What is the primary, principal, proper function of RecA? Is it recombination? Or is its primary function to induce variation?

I'd say those were effectively the same thing. Anyway, here's the official version.

I remember first learning about meiosis (I mean when I really learned it, not memorized it). It always seemed to me that not only was it a way to go from diploid to haploid, but it seemed to be set up precisely to let recombination play out.

Some people think science is all about the right answers. But we know better"”It's all about the right questions. LOL

If I was wrong I apologize.
I was assuming that RecA needed a second level function in order for its integrity to be maintained across such disparate species.
I understand hrun's point and if I was wrong for assuming that there must be some other secondary function to ensure that it was conserved to the degree it has been then I stand corrected.

From Evolution Genes:

If evolution is a process that occurs through deep time, any evolution gene would require a secondary function that allowed it to be maintained generation to generation. This would mean evolution genes will be biochemically and genetically detected through their secondary functions.

This is what I was initially asking: If RecA is important to bacteria, but bacteria can live without (but still confering a selective advantage on those that do have it) is recombination the secondary function that allows it to be maintained generation to generation. If it's the primary function, then what is the secondary function that allows it to be maintained generation to generation.

What is the primary, principal, proper function of RecA? Is it recombination? Or is its primary function to induce variation?

Mike Gene?

Nick?

Nick, it almost sounds as if "teleology" is something that comes and goes depending on my choice of language or how I formulate statements. By some circumlocution, policing my vocabulary, rephrasing statements, etc. the "teleology" seems to come and go at will. All that does is substitute synonyms, but never their antonyms or some "mythical" theoretically-neutral language.

The problem with the "eliminativist" argument is that it eliminates itself. Worse, because it is nothing more than an extreme form of nominalism, it eliminates science.

It didn't occur to say that the polar bear's goal is survival. Instead it occurs to say sea water has the goal of forming ice. So the first, problem, Nick, or so it seems to me, is to determine if words like "goal," "purpose," "requirement," and even "consequence" have any meaning in the context of evolutionary biology. It goes w/o saying, does it not?

Because teleology is a theory of causation, Bradford, it suffers the same fate of all theories of causation: the infinite regress. Scientists typically and quite productively avoid the problem by exploring analytically truncated causal trains. Such an approach, as Mike Gene suggests (and if he allows) would note that the polar bear's goal is to survive and that is certainly a causal factor in any realistic evaluation of the co-evolution of, the relationship between polar bears and arctic environments.
The question about the goal of sea water to form ice to support the life of polar bears could probably be left to any scientist who finds questions about the goals of sea water interesting to explore.

Rock:
Wait a sec! Why is "evolution as a goal of RecA function" teleological and "RecA as a requirement for evolution" nonteleological? I don't see what the difference is between the two statements.

Nick:
One statement focuses on goals and purposes. The other focuses on consequences. The statements are not symmetrical, because there can be consequences without goals.

In a long chain of physical events spanning long time periods biological processes, when viewed in isolation, appear like the cited ice formation. Whether this is actually the case can be traced to conditions and events present at the begining of the chain. If mechanisms enabling an adaptation through genetic modification process were the product of teleology then all subsequent events in the chain were fruits of teleology and non-teleology is the mirage.

One statement focuses on goals and purposes. The other focuses on consequences. The statements are not symmetrical, because there can be consequences without goals.

Try this:

1. Sea ice is required for polar bear survival.

2. Polar bear survival is the goal of sea ice formation.

Statement 2. is explicitly teleological. Statement 1 is nonteleological. If 2 is true, 1 may also be true, but there are situations where 2 is false but 1 is still true.

Seems rather that "nonteleology" is irrelevant in this case.

More or less, but that's an odd way to state it. Teleology or lack thereof seems irrelevant in the evolutionary scenario that MikeGene has outlined.

Wait a sec! Why is "evolution as a goal of RecA function" teleological and "RecA as a requirement for evolution" nonteleological? I don't see what the difference is between the two statements. What did substituting "requirement" for "goal" do here? Nothing? Seems rather that "nonteleology" is irrelevant in this case.

(Mike Gene knows our "dirty little secret," Nick: Evolutionary biology is suffused with teleologies, designs, mentalities, and vitalities, formal and final causes, and all that spooky stuff. Always has been and always will be.)

Rock is pointing out that teleology deniers employ teleology themselves without crediting it.:grin: