22.420-04:00Eric, You are right on, it seems. Truth or science...Eric, You are right on, it seems. Truth or science is whatever they assume it to be or whatever that logically follows from their assumptions. But the problem is that their assumptions are too far from reality. Few in the business know or care how delusional, counter-intuitive, or anti-axiomatic those assumptions really are! gnomonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03362808932731126552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14970825254303709352016-04-20T17:13:46.036-04:002016-04-20T17:13:46.036-04:00You see Chris, most people in the evolution busine...You see Chris, most people in the <b>evolution business</b>-(because that is exactly what it is)-who really care about their reputation have adjusted their views, at least a bit, because of ENCODE. But some did not ( I can guess why, I think) and that includes Larry Moran, Dan Graur, PZ. Myers and the upcoming star of the evolution business Georogi Marinov. <br /><br />Except for the later, they couldn't care less if they are ever proved wrong in few months or years. <br /><br />I'm no gambler, but in 5 years all of them will have to swallow the truth. Georgi will have to swallow razors but he will do it and he will move on. That's the nature of this business he is in. It has nothing to do with science. It never did and it never will. Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82483171652657558372016-04-17T03:31:35.055-04:002016-04-17T03:31:35.055-04:00Who's right and who's not? All I can say i...Who's right and who's not? All I can say it looks like Eric needs a place to hang his hat.<br /><br />Is ENCODE his version of Noah's Ark?Rolf Aalberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12878337054438652463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40823899541037660112016-04-11T17:06:53.180-04:002016-04-11T17:06:53.180-04:00(continuation)
After have explained clearly that ...(continuation)<br /><br />After have explained clearly that the C-value argument shows lack of function as biological role, Doolittle suddenly and very confusingly introduces another definition of function:<br /><br /><i>Most philosophers of biology, and likely, most practicing biologists when pressed, would endorse some form of the selected effect (SE) definition of function (28–30)</i><br /><br />Unfortunately, he doesn't provide evidence for this empirical claim about how two groups of academics verbally define 'function'.<br /><br />More importantly, Doolittle doesn't explain how the statement that "Most philosophers of biology, and likely, most practicing biologists when pressed, would endorse some form of the selected effect (SE) definition of function" is supposed to support his view that (a) the term function traditionally refers to function as selected effect, and (b) the notion of function as selected effect should be preferred over function as biological role in the context of the junk-DNA debate.<br /><br />Doolittle's redefinition of function in terms of selected effect is, furthermore, very confusing.<br /><br />One reason is that this definition is at odds with the way in which Doolittle presents the C-value argument. As I have argued above, the conclusion of this argument (at least as Doolittle presents it) is: excess DNA doesn't have a function as biological role. Because this phenomenon can be partly explained as the result of multilevel selection it, follows that the argument doesn't show that excess DNA doesn't have a function as selected effect. <br /><br />So, if junk is defined in terms of selected effect, the C-value argument doesn't show that excess DNA is junk.<br /><br />Another reason is the teleological character of the notion of function as selected effect. This notion was developed by Karin Neander and by Ruth Millikan in order to accommodate teleological notions such as 'the function of', 'what it is for', 'in order to' and 'for the purpose of' into a Darwinian framework. To do so they redefine these notions in terms of 'what it was selected for in the past and explains its current existence'. A clever trick, ably used to solve a number of longstanding problems in the philosophy of mind and language. Great!<br /><br />However, the teleological notion of function as past selected effect deprives function claims of their explanatory force, as I explained in a previous comment. Hence, function as selected effect cannot be used to explain selection.<br /><br />So although, Neander and Millikan offer an account of how it is possible to talk about purposes etc. within a Darwinian framework, their account doesn't legitimize appeal to such notions in explanations of how things came to be the way they are.<br /><br />This lack of explanatory force of functions as selected effect is not relevant to the philosophical problems addressed by Neander and Millikan, but it is a very serious problem for the application of the notion of function as selected effect in biology.<br /><br />Doolittle continues:<br /><br /><i>Selected effect is the form of teleological explanation allowed, indeed required, by Darwinian theory</i><br /><br />Yes, you read it well, that's what Doolittle says: "teleological explanation is allowed, indeed required, by Darwinian theory"!!!<br /><br />A clear example of the kind of confusion instigated by defining function in terms of selected effect!<br /><br />I didn't say and I don't think that the definition of function as selected effect is '<b>meant</b> to facilitate lazy biology'. Rather, I think that this definition <b>de facto</b> and all too easily facilitates lazy biology and teleological ways of thinking.<br /><br />I refer, once more, to my <a href="http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-6537-5_21" rel="nofollow">Biology's Functional Perspective</a> for further explanation._<br /><br />(The End)Arno Woutershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619540450372957108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66582486109784728552016-04-11T15:58:21.860-04:002016-04-11T15:58:21.860-04:00Thanks for your clarification Corneel!
