Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 31 of 760 (609161)
03-17-2011 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by NoNukes
03-17-2011 1:59 AM


Re: Genetic Engineering
I think the immune system is probably a good example of where people's objections to Shapiro's use of non-random comes in. The immune system does not presciently produce antibodies tailored to a specific future challenge nor does it produce them initially in response to such a challenge. Instead a huge number of random, though constrained and not equiprobable, antibody variations are produced. When one of these encounters an antigen to which they correspond then they can stimulate an expansion of and further mutation in the particular subpopulation of antibody producing cells corresponding to that antibody. But this production of high affinity antibodies again works by producing a vast repertoire of randomly mutated, though constrained and not equiprobable, variants and relies on subsequent selection to pick the highest affinity ones.
I think this links to a point Slevesque raised previously about foresight. What we see in these systems is not the result of foresight but feedback. Not all outcomes are equiprobable some mutational systems have a constrained spectrum of mutations they can produce, many transposable elements have specific affinities for target sequences they will insert into, certain chromatin states are genetic sequences are more susceptible to mutation than others.
All of these mean that mutation is not truly random but none of them provide any mechanism of foresight or even genuinely directed mutation. At best some of the feedback mechanisms skew the probabilities slightly so certain classes of mutation become more likely.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : Spelling
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by NoNukes, posted 03-17-2011 1:59 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 32 of 760 (609165)
03-17-2011 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by shadow71
03-15-2011 4:03 PM


My purpose in this post is to discuss whether the Modern synthesis as it is know today should be modified?
Of course it should.
The "Modern Synthesis" dates from the 30s and 40s and predates even the discovery of DNA, yet alone the entire of modern molecular biology and genetics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by shadow71, posted 03-15-2011 4:03 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 33 of 760 (609187)
03-17-2011 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by NoNukes
03-17-2011 1:59 AM


Re: Genetic Engineering
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.
This goes back to the lottery analogy I used in the other thread. The numbered ping pong balls used for the lottery results do not randomly fall out of the sky, nor are they the product of a breakdown at the ping pong factory. The ping pong balls are drawn in a set way on a set day at a set time. In this respect, the lottery is nonrandom in the "Shapiro" sense. There are engineered lottery systems that produce the results. However, the results of the lottery are random with respect to the tickets that were bought. Each and every ticket has the same chance of winning. In this respect, the lottery is random.
How does this relate to mutations? The cell can purposely increase it's mutation rate using specific systems whose purpose is to produce mutations. This is done at specific times in response to specific stimuli. This is analogous to the timing and choosing of the ping pong balls in the lottery. However, like the randomness of the ping pong balls with respect to the tickets the mutations produced by these processes are random with respect to fitness in accordance with the Modern Synthesis.
When molecular biologists talk about random mutations they mean random with respect to fitness. They do not mean that mutations are random with respect to genomic features, time, or environment. Shapiro mixes all of this up. When Shapiro says that mutations are nonrandom he is not referring to fitness. He is referring to genomic features, time, and environment. While all of this can be ferreted out by reading his papers it can still be unnecessarily confusing as shadow has illustrated so well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by NoNukes, posted 03-17-2011 1:59 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 34 of 760 (609213)
03-17-2011 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Taq
03-16-2011 5:26 PM


Re: Puzzled
taq writes;
What is not random? Chromatin binding? DNA binding complexes? Protein-DNA interactions? DNA methylation? What specifically is not random?
If you will recall in the thread "potential falsifications " I e-mailed Shaprio and his whole answer is on that thread.
In my first question to him I asked:
Has Natural Genetic Engineering, changed the modern Darwinian theory of evolution as we know it today?
He answered.
"Of course. Going from random accidents to regulated biochemical systems as the source of genetic variation is a fundamental change. It allows us to understand how outside events can trigger change (see table in my 2006 'genome informatics' article), makes it clear how combinatorial change can occur using established adaptive components (e.g. protein domains, regulatroy modules), and provides a way to investigate what kind of heuristic guidance may be operating in genome change."
Shapiro seem to be very specific in his choice of words and is a highly regarded professional. When he uses the phrase "going from random accidents to regulated biochemical systems" and "heuristic guidance", which to me means they may be discovering or learning something for themselves., leads me to the conclusion that the whole process is nonrandom.
He was also asked "When you use the term sentient do you mean that the cells are capable of making decisions that affect their evolution?"
He replied;
Yes, such as when they activate mobile elements in response to DNA damage, starvation or interspecific hybridization.
So I am of the opinion that he is proposing a system of decision making in the cells that go beyond nonrandom mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Taq, posted 03-16-2011 5:26 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 03-18-2011 11:07 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 603 by zi ko, posted 06-24-2011 4:29 AM shadow71 has replied

