Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 760 (609553)
03-21-2011 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Taq
03-21-2011 11:08 AM


Conspiracy
Taq writes:
So much true science is being covered up to protect the sacred cow of Darwinism.
You would think that such accusations would be followed by actual science that has been ignored that ties into this thread somehow. It seems that you are big on claims and short on evidence.
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!
techcristian writes:
Taq writes:
There are nearly as many scientists on both sides of the argument and recent finds in RNA and DNA disprove Darwinism.
I look forward to you starting a thread and demonstrating this.
The RNA and DNA finds have been covered up and the scientists have been expelled and silenced.
Yes, expelled!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Taq, posted 03-21-2011 11:08 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Taq, posted 03-21-2011 12:54 PM 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 77 of 760 (609555)
03-21-2011 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by NoNukes
03-20-2011 3:02 PM


Re: Modification or replacement
NoNukes writes;
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.
Shapiro's Natural Genetic engineering is an information based system, where the cells in a regulatory, cognitive manner cause alterations to happen in a single generation and may effect multiple cells and organisms at the same time. These are fundamentally different from the small random variations of the modern synthesis.
The molecular discoveries since the modern synthesis have shown complexity such as seen in the workings of a computer.
How this complexity arose is now the central question in evolution.
The cells supplement random genetic variation and have the abllity to repair their systems.
He states genetic change can be massive and non-random.
In essence he states that :
"...cells have molecular computing networks which process information about internal operations and about the external enviroment to make decisions controlling growth, movement, and differentiation,,,"
"These inducible DNA damage response systems are sophisticated and include so called 'checkpoint' functions that act to arrest cell division until the repair process has been completed. When the checkpoints do not function, cell division proceeds before repair is completed, and the damaged cells die or produce inviable progeny. One can characterize this survelliance /inducible repair/checkpoint system as a molecular computation network demonstrating biologically useful properties of self-awareness and decision making."
(Both quotes from "A Third Way: James Shapiro and the Post-Modern Synthesis" in the Boston Review. That article is cited in the thread "potential falisfications of the Theory of Evolution" and can easily be found by googling James A. Shapiro)
Shapiro in an e-mail reply to me also cited on this board stated that the cells are sentient, by which he means they are capable of making decisions that affect their evolution.
All of this to me leads to the conclusion that evolution is not random mutations for fitness, and "Natural Selection", but rather a planned process.
To me that leads to God.
Hope that helps.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2011 3:02 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Taq, posted 03-21-2011 12:46 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 81 by Granny Magda, posted 03-21-2011 2:17 PM shadow71 has replied

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


Message 78 of 760 (609559)
03-21-2011 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by shadow71
03-21-2011 12:36 PM


Re: Modification or replacement
Shapiro's Natural Genetic engineering is an information based system, where the cells in a regulatory, cognitive manner cause alterations to happen in a single generation and may effect multiple cells and organisms at the same time. These are fundamentally different from the small random variations of the modern synthesis.
This is a perfect example of the mistake you consistently have made in these discussions. Those alterations are random with respect to fitness. The fact that the rate of random mutation is increased by environmental stimuli does not make them non-random as it is described in the Modern Synthesis.
Using a specific example, when E. coli sense DNA breakage due to stress they upregulate the DinB gene. This is an error prone polymerase IV enzyme. What results is an increase in the random mutation rate. All genes are mutated in one bacterium or another. No gene is targetted for mutation, and no environmental cues are used to decide which genes to mutate. The mutations that are produced are beneficial, neutral, and detrimental. All of these types of mutations are produced by the DinB gene product.
The molecular discoveries since the modern synthesis have shown complexity such as seen in the workings of a computer.
Science has also used genetic algorithms based on random mutation and selection to design computer circuits.
Shapiro in an e-mail reply to me also cited on this board stated that the cells are sentient, by which he means they are capable of making decisions that affect their evolution.
The decision that they make is to increase their random mutation rate.
All of this to me leads to the conclusion that evolution is not random mutations for fitness, . . .
All of what? You have yet to present any evidence, only opinion.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by shadow71, posted 03-21-2011 12:36 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by shadow71, posted 03-21-2011 4:41 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 79 of 760 (609560)
03-21-2011 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by NoNukes
03-21-2011 12:19 PM