Although m...Thanks for your clarification Corneel!<br /><br />Although multi-level selection might be part of the <b>explanation</b> of how junk DNA (defined as DNA that doesn't have a function as biological role) came into being and why it is not weeded out by selection, I don't see how multi-level selection is relevant to my point that the relevant <b>notion</b> of function in the junk DNA debate is function as biological role (in the sense of contributing to an organism's ability to survive and reproduce).<br /><br />Let's have a look at Doolittle's <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/110/14/5294.abstract" rel="nofollow">Is junk DNA bunk?</a><br /><br />The paper starts with the main argument for the view that most of our genome is junk, namely "the perennial problem of C-value". The gist of this argument is that given the lack of correlation between amount of DNA and organismal complexity a large part of the DNA of organisms that have a relatively large amount of DNA does not contribute to their survival and reproduction. I quote (p. 5295):<br /><br /><i>If we do not think of this additional or “excess” DNA, so manifest through comparisons between and within biological groups, as junk (irrelevant if not frankly detrimental to the survival and reproduction of the organism bearing it), how then are we to think of it?</i>.<br /><br />So the conclusion of the C-value argument as presented by Doolittle, clearly is excess DNA doesn't have a function as biological role.<br /><br />Next, Doolittle discusses how the existence of junk DNA fits into evolutionary theory. He seems to favor Gregory's view, which Doolittle summarizes as follows<br /><br /><i>A balance between organism-level selection on nuclear structure and cell size, cell division times and developmental rate, selfish genome-level selection favoring replicative expansion, and (as discussed below) supraorganismal (clade-level) selective processes—as well as drift— must all be taken into account.</i><br /><br />In other words: the existence of DNA that doesn't have a function as biological role can be explained a combination of multilevel selection and drift.<br /><br />(to be continued)Arno Woutershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619540450372957108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14683191493078617202016-04-11T04:48:06.673-04:002016-04-11T04:48:06.673-04:00@Arno Wouters
My main objection is the presence o...@Arno Wouters<br /><br />My main objection is the presence of multi-level selection. I tried to illustrate this with the example of selfish elements, which are being subject to selection while being deleterious for the host. Another example would be altruism genes (e.g. green-beard genes). When you take functional to mean important in survival in reproduction, You automatically default to the level of the organism. Of course, the organism is often the natural unit (especially for biomedical research), but genes do not always evolve in the service of the organism, nor is the organism always easy to distinguish in biology. <br />Genes evolve by virtue of their transmission efficiency. This may be due to a beneficial contribution to the organism, but this is not necessary. Hence the definition of function as selected effect is not meant to facilitate a "lazy form of biology" but to alleviate problems with other definitions that always seem privilege the organismal perspective.Corneelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884855837357720225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24040977228891947682016-04-11T01:49:45.677-04:002016-04-11T01:49:45.677-04:00Yes, Eric, you are delusional, because what you ju...Yes, Eric, you are delusional, because what you just said there is not part of reality. Or maybe you're just lying.Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04778164246719803780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13540535421400412892016-04-10T21:30:09.243-04:002016-04-10T21:30:09.243-04:00Is it a delusion, when the pillars of science choo...Is it a delusion, when the pillars of science choose to vindicate their own egos by ignoring the scientific evidence?<br />I'm not talking about ENCODE anymore that evolutionists hate. I'm talking about the follow up papers that assign specific functions to the regions of DNA that evolutionist doomed as junk and discouraged other scientists to investigate it. Today... it is a day of vindication.... unfortunately, it is not for evolutionists...Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60535523563301934632016-04-09T22:08:18.537-04:002016-04-09T22:08:18.537-04:00a bunch of retards
I want to hear again about how...<i>a bunch of retards</i><br /><br />I want to hear again about how your religion does such a great job of showing you the correct moral path.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91369552955894694342016-04-09T19:20:00.711-04:002016-04-09T19:20:00.711-04:00Eric,
"It really makes me feel good when a b...Eric,<br /><br />"It really makes me feel good when a bunch of retards try to change the way the things are.."<br /><br />Why do ID/creationists project their inadequacies onto others so much? Are you even aware of it?Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04778164246719803780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27496223590722075402016-04-09T19:13:29.730-04:002016-04-09T19:13:29.730-04:00After all the attempts to explain reality to you, ...After all the attempts to explain reality to you, you still manage to get every single point wrong again, Eric.<br /><br />I think you are right, Eric, you are delusional.Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04778164246719803780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3803097860760083542016-04-09T19:10:09.812-04:002016-04-09T19:10:09.812-04:00So no arguments, just insults. Thanks, Eric. How n...So no arguments, just insults. Thanks, Eric. How not refreshing. I really didn't think you would come through with any facts or good arguments, but hope springs eternal.