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


Message 35 of 760 (609217)
03-17-2011 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by jar
03-16-2011 6:12 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
jar wrote;
Fortunately, it is simply that you totally misunderstand what he is saying and Special Creation will never be more 5than a joke and something for Christian con men to use to keep the gold coming in.
If you will recall Shapiro told me in his reply to me e-mail, "You have understood my position pretty well..." So perhaps you can enlighten me on what I am missing.
I assume your comment on Special Creation is based upon some scientific finding, and I don't believe all who do have faith in Special Creation, in my case as per the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, are all "con" men.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 03-16-2011 6:12 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 03-17-2011 2:56 PM shadow71 has replied

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


Message 36 of 760 (609220)
03-17-2011 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by shadow71
03-17-2011 2:49 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
shadow71 writes:
jar wrote;
Fortunately, it is simply that you totally misunderstand what he is saying and Special Creation will never be more than a joke and something for Christian con men to use to keep the gold coming in.
If you will recall Shapiro told me in his reply to me e-mail, "You have understood my position pretty well..." So perhaps you can enlighten me on what I am missing.
I assume your comment on Special Creation is based upon some scientific finding, and I don't believe all who do have faith in Special Creation, in my case as per the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, are all "con" men.
Not all that support Special Creation are con men, most are simply the suckers that get conned.
There is NO evidence of any outside non-natural influence or guidance.
It really is that simple.
As I said in my first reply, the whole question is pretty much irrelevant. The Theory of Evolution will change as additional evidence comes forward but it is also impossible for any evidence to come forward that does not point to entirely natural unguided events.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by shadow71, posted 03-17-2011 2:49 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by shadow71, posted 03-17-2011 7:11 PM jar has replied

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


Message 37 of 760 (609224)
03-17-2011 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dr Adequate
03-16-2011 8:51 PM


Dr Adequate writes;
This is a false dichotomy. You can talk about "information in the cell" all you want; but the fact remains that the changes are made to an actual physical sequence of DNA in accordance with the laws of chemistry.
I agreeThe changes are made to an actual physical sequence of DNA in accordance wtih the laws of chemistry.
What Shapiro and others are trying to determine is what is causing the changes to be made and how does that system of engineering or information sharing work.
It is interesting that Darwin knew nothing of Genetics, and that Ernst Mayr in his 2001 book "What is Evolution" said it was difficult to understand the great amount of non-coding DNA that was thought to be 95% and he found it difficult to belive that selection would not have been able to get rid of it if it was totally useless.
Mayr was correct, it was not totally useless, and today scientists today such as John Mattick are saying that genomic non-proteincoding sequences are contolling gene expression at many levels.
So the more that is being discovered about information in the cell, the more probable is that the cells have information coded properties that are playing a major role in evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2011 8:51 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 03-17-2011 5:32 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 45 by Wounded King, posted 03-18-2011 5:37 AM shadow71 has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 760 (609247)
03-17-2011 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by shadow71
03-17-2011 3:05 PM


shadow71 writes:
So the more that is being discovered about information in the cell, the more probable is that the cells have information coded properties that are playing a major role in evolution.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by shadow71, posted 03-17-2011 3:05 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by shadow71, posted 03-17-2011 7:22 PM NoNukes has replied

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


Message 39 of 760 (609255)
03-17-2011 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by jar
03-17-2011 2:56 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
jar writes;
Not all that support Special Creation are con men, most are simply the suckers that get conned.
There is NO evidence of any outside non-natural influence or guidance.
That is a distrubing message. Is it your view that anyone who belives in God, that God has a hand in creation, is getting conned?
As for any evidence of non-natural influence or guidance, of course it cannot be proven under a microscope, but one only need look at the Universe, and the wonder of life, and deduce how did this happen?
I would hope you would meditate on these issues and at least consider that there may be an influence that science cannot prove by physical evidence.
I know this message is off post.
That is my last sermon and I truely don't want to argue religion or faith with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 03-17-2011 2:56 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 03-17-2011 7:24 PM shadow71 has replied

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


Message 40 of 760 (609256)
03-17-2011 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by NoNukes
03-17-2011 5:32 PM


No Nukes writes;
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.
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.
All I am saying right now in this post is that Scientists are questioning the modern theory of evolution. That there is more to it than mechanical physical, chemical events that have made evolution as we know it today.
Where the information and sentience came from may never be known unless we can find out the Origin of Life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 03-17-2011 5:32 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by NoNukes, posted 03-17-2011 10:12 PM shadow71 has replied

