|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
"Cell mergers and WGDs are the kinds of events that activate mobile DNA and genome restructuring. In order to fully integrate the genomic findings with our knowledge of mobile DNA, we have to make use of information about the molecular regulation of mobile DNA activities as well as McClintocks's view that cells RESPOND TO SIGNS OF DANGER, FREQUENTLY RESTRUCTURING THEIR GENOMES AS PART OF THE RESPONSE." (EMPHASIS MINE) All of the DNA sequence changes discussed here are random with respect to fitness just as neo-Darwinism states. The DNA changes elicited by environmental stress are neutral, beneficial, and detrimental with respect to fitness.
This is contra to what you posted above. No, it is not. What would run contra to what I am saying is if specific environmental stresses caused only specific mutations that only resulted in an increase in fitness. This is not what we see. What we see is an increase in transposon integration all over the genome, some of which are beneficial and are selected for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
On this board the possibility of a non-Darwinian theory is never considered. Sure it is. The problem is that the evidence just isn't there, or it is overplayed as in the case of both Shapiro and Koonin.
He, not me, mentions a possible intelligent cellular action in evolution. Based on what evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I just don't see how Shapiro can be rejected out of hand. You have things backwards. What evidence convinced you that Shapiro is right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
His education, experience, studies, research and reputation in the field. I didn't ask for his CV. I asked for the evidence that convinced you. What is it? BTW, my username is Taq (with a Q). It's short for Thermus aquaticus which is the bacterial species famous for it's temperature tolerant DNA polymerase used in PCR (in case you were curious). Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
When he says Molecular compuation network demonstrating biologically useful properties OF SELF-AWARENESS AND DECSION MAKING (emphasis mine) does that not speak of some sort of ability to make decisions based upon what the circumstances present? Mutations are still observed to be random with respect to fitness which is the whole point. The cell does not sense antibiotics in the environment and then specifically mutate a specific gene to produce antibiotic resistance, as one example. Instead, random mutations produce the resistance which is then selected for. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Or more to the point, that his (shadow71) interpretation of Shapiro is right. I think it may be more productive if we start with the data. Once we all agree on what the data says we can better discuss what Shapiro is really saying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
When he says Molecular compuation network demonstrating biologically useful properties OF SELF-AWARENESS AND DECSION MAKING (emphasis mine) does that not speak of some sort of ability to make decisions based upon what the circumstances present? You are pulling small phrases out of their context. That seems to be the problem. I think we would both agree that humans are self-aware and make decisions. However, humans don't decide which mutations are produced in their gametes and which alleles will be passed on to the next generation. Self-awareness and decision making are separate entities from the process of mutation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I am talking about the point when the appearance changes in morphology that defines them as another species. As RAZD mentions, this is somewhat arbitrary. It's like asking when someone stops being a child and becomes an adult. We can't pick a specific nanosecond when this occurs without being arbitrary even if the differences between a 10 year old and 30 year old are obvious to everyone. The same applies to changes in species through time. At the ends of the spectrum the differences are very obvious, but it is impossible to pick the single generation in which they moved from being one species to the next.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024