Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 91 of 760 (609602)
03-21-2011 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by jar
03-21-2011 3:34 PM


Re: Eh?
jar writes:
And we were discussing cellular and genetic changes. No brain there.
Yes, we were. And your sentence expanded the discussion to "biological, chemical and physics processes". Here it is again. It is wrong.
jar writes:
Using a term like "sentient" to describe biological, chemical and physics processes is simply a perversion of the English language.
Here's a correction:
Using a term like "sentient" to describe biological, chemical and physics processes is simply not a perversion of the English language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 03-21-2011 3:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by jar, posted 03-21-2011 3:58 PM bluegenes has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 92 of 760 (609603)
03-21-2011 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by bluegenes
03-21-2011 3:52 PM


Re: Eh?
bluegenes writes:
jar writes:
And we were discussing cellular and genetic changes. No brain there.
Yes, we were. And your sentence expanded the discussion to "biological, chemical and physics processes". Here it is again. It is wrong.
jar writes:
Using a term like "sentient" to describe biological, chemical and physics processes is simply a perversion of the English language.
Here's a correction:
Using a term like "sentient" to describe biological, chemical and physics processes is simply not a perversion of the English language.
Utter nonsense. Sorry but that is simply silly. Go play with Straggler.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by bluegenes, posted 03-21-2011 3:52 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by bluegenes, posted 03-21-2011 4:04 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 93 of 760 (609604)
03-21-2011 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by jar
03-21-2011 3:58 PM


Re: Eh?
jar writes:
Utter nonsense. Sorry but that is simply silly. Go play with Straggler.
Was that meant to be an adult argument in defense of this sentence?
jar writes:
Using a term like "sentient" to describe biological, chemical and physics processes is simply a perversion of the English language.
Do you know of a source of sentience other than "biological, chemical and physical processes"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by jar, posted 03-21-2011 3:58 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 94 of 760 (609609)
03-21-2011 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Taq
03-21-2011 12:46 PM


Re: Modification or replacement
taq writes;
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.
Here is the question I asked Shapiro and his answer.
Shadow asked:
Do you have an opinion whether mutations are random with respect to fitness per the modern Darwinian Theory?
Shapiro answered:
I gave examples in my 2010 article (e.g. biasing retrovirus insertion upstream of coding regions) where certain changes are non-random with respect to their potential biological utility.
Do you read Shapiro as saying that mutations are non-random in re fitness?
I don't want to know if you agree with him only if he is saying that mutations are non-random with regard to fitness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Taq, posted 03-21-2011 12:46 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Taq, posted 03-21-2011 4:47 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 95 of 760 (609611)
03-21-2011 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by shadow71
03-21-2011 4:41 PM


Re: Modification or replacement
Do you read Shapiro as saying that mutations are non-random in re fitness?
I see Shapiro trying to spin the question. He rephrased the question in terms of "with respect to their potential biological utility". That is not fitness. I think this is best seen in how some transposons tend to target areas of the genome with high activity. That is, some transposons tend to insert closer to genes and can affect how they are regulated. These changes can be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental so this is once again random with respect to fitness. I would agree with Shapiro in that transposon mutagenesis has a much better chance of producing a change in phenotype (i.e. "biological utility") compared to point mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by shadow71, posted 03-21-2011 4:41 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 96 of 760 (609615)
03-21-2011 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Granny Magda
03-21-2011 2:17 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
Granny Magda hysterically writes;
Shadow, please don't lie to us and, more importantly, please don't lie to yourself
To my post below;
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.
Again Manny magda:
shit. 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;
Granny I never said that I was led to God by Shapiro's writings, use your head and think before you write.
I stated when I 1st started posting that I was a practicing Roman catholic.
That when I closed my law practice I began reading about evolution.
I read Darwinists, Neo-Darwinists, Intellingence Design, Theistic Evolutionists, Creationists etc.
After 2 years of reading everything I could I came to the opinion that random mutation and natural selection were not the cause or evolutionm as per the Darwinian theory.
There had to be some better explanation.
Shapiro's work and the work of others in that school convinced me that that was correct.
I always believed God planned evolution, and these studies solidified by belief.
So relax and think before you go half-cocked and call someone a liar.

