Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 586 of 968 (601781)
01-24-2011 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 575 by shadow71
01-23-2011 7:42 PM


Re: The past five decades of research in genetics and molecular biology have brouRe: yawn
shadow71 writes:
I posted Shapiro's views...
Other people seem to think that what you actually posted was your misinterpretation of Shapiro's views. People are not going to discuss the details and implications of what they feel is a misinterpretation, they're just going to continue pointing out that you're misinterpreting Shapiro. If you want to actually discuss Shapiro's views then you're going to have to reach a consensus with the other people here about what those views really are.
Shapiro has been critical of the field of biology for inappropriately insisting on evolution as a scientific orthodoxy rather than just one of many dynamic and changing scientific theories. He seems to derive this belief from decidedly incomplete observations of the creation/evolution controversy, taking no notice of the fact that this is an arena where scientists are forced to make simple and unnuanced claims because of the general lack of knowledge and familiarity with evolution of laypeople in general and fundamentalist Christians in particular. Scientists take it as a given that all fields of science are dynamic and changing, but this quality of "dynamic and changing" which evolution shares with physics and chemistry and cosmology and geology and all the other fields of science does not mean that these theories are in danger of being overturned or even just radically changed.
Both Shapiro and Koonin have chosen extreme ways of expressing their views which garner them attention, which is I guess what they want. If you really believe Shapiro thinks that, for example, cells are intelligent in the same way that people are intelligent, then send him an email and ask him about it: jsha@midway.uchicago.edu
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 575 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2011 7:42 PM shadow71 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 587 by molbiogirl, posted 01-24-2011 11:53 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 587 of 968 (601801)
01-24-2011 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 586 by Percy
01-24-2011 7:13 AM


shadow, define your terms.
Percy, I'd like to second your request.
shadow, before we go any further, please summarize Shapiro's position in your own words. No quotes. Just your own words.
In particular, focus on those aspects of Shapiro's work that "falsify" the current theory of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 586 by Percy, posted 01-24-2011 7:13 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 588 of 968 (601804)
01-24-2011 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 562 by shadow71
01-22-2011 4:32 PM


Re: increased mutation rate is not directed mutation
Here Shapiro seems to go beyond what you have posted above.
He doesn't "go beyond". He uses a different definition, one that does not impact the Modern Synthesis. The key phrase is here:
"These phenomena show us that cells are capable of altering their genomes in non-random but not rigidly specified or pre-determined ways."
What Shapiro is talking about is that mutations are non-random with respect to time and sequence. The Modern Synthesis is based on the idea that mutations are random with respect to fitness. Shapiro agrees by saying that these mutations are not "rigidly specified or pre-determined".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 562 by shadow71, posted 01-22-2011 4:32 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 589 of 968 (601805)
01-24-2011 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 560 by shadow71
01-22-2011 4:08 PM


Re: The past five decades of research in genetics and molecular biology have brouRe: yawn
See above paper, and the impressive list of papers he has written in re "natural genetic engineering",
So what evidence did Shapiro present in those papers that convinced you he was right?
This isn't a suggested reading forum. This is a discussion forum. If you think that Shapiro's findings are important then discuss his findings, including the evidence that Shapiro uses to support his claims.
I have as a trial lawyer in many Product Liability and Med-Mal case retained and qualified many experts.
When these experts testify they have to present the evidence that led to their conclusions, do they not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 560 by shadow71, posted 01-22-2011 4:08 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 590 of 968 (601806)
01-24-2011 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 571 by Bolder-dash
01-23-2011 8:02 AM


You really think you can convince anyway with even a slightly critical and honest skepticism that horizontal gene transfers are going to make up all the complete, synergistic and elegant systems we see in living creatures?
No one has suggested that HGT is responsible for ALL adaptations.
Every time a new discovery is made in biological research we see less and less of the kinds of random variation that your side predicts we should see and banks on, and instead see more and more evidence for rapid, intelligent pathways to adaptive successes..
The pathways that you talk about utilize random mutations with respect to fitness. Everything from the SOS mechanism seen in bacteria to the systems that Shapiro talks about increase the random mutation rate during times of stress. It would seem that the "intelligent pathways" utilize random mutation and selection.
Epigentics suggest that the genome has a flexible memory that changes over one's lifetime, and imparts that lifetimes worth of knowledge into the cell in some fascinating and clever way. Darwin is dead wounded king, I know how much this hurts Dr. A and Granny's and Percy's and your world view, but the theory has already been falsified, you just didn't notice it with all those patches over your eyes and ears.
Epigenetics can not explain the morphological and physiological differences between species. There is no epigenetic pathway that will allow a chimp to give birth to a human. There is no epigenetic pathway that will cause skydivers to grow wings. The differences between species is due to a difference in DNA sequence, not a difference in histone packaging or DNA methylation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 571 by Bolder-dash, posted 01-23-2011 8:02 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 591 by barbara, posted 01-24-2011 10:05 PM Taq has replied

barbara
Member (Idle past 4801 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 591 of 968 (601899)
01-24-2011 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 590 by Taq
01-24-2011 12:27 PM