<br /><br />"If I were the ID, I would make you so humiliated you would not be able to cry. "<br /><br />I suppose incoherent babble could make me cry if I was subjected to it long enough. Your point?Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04778164246719803780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81209998959344981812016-04-09T18:14:05.190-04:002016-04-09T18:14:05.190-04:00So... the only conclusion can be drawn from this d...So... the only conclusion can be drawn from this discussion is that the evolutionists, like the ones mentioned by me specifically above, must have hindered the scientific progress into the research of their "imaginary junk DNA" that now turns out to hold the insights into not only many human deseases; that can possibly be prevented or even cured, if the ENCODE findings are taken seriously unlike the evolutionist have endorsed it be...Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67520742429094396202016-04-09T17:51:54.175-04:002016-04-09T17:51:54.175-04:00The final summary I missed yesterday:
1.The ENCOD...The final summary I missed yesterday:<br /><br />1.The ENCODE people don't seem to care if there is a consensus as to WHICH EVOLUTIONARY THEORY SHOULD BE TAUGHT in schools next semester. All the ENCODE seem to care about is what kind of deseases, like cancer, can possibly be prevented or cured by their research results. <br /> <br />Am I wrong about this whole thing? Am I delusional? It's actually my best joke!<br /><br />Well, let's analyze the evolutionary side:<br /><br />For over 50 years, since the unknown function of the majority of human genome was called and accepted by evolutionists as "junk DNA", many loved the notion and accepted it with pride due to their own or their 'brothers' predictions. <br /><br />This theory seem to have changed now. It seems opposite to the evolutionary predictions, although people like Larry and his comrades protest; Junk DNA is still junk to them.<br /><br />Here is the main point: If scientists following up on the ENCODE findings, find new, specific functions to the previously assumed part of genome as "junk", how should the opposers of this notion react? Should they be happy or sad? You'd be the judge...<br /><br />The truth is that evolutionist have insisted and some of them still do, not to investigate the so-called junk DNA, and put pressure on those what objected to it and continued their research. <br /><br />Today, there is no doubt about who was right and who was wrong. Unfortunately, the defeated side-the evolutionists continues to claim that they are right and the the ENCODE and their supporters are wrong.<br /> <br />How So? <br />What is their scientific evidence? Is their belief as good as scientific evidence? If yes, why?<br /><br />Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5246738056730638832016-04-09T17:22:24.501-04:002016-04-09T17:22:24.501-04:00If I were the ID, I would make you so humiliated y...<i>If I were the ID, I would make you so humiliated you would not be able to cry.</i><br /><br />and that would be a rather rare show of restraint for this loving christian god<br /><br /><i>One thing I know about the ID, the ID has patience beyond his design....</i><br /><br />Could you tell us more about the Intelligent Designer's design? I'm assuming it must be by some other intelligent designer. This should be interesting. But it won't be, because that line of inquiry does not compute with Eric et al.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61885703622992049802016-04-09T17:05:09.750-04:002016-04-09T17:05:09.750-04:00Thank you Chris B. It is really "refreshing&q...Thank you Chris B. It is really "refreshing" to read your shit. It really makes me feel good when a bunch of retards try to change the way the things are... If I were the ID, I would make you so humiliated you would not be able to cry. <br /><br />One thing I know about the ID, the ID has patience beyond his design, otherwise ID would have killed all his enemies and possibly me... <br />Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23137215726019354752016-04-09T15:03:31.332-04:002016-04-09T15:03:31.332-04:00Arno,
Thanks for your clarifications. I think I un...Arno,<br />Thanks for your clarifications. I think I understand your reasoning better here.<br /><br />"In order to do so I try to envisage situations in which the proportion of DNA-segments that result in fitness differences between co-existing organisms in the population is smaller than the part of the genome that you and I (and other participants in this discussion) would call 'functional'.<br /><br />I believe this is the case with Wollemia. Do you agree?"<br /><br />Yes, I agree, in fact I think this is true for every species on Earth. Every functional part of the genome is not under observable selection at all times, yet is still functional.<br /><br />"More generally, would it matter to your verdict about function how much variation is currently going on in the population?"<br /><br />No, functional parts of the genome will be functional regardless of the level of variation at any given moment in time.<br /><br />"If the answer to my first question (do you agree) is 'yes' and/or the answer to the second (does the amount of current variation matter) 'no', wouldn't this indicate that your implicit notion of function cannot be the Doolittle and Georgi's notion of selected function as that notion implies that a functional trait is currently being selected for?"<br /><br />Yes, I would say that is a fair and logical conclusion. I would include not only traits being selected for, but parts of the genome that show historical signs of selection. Those are indicators of function as well.<br /><br />I like your definition of function as biological role, as long as you define it as you did above, "as contributing to an organism's ability to survive and reproduce)."