Comments on: Junk DNA Gave Us the Modern Uterus, in a Giant Genetic Cut-and-Paste Operation

By: John Kwok

John Kwok — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:11:44 +0000

@ tall blue ape -

I wouldn’t dismiss this work because it was funded by Templeton. If the work should be dismissed, then it would be due to its quality, and, judging from the comments I have seen so far (especially amphiox’s), then it shouldn’t.

By: amphiox

amphiox — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 22:48:54 +0000

Margulis tends to overstate that “shunned minority” thing. And she uses a peculiarly restricted definition of natural selection when she makes these arguments. A lot of these mechanisms that she argues to be “non-Darwinian”, or “non-Evolutionary” (whereby evolutionary one means standard current evolutionary theory) really aren’t – they’re just somewhat more extreme examples of the spectrum of mechanisms we already know about.

This example, for instance, is simply one kind of mutation – a variation of a duplication mutation. It just happens to be a particularly big mutation.

And everything that happens afterwards, to optimize the further development and evolution of the organ, is mostly natural selection. ie Mutation + Selection, standard evolutionary theory.

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:57:53 +0000

@Chrysoprace

The article you were referring to is from this site, an interview of Lynn Margulis.

By: Johannes

Johannes — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:49:51 +0000

@Templar

They obviously are incorporated or this research wouldn’t have been done. Transposons wouldn’t be named transposons if their properties weren’t at least partially understood.

True science should be built on facts, so please include specific examples in the future to support your comments. If you are claiming this property of transposons is not accepted by scientists you will have to back that up with proper citations. I wouldn’t be surprised if you are just a creationist trying to misrepresent the facts and spread doubt.

By: Templar 7

Templar 7 — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:40:15 +0000

Well, Gil, they are not already incorporated, and the evidence of that is this article. Give an example please when you make statements like “These sorts of mutations are already incorperated in our current understanding of evolutionary biolog and the sources of novelty.”

True science should be built on facts, should it not?? So please include specific examples in the future to support your comments. This goes for all of you.!!

Good Day!

By: Gil

Gil — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:40:45 +0000

@2 From your description, it sounds like you were reading something by an ID Creationist, which isn’t really what this is about. This article is about a specific sort of genetic recombination having played a stronger role in the evolution of the mammalian reproductive system than previously thought. These sorts of mutations are already incorporated in our current understanding of evolutionary biology and the sources of novelty.

By: Chrysoprace

Chrysoprace — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 04:15:00 +0000

I recall reading an interview recently with a woman whos name I cant recall. She explained a theory that genes are transplanted causing much of evolution, and that natural selection removes but rarely creates. She also said that this theory and those who support it are a shunned minority, but this seems to support that theory.

By: tall blue ape

tall blue ape — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 03:46:29 +0000

err – hold your horses. this saltationist ‘breakthrough’ is funded by Templeton. color me very skeptical about the conclusions reached in this paper.