Differences in DNA sequences
Taq responded that the differences between species is the differences in DNA sequences. At some point for speciation or descent with modification, differences in the DNA sequences must change within the species population.
if epigenetics is not a factor, what specific mutations in the germ cells would modify the offspring to create a new generation of slightly different appearance from their parents?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by Taq, posted 01-24-2011 12:27 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 592 by Coyote, posted 01-24-2011 10:42 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 593 by Taq, posted 01-24-2011 11:27 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 594 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2011 11:56 PM barbara has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 592 of 968 (601905)
01-24-2011 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 591 by barbara
01-24-2011 10:05 PM


Re: Differences in DNA sequences
Taq noted that "Epigenetics can not explain the morphological and physiological differences between species."
Somehow you twisted that to "if epigenetics is not a factor, what specific mutations in the germ cells would modify the offspring to create a new generation of slightly different appearance from their parents?"
Are you aware of the vast difference between his statement and your interpretation of it?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 591 by barbara, posted 01-24-2011 10:05 PM barbara has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 593 of 968 (601908)
01-24-2011 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 591 by barbara
01-24-2011 10:05 PM


Re: Differences in DNA sequences
if epigenetics is not a factor, what specific mutations in the germ cells would modify the offspring to create a new generation of slightly different appearance from their parents?
All, some, or none of them. It all depends on the mutation. It also depends on the mixture of mutations that occurred in your parents that are then passed on to you.
One thing is for sure. When biologists sit down to figure out why humans and chimps are different the first place they look is at the DNA sequence, not at the differences in DNA methylation or histone packaging (which is the basis for epigenetics). The differences between humans and chimps is due to the different mutations accumulated in each lineage, not a difference in epigenetic changes which only last for a few generations to begin with.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 591 by barbara, posted 01-24-2011 10:05 PM barbara has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 594 of 968 (601916)
01-24-2011 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 591 by barbara
01-24-2011 10:05 PM


Re: Differences in DNA sequences
Hi again barbara,
if epigenetics is not a factor, what specific mutations in the germ cells would modify the offspring to create a new generation of slightly different appearance from their parents?
Do you know anyone that looks exactly like one of their parents?
If not, then all you need are the numbers of mutations in a single generation of humans.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 591 by barbara, posted 01-24-2011 10:05 PM barbara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 595 by Taq, posted 01-25-2011 1:19 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 606 by barbara, posted 01-25-2011 4:03 PM RAZD has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 595 of 968 (601924)
01-25-2011 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 594 by RAZD
01-24-2011 11:56 PM


Re: Differences in DNA sequences
Do you know anyone that looks exactly like one of their parents?
If not, then all you need are the numbers of mutations in a single generation of humans.
To be fair, in order for children to look different than their parents all it takes is a mixture of alleles from mom and dad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2011 11:56 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 596 of 968 (601965)
01-25-2011 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 583 by jar
01-23-2011 9:20 PM


Re: Fine tuning
jar writes,
So far EVERY cause we have EVER found for ANYTHING has been natural.
If it is supernatural, then it is not natural then it is not something that we can even study.
Can you tell me what is the cause of of Random Mutation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 583 by jar, posted 01-23-2011 9:20 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 597 by jar, posted 01-25-2011 11:30 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 598 by Taq, posted 01-25-2011 11:33 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 597 of 968 (601966)
01-25-2011 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 596 by shadow71
01-25-2011 11:21 AM


Re: Fine tuning
Too funny.
Of course I can. Most are simply errors.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 596 by shadow71, posted 01-25-2011 11:21 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 598 of 968 (601968)
01-25-2011 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 596 by shadow71
01-25-2011 11:21 AM