<br />The danger without a rigorous definition of biological role is that one may define it as, say, transcriptional activity, which brought us the ENCODE fiasco in the first place. As critics of ENCODE have pointed out, one could have defined biological role as replication, rendering the genome 100% functional.Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04778164246719803780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65460538611587501312016-04-09T13:31:52.125-04:002016-04-09T13:31:52.125-04:00My earlier link is to NSF- but that site is down. ...My earlier link is to NSF- but that site is down. <br /><br />Here is another link where the findings are covered-<br />http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html<br /><br />“One of Charles Darwin's lesser-known hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true.<br />Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin’s theory— at least in one case.”<br /><br />If Eric is correct about the state of the scientific society, then I would think these researchers would have been ‘punished’ or put in place by now. Have they been? I don’t know… I’m hoping Eric will give us a report.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30523356337489994372016-04-09T12:25:43.860-04:002016-04-09T12:25:43.860-04:00Another way in which I hope my function papers (es...Another way in which I hope my function papers (especially my <a href="http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-6537-5_21" rel="nofollow">Biology's Functional Perspective</a>) are relevant outside philosophy lies in my explanation of how it is possible to talk about function in absence of teleology and sentience. This is probably not relevant to biological research, but I do think it might help science teachers and other people who are dealing with intuitive teleologists.Arno Woutershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619540450372957108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50559571319544482842016-04-09T12:24:27.983-04:002016-04-09T12:24:27.983-04:00the utility of discussions like these, to me, is a...<i>the utility of discussions like these, to me, is always going to be their real life biological relevance and applicability</i><br /><br />Fair enough!<br /><br /><i>Actually, 'affecting fitness' is defined in terms of relative fitness in the environment compared to other individuals. You cannot have differential selection unless you have variation in the population.</i><br /><br />Oops, you are right that population geneticists usually define 'affecting fitness' in terms of relative fitness. I should have said that many <b>functional biologists</b> talk about fitness contribution in terms of hypothetical fitness differences between existing organisms and hypothetical alternatives.<br /><br />I belief that one of the ways in which my <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136984860300075X" rel="nofollow">Four notions</a> might be relevant to biologists is that it draws attention to the different ways in which the term 'function' is used in different parts of biology and explores some of the ways in which these different notions are related.<br /><br />For that reason I feel embarrassed that I forget to add that qualification that what I was talking about the way many functional biologists talk about fitness contribution.<br /><br />However, this omission doesn't affect my point (with which you seem to agree) that something can be functional in the sense that it contributes to absolute reproductive succes without currently being selected for or against.<br /><br /><i>So, for example, in real life, your example of Wollemia having a genome of entirely junk as a consequence of the definition of junk is wrong. The only way this would be true is if Wollemia never experiences genetic mutation. Other wise, regardless of how currently little genetic variation there is in the species, there is some variation and more of it being generated all the time by mutation. In this respect Wollemia is like every other species.</i><br /><br />Hmmm. I thought it clear that I was deliberately exaggerating in order to get my point through, when I said that under a definition of junk that implies that a DNA segment is functional only if it is currently under selection (in the sense of being selected for) the entire genome of <i>Wollemia</i> would be junk .... <br /><br />Given your explanation I obviously wasn't. <br /><br />Perhaps, I should be aware that this way of bringing an argument is not understood outside of philosophy.<br /><br />I'll try to rephrase my argument without such exaggeration:<br /><br />My point is that the term 'function' as it is ordinarily used in the context of the junk DNA debate is not function as defined by Doolittle and Georgi ("segments of DNA are functional if they were historically selected for in the process of evolution and are maintained by purifying selection today") but function as biological role (e.g. as contributing to an organism's ability to survive and reproduce).<br /><br />In order to do so I try to envisage situations in which the proportion of DNA-segments that result in fitness differences between co-existing organisms in the population is smaller than the part of the genome that you and I (and other participants in this discussion) would call 'functional'. <br /><br />I believe this is the case with <i>Wollemia</i>. Do you agree?<br /><br />More generally, would it matter to your verdict about function how much variation is currently going on in the population?<br /><br />If the answer to my first question (do you agree) is 'yes' and/or the answer to the second (does the amount of current variation matter) 'no', wouldn't this indicate that your implicit notion of function cannot be the Doolittle and Georgi's notion of selected function as that notion implies that a functional trait is currently being selected for?<br />Arno Woutershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619540450372957108noreply@blogger.com