Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

'Driven' implies way more determinism than Shapiro suggests. Non random is not the opposite of completely determined by. Is Shapiro saying anything more that that some mutations may have a greater likelihood than others? Does that even translate to a greater likelihood of a beneficial mutation occurring relative to a given environment.And is even this observation meaningful unless there link between an outside stimulus and a mutation. In particular how might that work for macroscopic animals?. How would either being eaten or not being eaten by a saber-tooth tiger stimulate a non random beneficial mutation based on information in a reproductive cell.

If you could explain to me why read write memory system implies a deterministic mutation process I'd sure appreciate it. The quoted paragraph merely says that cells access stored information.I'm familiar with the information systems Shapiro refers to in his analogy, but there is no reason to believe that mutations or errors in those system ought to occur deterministically. Where does Shapiro suggest anything more than non-random mutations?Uh.. Never mind. I see some of the answers to my questions in the paper.Edited by NoNukes, : Correction.

Shapiro's paper is way over my head. But Shapiro seems to be saying that some mutations are triggered by environmental stresses and that these particular stresses produce mutations that are more likely than mere random mutation to be responsive to the stress. Table I of the pair gives a list of stimuli and response mechanisms for various organism along with pointers to substantiating papers.While I don't see the connection to special creation, since even the presence of "genetic engineering" systems in a cell is attributed to evolution, I also don't see how Shapiro is simply misusing the term nonrandom.For example, Shapiro states the following on page 24

quote:

---

In fact, we possess counter-examples to randomness in those cases where DNA change has evolved to be a part of the normal life cycle, as in yeast mating-type switching,132 postzygotic macronuclear development in ciliated protozoa,154 and immune system development in vertebrates.130 In those cases, we have even identified some of the molecular mechanisms involved in making the algorithmic searches that ensure reliability in the DNA changes.

---

Let's assume that to be true.What's the tie in to special creation? What is the evidence that any cellular element, including a genetic engineering facility, is not the product of evolution? After all, Shapiro does acknowledge that random mutation does occur.

Shapiro is questioning some aspects of the modern theory of evolution. The question is exactly what the scope of those questions are. I think you overstate them a bit.If information is stored in the cell, it is stored in chemical/mechanical structures and is accessed by known processes. In fact Shapiro talks about natural genetic engineering processes that are identical in nature to other processes known to be carried out in cells.Besides, you've already said more. Are you now backing away from this statement: Modification or replacement? The answer seems to be modification.

In message 19 you said the following:

quote:

---

If in fact the theory does change in accord with Shapiro and others who are researching about a 21st century theory of evolution that does not rely on random mutation, but rather information in the cell that engineers change then Special Creation will become something that Science will have to deal with.

---

In message 40, in response to a request to explain a link between Shapiro's ideas and Special Creation, you say the following:

quote:

---

That is the probably the question that will never be answered by physical evidence. One will have to meditate on the question and decide for him or herself.

---

The latter statement is considerably weaker and less interesting than your former statement. I was hoping to hear a defense of some of the connections between the ideas in Shapiro's paper and Special Creation that you have made elsewhere and in message 19. Am I expecting too much?

Looks like something that would have been more appropriate in the now defunct evidence for design thread. The ideas in this paper are probably off topic here.

As I see things, Shapiro merely suggests a stimulus generated effect on mutations. How does that make Special Creation more likely? I am not asking you for proof. I just want to understand your reasoning. Edited by NoNukes, : Fix quote tags

I can field this one.You cannot see such science because the cover up has been so thoroughly effective. But we know the evidence must have been expunged because science never shows that which we know is true.Yeah, that's it expunged! The RNA and DNA finds have been covered up and the scientists have been expelled and silenced.Yes, expelled!

From the cited paper.

quote:

---

Many scientists may share Dobzhansky's intuitive conviction that the marvelous intricacies of living organisms could not have arisen by the selection of truly random mutations. This minireview suggests that sensitive, directed feedback mechanisms initiated by different kinds of stress might facilitate and accelerate the adaptation of organisms to new environments.

