>> I''d be interested in hearing comments about the following web site:
>
>>http://www.scientificamerican.com/0997issue/0997infocus.html
Susan:
>I had wondered if the stress of the situation itself caused the fast
>mutation rates. Looks like the answer is "maybe, maybe not!"
>this is a very interesting article, thanks!
Bertvan
>>It seems to me somewhere in this research lies an area of compromise.
>>Creationists could find room for claiming it was part of God's design.
Susan:
>They can and do anyway. Evidence is nice, but not required.
Bertvan:
I couldn't ask for more, Susan.-- Materialists allowed to choose the evidence
they see for their philosophy, creationists free to see nature as designed
--by God or by whatever. (Design theorists have evidence; it is evidence
you don't accept. Nor should anyone try to compel you to do so.) No
philosophy should be considered more "scientific" than another, and none
should be imposed upon school children (or anyone else) as ultimate
"scientific" truth. I just re-read David Tylers excellent article, Strange
Alliances. (When I get time, I'm going to read everything else he's written.)
No one is going to "prove" any philosophy. There will always be narrow
minded people who try to impose their beliefs on others by verbal abuse and
denunciation. I hate when it is done in the name of science.
Susan:
>". . . in natural populations of bacteria, "mutator genes," which increase
>the mutation rate, can spread through a population by allowing the bacteria
>to evolve faster. Paradoxically, this happens even though mutations
>produced by the mutator genes, like others, are on average harmful. The
>seemingly impossible occurs because mutators occasionally arise in
>individuals that also carry an advantageous gene. In an asexual population,
>the mutator may then spread with the advantageous gene, a phenomenon >called
the hitchhiking effect. "
>How do you suppose this occurs?
Bertvan:
Any speculation I might make would be worthless. I'll leave it to the
microbiologists. I started to say, " hopefully not ones determined to fit
the evidence into some rigid preconception," but that would be wrong. We all
have personal philosophies--including microbiologists--and we can't prevent
our thinking from being influenced by those world views. Instead, I'll hope
the problem is pursued by scientists with a variety of philosophies. Maybe
the results will be an approximation of the truth.
I know which answers I wish they would find. I'd like to see evidence for
some sort of Lamarckism--mutations influenced by use. I'd like to believe my
decisions and actions, my personal growth, are a tiny part of the progress of
evolution. However I will try to adjust my world view to whatever seems like
objective results.
Bertvan