Re: Conspiracy
Yeah, that's it expunged!
and . . .
Yes, expelled!
These type of arguments always crack me up. It's as if creationists are digging through the trashcans at universities and research laboratories and uncovering all of this data that scientists are throwing out. If only this were true. It would make these discussions much more interesting. Sadly, most creationists have never even read a scientific peer reviewed journal. Perhaps 1% of online creationists have done a single search on Pubmed in my estimation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 03-21-2011 12:19 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 760 (609563)
03-21-2011 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by shadow71
03-20-2011 5:23 PM


Dr. Wright's conclusion
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by shadow71, posted 03-20-2011 5:23 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by shadow71, posted 03-21-2011 7:21 PM NoNukes has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 81 of 760 (609579)
03-21-2011 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by shadow71
03-21-2011 12:36 PM


Cart/Horse
Shadow, please don't lie to us and, more importantly, please don't lie to yourself.
All of this to me leads to the conclusion that evolution is not random mutations for fitness, and "Natural Selection", but rather a planned process.
To me that leads to God.
Bullshit. That is not how your thought process went and you know it. I don't believe for a second that you were lead to your belief in God as creator by Shapiro's waffle. No-one is going to believe that, since it is transparently false. Here is what I suspect you actually did;
You already believed in God as creator;
That means it had to be a planned process;
You searched for any scientist pushing a hypothesis that could be made to fit that model;
Shapiro fitted the bill;
That lead you to Shapiro.
You didn't reach your "God conclusion" by following the evidence; you retro-fitted the evidence to the conclusion you already believed.
Of course, even if your silly bit of self-deception were true, it would still be terribly poor logic. Why should this evidence point to Yaweh? Why not Brahma? Why gods of any kind? Why not aliens? Or extra-dimensional beings?
The truth is that none of this is specific support for the Christian god, despite your best attempts to convince yourself that it is.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by shadow71, posted 03-21-2011 12:36 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 03-21-2011 2:19 PM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 96 by shadow71, posted 03-21-2011 5:31 PM Granny Magda has replied

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


Message 82 of 760 (609581)
03-21-2011 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Granny Magda
03-21-2011 2:17 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
There is more. Using a term like "sentient" to describe biological, chemical and physics processes is simply a perversion of the English language.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Granny Magda, posted 03-21-2011 2:17 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by bluegenes, posted 03-21-2011 2:55 PM jar has replied
 Message 85 by Granny Magda, posted 03-21-2011 3:13 PM jar has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 83 of 760 (609588)
03-21-2011 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by jar
03-21-2011 2:19 PM


Eh?
jar writes:
There is more. Using a term like "sentient" to describe biological, chemical and physics processes is simply a perversion of the English language.
Are you sure? Not all English speakers are dualists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 03-21-2011 2:19 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 03-21-2011 2:59 PM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 84 of 760 (609591)
03-21-2011 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by bluegenes
03-21-2011 2:55 PM


Re: Eh?
Yup. At the molecular level there is no equipment to be sentient.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by bluegenes, posted 03-21-2011 2:55 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by bluegenes, posted 03-21-2011 3:15 PM jar has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 85 of 760 (609593)
03-21-2011 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by jar
03-21-2011 2:19 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
Hi jar,
I completely agree. Humpty-Dumpty would be proud. That one is Shapiro's fault though. As far as I can tell he is wilfully abusing the term "sentient", probably for the attention, but who can say...
I just feel sorry for those who, like Shadow, are taken in by the con trick. All they will see is a sciencey-sounding rationalisation, that allows them to continue believing what they already believed and so deeply wish to believe. It must be a very tempting business.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 03-21-2011 2:19 PM jar has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 86 of 760 (609594)
03-21-2011 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by jar
03-21-2011 2:59 PM


