scherado wrote:Tell me, how did the inheritance mechanism originate?

scherado wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

scherado wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
I don't know but that is completely irrelevant to the question of common ancestry. ...

Yes you don't know, that's correct. I asked how the inheritance mechanism came into existence. Plainly, clearly
I will type very slowly in the off-chance that it will help: How did the inheritance mechanism originate?

I don't know. Nobody knows. It's being investigated.

Now, what has that got to do with common descent?

Are you serious?

I have no issue with common descent. I might not really care about it at all.

What I do care about is the origin of the inheritance mechanism. Eh? Isn't that the larger question? No? YES!

Alan B wrote:

scherado wrote:Tell me, how did the inheritance mechanism originate?

V-e-r-y g-r-a-d-u-a-l-l-y by adapting to changing environmental conditions such that an organism can claim similarities and properties to a distant ancestor which survived in conditions not conducive to the later organism.

Well, that's one possible explanation - maybe.

Now, scherado, define 'common descent' and 'inheritance mechanism'. Then explain precisely what the differences are.

Alan B wrote:I sense an 'out of one's depth' feeling coming on.

I shall do some more reading. But not now I'm off to bed!

Just A Theory wrote:Fortunately scherado others have actually asked the same question. One of my favourite papers (although it's a bit dated now) is by Richard Dawkins and is titled The Evolution of Evolvability.

Knock yourself out.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Alan B wrote:I sense an 'out of one's depth' feeling coming on.

I shall do some more reading. But not now I'm off to bed!

The only ones really out of their depth are the ones who won't tackle any difficult reading in trying to answer their questions.

laklak wrote:Turtles. They're all over the place.

Fenrir wrote:

Course they could be half turtle and half tortoise, that might cause issues.

laklak wrote:Turtles. They're all over the place.

scherado wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

scherado wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
So what do you think is missing from what we know about the propagation of genes in order to be able infer the common descent of humans and gorillas? ...

Sorry for the delay.

What I meant by, "more fundamental questions," is this: We have a fine understanding of inheritance mechanism(s), but, the question remains, how the bleep did such a mechanism come into existence, that is, what is the origin?

Which, as I pointed out to you before, has fuck all to do with the title you chose for this thread.
...

Tell me, how did the inheritance mechanism originate?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:Fortunately scherado others have actually asked the same question. One of my favourite papers (although it's a bit dated now) is by Richard Dawkins and is titled The Evolution of Evolvability.

Knock yourself out.

I know, I know. In the appendices for "The Blind Watchmaker", Dawkins put his thinking to work on the problem. What was that, thirty years ago? I'm guessing scherado hasn't read that one, and will stick for the time being with "The Tyrrany of Words".

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

scherado wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

scherado wrote:
Sorry for the delay.

What I meant by, "more fundamental questions," is this: We have a fine understanding of inheritance mechanism(s), but, the question remains, how the bleep did such a mechanism come into existence, that is, what is the origin?

Which, as I pointed out to you before, has fuck all to do with the title you chose for this thread.
...

Tell me, how did the inheritance mechanism originate?

Tell me, how does rain work. See, I can ask non-sequitur questions too.

scherado wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:Fortunately scherado others have actually asked the same question. One of my favourite papers (although it's a bit dated now) is by Richard Dawkins and is titled The Evolution of Evolvability.

Knock yourself out.

I know, I know. In the appendices for "The Blind Watchmaker", Dawkins put his thinking to work on the problem. What was that, thirty years ago? I'm guessing scherado hasn't read that one, and will stick for the time being with "The Tyrrany of Words".

No, scherado will read the beginning of the content at the link, see "random mutation", then that the inheritance mechanism is "poof" there without account--it is GIVEN to exist.

Really.

Nice try. We all know that the origination of the inheritance mechanism is what needs to be explained.

Regina wrote:...
Maybe you should try and relax a bit? It's always a bad, bad sign when people start referring to themselves in the third person.

scherado wrote:

Regina wrote:...
Maybe you should try and relax a bit? It's always a bad, bad sign when people start referring to themselves in the third person.

Well, if you don't think that the question of the origin of the well-understood inheritance mechanism is what's "missing", then you and I have nothing to discuss.