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


Message 41 of 760 (609257)
03-17-2011 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by shadow71
03-17-2011 7:11 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
shadow71 writes:
jar writes;
Not all that support Special Creation are con men, most are simply the suckers that get conned.
There is NO evidence of any outside non-natural influence or guidance.
That is a distrubing message. Is it your view that anyone who belives in God, that God has a hand in creation, is getting conned?
As for any evidence of non-natural influence or guidance, of course it cannot be proven under a microscope, but one only need look at the Universe, and the wonder of life, and deduce how did this happen?
I would hope you would meditate on these issues and at least consider that there may be an influence that science cannot prove by physical evidence.
I know this message is off post.
That is my last sermon and I truely don't want to argue religion or faith with you.
Actually I am a devout Christian and yes, I firmly believe that anyone that believes in Special Creation is either getting conned or if they claim to be a scientist or educated, a con man. Of course there can also be a few that are simply insane.
Start a thread on it if you would like, I'd be glad to discuss the subject.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by shadow71, posted 03-17-2011 7:11 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by shadow71, posted 03-20-2011 1:33 PM jar has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 760 (609273)
03-17-2011 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by shadow71
03-17-2011 7:22 PM


Modification or replacement
shadow71 writes:
All I am saying right now in this post is that Scientists are questioning the modern theory of evolution. That there is more to it than mechanical physical, chemical events that have made evolution as we know it today.
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:
shadow71 writes:
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.
Modification or replacement? The answer seems to be modification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by shadow71, posted 03-17-2011 7:22 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by shadow71, posted 03-18-2011 9:37 AM NoNukes has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4367 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 43 of 760 (609280)
03-18-2011 12:49 AM


The only thing I can contribute to talk of genetics and evolution is that genetics is not a trail.
Since creationism sees a great blueprint or computer program for biology then it follows that there is simply a dna score for parts and processes in biology.
for example I discovered marsupials are just placentals with some late adaptations. yet evolutionists try to say marsupials are a group from some ancestor and unrelated to placentals. They invoke the dna formations as showing the marsupials have like dna but unlike placentals.
Well then this demonstrates that the dna was simply a atomic manifestation of the biological change from placental to marsupial.
In short all these creatures got the same dna score because they had the same thing happen to them.
Like body change equals like dna change and addition.
So drawing conclusions of biological relationships from genetics is a waste of time except in minor cases of very close and obvious relationship.
Genetics is not evidence for evolution but it has only been a line of reasoning.

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2011 12:54 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 03-18-2011 11:20 AM Robert Byers has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 44 of 760 (609281)
03-18-2011 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Robert Byers
03-18-2011 12:49 AM


Well then this demonstrates that the dna was simply a atomic manifestation of the biological change from placental to marsupial.
DNA phylogenies are based on a combination of highly conserved areas where homologous function is identical between species, and non-coding regions that vary on the basis of random changes, not as a result of variation in body plan or shape.
So, no. The DNA being looked at in this case can't be a "manifestation of the change from placental to marsupial", because the DNA being looked at doesn't contribute to the placental or marsupial characteristics of the compared species.
Biologists aren't stupid. They knew to look at and compare DNA sequences that were insulated from selection and morphological change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Robert Byers, posted 03-18-2011 12:49 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 45 of 760 (609292)
03-18-2011 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by shadow71
03-17-2011 3:05 PM


Shadow, you have to get out of this revisionist genetic history of yours. Mayr's book may have been published in 2001 but the position he was discounting was one that hadn't been current for decades.
In the same 1972 paper in which Susumi Ohno coined the term 'Junk DNA' he was proposing reasons why the non-coding proportions provided a selective advantage. As it happens his proposals were fairly conservative and mostly to do with structural features of the genome. Without considerably more refined technology it is hard to see how he could have anticipated the extent of function of non-coding RNAs, he was after all writing this before, or concurrent with, the development of the earliest DNA and RNA sequencing techniques.
And as I pointed out previously in our discussion of Mattick's work functional roles for non-coding RNAs have been put forward since the 80's and actively researched since the 90's.
In fact it seems to me quite remarkable that within 30 years of those earliest sequencing technologies having been developed, when sequencing 24 base pairs was an achievement, we had the publication of the first draft Human Genome sequences in 2001.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by shadow71, posted 03-17-2011 3:05 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by shadow71, posted 03-18-2011 9:58 AM Wounded King 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