Re: Eh?
jar writes:
Yup. At the molecular level there is no equipment to be sentient.
You said:
Using a term like "sentient" to describe biological, chemical and physics processes is simply a perversion of the English language.
I didn't see any specification of any level in that sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 03-21-2011 2:59 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Granny Magda, posted 03-21-2011 3:26 PM bluegenes has replied
 Message 88 by jar, posted 03-21-2011 3:34 PM bluegenes has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 87 of 760 (609595)
03-21-2011 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by bluegenes
03-21-2011 3:15 PM


Re: Eh?
Hi bluegenes,
I see where you're coming from, but I still think that Shapiro's use of language is deeply misleading. Dualist, materialist, whatever, it is just silly and misleading to use the same term for feedback mechanisms in the cell as we use for the activity of an entire brain. I certainly don't think that he is using the word in the way that most people would understand it.
Interestingly, this would seem to be a far bigger problem for shadow than for nay materialist. I always thought that Catholics regarded sentience as some sort of special quality, which needed the intervention of God. If we accept Shapiro's usage, then a mere assemblage of genetic regulatory systems are sentient. That seems to argue as much against the need for a divine origin for sentience as it argues for it.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by bluegenes, posted 03-21-2011 3:15 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by bluegenes, posted 03-21-2011 3:44 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied
 Message 90 by Taq, posted 03-21-2011 3:47 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 88 of 760 (609596)
03-21-2011 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by bluegenes
03-21-2011 3:15 PM


Re: Eh?
bluegenes writes:
jar writes:
Yup. At the molecular level there is no equipment to be sentient.
You said:
Using a term like "sentient" to describe biological, chemical and physics processes is simply a perversion of the English language.
I didn't see any specification of any level in that sentence.
And we were discussing cellular and genetic changes. No brain there.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by bluegenes, posted 03-21-2011 3:15 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by bluegenes, posted 03-21-2011 3:52 PM jar has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 89 of 760 (609598)
03-21-2011 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Granny Magda
03-21-2011 3:26 PM


Re: Eh?
Granny Magda writes:
Hi bluegenes,
I see where you're coming from, but I still think that Shapiro's use of language is deeply misleading.
I agree. But so was jar's. And if we're going to make the point about Shapiro, it doesn't help if we exhibit the same level of sloppiness.
GM writes:
Dualist, materialist, whatever, it is just silly and misleading to use the same term for feedback mechanisms in the cell as we use for the activity of an entire brain. I certainly don't think that he is using the word in the way that most people would understand it.
I agree. He's misleading. I'm happy with the phrase natural engineering, because I'm happy with nature designing and selecting, which she does. Blindly. But not with sentient single cells!
GM writes:
Interestingly, this would seem to be a far bigger problem for shadow than for nay materialist. I always thought that Catholics regarded sentience as some sort of special quality, which needed the intervention of God. If we accept Shapiro's usage, then a mere assemblage of genetic regulatory systems are sentient. That seems to argue as much against the need for a divine origin for sentience as it argues for it.
Indeed. It would be far more in keeping with eastern religions and philosophies, like Jainism, in which cells would be sentient and eternally recycled, but there's no creator god. Maybe Shadow should consider conversion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Granny Magda, posted 03-21-2011 3:26 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 90 of 760 (609600)
03-21-2011 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Granny Magda
03-21-2011 3:26 PM


Re: Eh?
I certainly don't think that he is using the word in the way that most people would understand it.
I also think he does this on purpose. He is trying to sell his ideas, so he makes them sound controversial when in fact they are not.
If we accept Shapiro's usage, then a mere assemblage of genetic regulatory systems are sentient.
Indeed. It would seem that even the lowly E. coli has a soul.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Granny Magda, posted 03-21-2011 3:26 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024