Unser Haushund: Eine Spitzmaus im Wolfspelz? - Wolf-Ekkehard ...

119Integrationsniveau (few genes: "function (mission) was to integrate…")notwendigerweise insgesamt herabgesetzt wird.Weiter Dawkins:"This illustrates a generally important point about evolution. When you notice a characteristic of an animaland ask what its Darwinian survival value is, you may be asking the wrong question. It could be that thecharacteristic you have picked out is not the one that matters. It may have "come along for the ride”,dragged along in evolution by some other characteristic to which it is pleiotropically linked.”Die Frage ist zunächst, ob man den negativ-pleiotropen Integrationsabbau mitpositiv-pleiotropen Genwirkungen und -funktionsaufbau so einfach gleichsetzenkann. Dawkins und viele weiterer Vertreter der Synthetischen Evolutionstheorieversuchen ihr Weltbild gegen jedwede Möglichkeit der Widerlegung zuimmunisieren (und man kann sich dann wohl selbst noch in den fragwürdigstenFällen auf die Pleiotropie berufen). Lönnig, Stüber, Saedler und Kimkommentierten zu dieser Frage (2007, p. 26 und ähnlich Lönnig 2010, p. 13):"Sometimes it is argued that the morphological deviations might be just by-products of physiologicalchanges. Moreover, Mayr (1963) claimed that "one can never assert with confidence that a given structuredoes not have selective significance.” And Simpson (1953) argued that "the fallibility of personaljudgements as to the adaptive value of particular characters...is notorious”, – referring especially to featuresof animals quite unlike any now living. Dobzhansky (1975) asserted that "not even a biologist of Grassé'sexperience can judge reliably which characters are useful, neutral, or harmful in a given species.” Thesestatements may illustrate the frequency and depth of the problem. Yet the perceptive reader may wonderwhether such statements can ever be falsified (Grassé 1977; Brady 1982; ReMine 1993; Wesson 1997;Müller and Newman 2003).”"Just to emphasize the key message of the last paragraph: If there is no way to falsify such expositions,they are outside science (Popper), as appears to be the fact for large parts of the selection hypothesisgenerally (for further points, see Lönnig 2001). Although it might as well be possible to almost infinitelyinvent various new environmental scenarios to explain a phenomenon by selection, this infinity of mostlynon-testable explanations (often just-so-stories) itself may put the theory outside science.Dawkins fährt fort:"The evolution of the dog, then, if Coppinger is right, was not just a matter of artificial selection, but a complicatedmixture of natural selection (which predominated in the early stages of domestication) and artificial selection (whichcame to the fore more recently). The transition would have been seamless, which again goes to emphasise thesimilarity − as Darwin recognised − between artificial and natural selection.”Gene. Public Debates about Human Heredity. The University of Wisconsin Press. (Der Time-Beitrag war betitelt: Gloomy Nobelman).Und weiter Muller (1955) nach http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/muller.html: "It is entirely in line with the accidental nature ofmutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving andreproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation.According to the conception of evolution based on the studies of modern genetics, the whole organism has its basis in its genes. Of these there arethousands of different kinds, interacting with great nicety in the production and maintenance of the complicated organization of the giventype of organism. Accordingly, by the mutation of one of these genes or another, in one way or another, any component structure or function, andin many cases combinations of these components, may become diversely altered. Yet in all except very rare cases the change will bedisadvantageous, involving an impairment of function.”Zur Frage How rare? siehe z. B. http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf, p. 50. Im Anschluss auf das obige Zitatwird Muller weiter mit einer non-sequitur-Behauptung zitiert (non-sequitur weil er weder "very rare" definiert noch was präzis advantageous bedeuten soll. Heutekönnen wir sagen: However, the creation of entirely new functional DNA-sequences constituting new genes and new gene reaction chains for novel synorganizedanatomical structures and/or physiological functions has never been achieved by induced random mutations in plants or animals. Thus, in accordance with thelaws of probability, examples and cases relativizing the law of recurrent variation have not been observed so far (as for the limits of the origin of species by mutations,see Lamprecht 1974, Grassé 1977, Wittlich 1991, Scherer 1993, ReMine 1993, Margulis and Sagan 1997, Junker und Scherer 2001, Lönnig 1993 1995 2001 2002a2002c 2002d 2004 2006, Swift 2002, Lönnig and Becker 2004, Lönnig et al. 2005, Meyer 2004, Schwabe 2001 2004 and many other authors).Weiter nun auf diesem Hintergrund Mullers non-sequitur-Behauptung: "It is nevertheless to be inferred that all the superbly interadaptedgenes of any present-day organism arose through just this process of accidental natural mutation. This could take place only because of theDarwinian principle of natural selection, applying to the genes. [Und hier kommen − wenn man einmal die darauf folgende Aussage zu "advantageouschange" im Sinne des Neodarwinismus als richtig gelten lassen möchte − natürlich wieder alle die oben zitierten deutlichen Unterschiede zwischen natural undartificial selection ins Spiel, die Dawkins verwischen will] That is, on the rare occasions when an accidental mutation did happen to effect anadvantageous change, the resultant individual, just because it was aided by that mutation, tended to multiply more than the others.” − Was beiden Haustieren aus den oben im Detail aufgeführten und diskutierten Gründen (Haushund: "These various traits have no survival valueand would have been quickly eliminated if they were to occur naturally.”) praktisch nur in der Ohut des Menschen und nicht in the wildder Fall ist. Als Quelle wird angegeben: "H. J. Muller, "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,Volume 11, number 9, Nov 1955, pp 329-338 and 352 (extract from page 331).”