---

So what does directed mean in Dr. Wright's paper. Is it something mysterious that might mean directed by our Creator?

quote:

---

As this minireview is concerned with the importance of the environment in directing evolution

---

Nope. It means directed by the environment. Hmm.And non-random means what exactly?

quote:

---

The starvation conditions that may initiate a series of events such as those described above target the most relevant genes for increased rates of transcription, which in turn increase rates of mutation (111). Transcriptional activation can result from the addition of a substrate or from the removal of a repressor or an end product inhibitor. The latter mechanism, called derepression, occurs in response to starvation for an essential substrate or for an end product that represses its own synthesis by feedback inhibition. Since evolution usually occurs in response to stress (41), transcriptional activation via derepression is the main focus of this minireview.

---

So "not truly random" means that mutation rates can be increased and specific mechanisms invoked by stress conditions from the environment.And what does Dr. Wright say about the source of these mechanisms?

quote:

---

Presumably, feedback mechanisms existing today evolved in the past to prevent unnecessary and wasteful metabolic activities by coordinating these activities with the presence or absence of nutrients in the environment. High mutation rates in derepressed genes prepare cells to respond rapidly to new challenges should the stress become more severe.

---

Perhaps Barbra is not such a heretic after all.The paper seems quite similar to Shaprio's paper which also appears to be a summary or review paper. Neither appears to present any new openings for "planned" evolution or special creation. If you believe in Special Creation before you read this paper, you probably still do after reading it. You are just going to have some more scientific sounding supposition about how God might have intervened. But you haven't given others any reason to consider your beliefs.Dr. Wright's answer to the question "that it is difficult to see how mutation and selection can add up to the formation of such beautifully balanced organs" is to provide a completely natural evolutionary mechanism to generate variation that is acted on by natural selection as it must be. Nothing particularly non-scientific here...

Complete and utter nonsense. I don't see how you can reach that result from what's included in Wright's paper.Dr. Wright uses directed in the sense that the mutation is responsive to a stressing change in the environment and not in a sense that evolution follows a pre-programmed path. If the environment remained stable, then no Lamarkian mutations would take place at all.As Dr. Wright makes clear, she would replace neo-Darwinism evolution with a neo-Larmarkian explanation of evolution that is based on completely naturalistic processes. The controversy is in her Lamarkian approach and not in the use of non-naturalistic explanations. There's nothing the least bit mystical in her paper.

The following quote from Dr. Wright's paper makes clear that Dr. Wright is merely describing a Lamarckian (and naturalistic) modification to Neo-Darwinistic evolution.

quote:

---

In an evolutionary context, we are not concerned with the above molecular mechanisms by which individual types of mutation occur but with another kind of mechanism. Evolution depends upon events that enhance mutation rates, thus increasing the supply of variants from which the fittest are selected. Therefore, the word mechanism in the present context will refer to the circumstances affecting mutation rates.

---

Thanks WK, that's helpful information.What I don't understand is why Wright and Shapiro believe that their peers are resistant to those concepts?I also find hard find it hard to understand how the mechanisms discussed by Dr. Wright can explain the evolution of the sophisticated organs in animals. Lamarckian changes in animals shouldn't end up in their offspring.Dr. Wright's paper says the following:

quote:

---

...it is difficult to see how mutation and selection can add up to the formation of such beautifully balanced organs as, for example, the human eye."

---

Yet it would not seem that anything she says would be helpful in speeding the formation of a human eye.

You can say whatever you want. But you are changing the subject considerably. Your claim is essentially that if Wright is correct, evolution is planned. To this point, your claim seems to be based on taking the word "directed" and running it out into left field. I think you are doing a bit of burden shifting here. You are the one claiming a supernatural process based on a paper offering naturalistic explanations. Why don't you tell us how you can do that?

Dr. Wright does mention detrimental mutations. In fact she says that most mutations are deleterious.

quote:

---

A multitude of random mechanisms result in hypermutation under conditions of environmental stress and clearly contribute to the variability essential to evolution. However, since most mutations are deleterious, random mechanisms that increase mutation rates also result in genomewide DNA damage.

---