Re: Fine tuning
Can you tell me what is the cause of of Random Mutation?
There are mutations caused by physical and chemical processes, such as chemical mutagens or ionizing radiation. These reactions alter the chemical makeup of the DNA resulting in direct changes to the sequence or misreading of the DNA by polymerases (the enzymes that copy DNA during replication).
Another source of mutations are changes made by the polymerases themselves due to the inherent properties of the protein. In the following study they found that there is a loose fit between the polymerase and incoming nucleotides that are used to copy the DNA.
quote:
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Nov 1;102(44):15803-8. Epub 2005 Oct 25.
Probing the active site tightness of DNA polymerase in subangstrom increments.
Kim TW, Delaney JC, Essigmann JM, Kool ET.
Department of Chemistry, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5080, USA.
Abstract
We describe the use of a series of gradually expanded thymine nucleobase analogs in probing steric effects in DNA polymerase efficiency and fidelity. In these nonpolar compounds, the base size was increased incrementally over a 1.0-A range by use of variably sized atoms (H, F, Cl, Br, and I) to replace the oxygen molecules of thymine. Kinetics studies with DNA Pol I (Klenow fragment, exonuclease-deficient) in vitro showed that replication efficiency opposite adenine increased through the series, reaching a peak at the chlorinated compound. Efficiency then dropped markedly as a steric tightness limit was apparently reached. Importantly, fidelity also followed this trend, with the fidelity maximum at dichlorotoluene, the largest compound that fits without apparent repulsion. The fidelity at this point approached that of wild-type thymine. Surprisingly, the maximum fidelity and efficiency was found at a base pair size significantly larger than the natural size. Parallel bypass and mutagenesis experiments were then carried out in vivo with a bacterial assay for replication. The cellular results were virtually the same as those seen in solution. The results provide direct evidence for the importance of a tight steric fit on DNA replication fidelity. In addition, the results suggest that even high-fidelity replicative enzymes have more steric room than necessary, possibly to allow for an evolutionarily advantageous mutation rate.
Probing the active site tightness of DNA polymerase in subangstrom increments - PMC
Effeciency refers to the speed at which the reactions occur and fidelity refers to the accuracy of the polymerases. They found that there is a loose fit between the polyermase and the chemicals it is interacting with resulting in the wrong base being inserted once in a long while.
As you can see, this is not tied to fitness. Environmental pressures can not cause a mutation at a specific base in a specific gene. Even when PCR amplifying a single gene with the same sequence over and over there are mutations at different spots.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 596 by shadow71, posted 01-25-2011 11:21 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 599 of 968 (601971)
01-25-2011 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 585 by RAZD
01-23-2011 10:16 PM


Re: what gets turned on? what's new?
razd writes,
Then you are equivocating between neo-Darwinism and the modern interpretation of the theory of evolution, in spite of being told several times that these are not the same thing.
Let me see if I can make it a little easier for you - the modern interpretation of the theory of evolution can be simply stated as:
The Theory of Evolution is that the process of evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.
This means that everything we know about how evolution occurs, and everything we know about the diversity of life, is part of the modern interpretation of the theory of evolution.
This includes Darwinism.
This includes neo-Darwinism.
This includes all the current knowledge within the field of biological evolution about all the mechanism involved in the process of evolution.
This also means that any new knowledge that is confirmed and validated by the scientific process concerning new mechanisms for the process of evolution, whether for specific organisms or general, will be incorporated into the theory of evolution, and that when that is done, we can "redefine" the modern theory of evolution to be:
The Theory of Evolution is that the process of evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.
Enjoy.
Then according to your reasoning the theory of evolution as we know it can never be falsified because any new mechanisms we discover are automatically attributed to our theory of evolution.
For example if "random mutation" is found to be unable to change information in the cell to to allow one species to evolve into another species, would your theory of evolution still be true?
I am not equivocating between neo-Darwinism and the modern interpretation of the theory of evolution. I am saying that James Shapiro based upon his research wrote:
"hereditary variation arises from the NON-RANDOM action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering." (My emphasis}
If that is accurrate then randon mutation does not account for the process of evolution. Does not account for evolution from one species to another, macro evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 585 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2011 10:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 600 by Taq, posted 01-25-2011 11:52 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 601 by molbiogirl, posted 01-25-2011 11:59 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 605 by Percy, posted 01-25-2011 1:44 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 608 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2011 7:26 PM shadow71 has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 600 of 968 (601975)
01-25-2011 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 599 by shadow71
01-25-2011 11:43 AM


Re: what gets turned on? what's new?
Then according to your reasoning the theory of evolution as we know it can never be falsified because any new mechanisms we discover are automatically attributed to our theory of evolution.
Let's use heliocentrism as an analogy. Is there any evidence that would falsify the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun? Outside of a Matrix-type universe where we are being fed falsehoods, I really can't think of any evidence that would topple this theory.
However, there is some hotshot geocentrist that thinks he has found a chink in the armor. He found a quote from Galileo himself that spoke about the circular orbit of the Earth. HELIOCENTRISM IS NOW FALSIFIED!!!! Why, you ask? Earth follows an elliptical orbit, not a circular one. Heliocentrism is now falsified, right?
Sorry, meant to include this in the original post:
For example if "random mutation" is found to be unable to change information in the cell to to allow one species to evolve into another species, would your theory of evolution still be true?
Of the genetic differences between humans and chimps, which could not be produced by the process of random mutation? Perhaps we should start here.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 599 by shadow71, posted 01-25-2011 11:43 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 607 by barbara, posted 01-25-2011 4:11 PM Taq has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024