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 97 by Granny Magda, posted 03-21-2011 5:53 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 98 by bluegenes, posted 03-21-2011 6:19 PM shadow71 has replied

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


Message 97 of 760 (609620)
03-21-2011 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by shadow71
03-21-2011 5:31 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
Granny I never said that I was led to God by Shapiro's writings, use your head and think before you write.
No, you very strongly implied that Shapiro had led you to the conclusion that God had been involved in creation. Which just so happened, by an astonishing co-incidence, to be what you already believed. How convenient.
I stated when I 1st started posting that I was a practicing Roman catholic.
That when I closed my law practice I began reading about evolution.
I read Darwinists, Neo-Darwinists, Intellingence Design, Theistic Evolutionists, Creationists etc.
After 2 years of reading everything I could I came to the opinion that random mutation and natural selection were not the cause or evolutionm as per the Darwinian theory.
Exactly as I described above. You spent two years looking for ways to prop up your pre-existing belief in Catholic dogma. In fact your desire to find ways to pick holes in the ToE has been your primary pre-occupation during your time here. You dig out these little holes and then you inject your little god into them.It's plainly rationalisation.
I suspect that you do this because you know perfectly well that Catholic theology is extremely shaky on the subject of evolution and you are looking for a way to make that problem go away. Well this isn't it my friend. You are wasting your energy.
There had to be some better explanation.
Oh please do tell! I would sincerely love to hear your scenario. What exactly do you imagine is going on? Does Yaweh meddle in every mutation? Just a few? What exactly is his involvement? How does God fill the alleged gaps in the ToE?
I always believed God planned evolution, and these studies solidified by belief.
Yes, exactly as I said. You go looking to prop up your belief. You find the work of someone like Shapiro and, no matter how much that work is criticised, no matter how fringe it is, no matter how much it is derided by other scientists, you cling onto that germ of hope. I have seen it many times before. Every single one of your posts here has reeked of rationalisation, of the pursuit of a God of the Gaps argument. That is why I say that you are lying to yourself. My advice is to try and break that bad habit and stop lying to yourself, but you are free to take that as you will.
I always believed God planned evolution, and these studies solidified by belief.
They just papered over a crack. I don't think you'll find it to be load-bearing in the long run.
So relax and think before you go half-cocked and call someone a liar.
I'm not sure that it's chemically possible for me to be more relaxed right now, but for you, I'll give it a damn good try.
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 96 by shadow71, posted 03-21-2011 5:31 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by shadow71, posted 03-21-2011 7:37 PM Granny Magda has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 98 of 760 (609622)
03-21-2011 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by shadow71
03-21-2011 5:31 PM


Intelligently designed plasticity.
shadow71 writes:
After 2 years of reading everything I could I came to the opinion that random mutation and natural selection were not the cause or evolutionm as per the Darwinian theory.
There had to be some better explanation.
There are plenty of people who think that there's more to evolution "random mutation and natural selection" alone.
There's one thing that I'd like to ask. You seem to see ways that genomes themselves can react to environmental stimuli as in some way indicative of teleology. What I was wondering was whether you see the same thing in phenotypic plasticity, which you must have known about before you found out that genomes can be directly effected by environmental factors.
Do you see teleology behind phenotypic plasticity, or do you think that it can be produced by variation and natural selection?
I ask because you might see it as organisms engineering themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by shadow71, posted 03-21-2011 5:31 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by shadow71, posted 03-21-2011 7:51 PM bluegenes has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 99 of 760 (609624)
03-21-2011 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by NoNukes
03-21-2011 1:11 PM


Re: Dr. Wright's conclusion
NoNukes writes;
So what does directed mean in Dr. Wright's paper. Is it something mysterious that might mean directed by our Creator?
Wright paper states;
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.
It says that the feedback is sensitive and directed, and that it might facilitate and accelerate the ADAPATION OF ORGANISMS TO NEW ENVIROMENTS. (emphasis mine)
That means that the mutations are sensitive and directed for non-random fitness.
It is mysterious in that nature per the theory is not non-random and directed for fitness. So your probably correct, it is most likely directed or planned by our Creator.
NoNukes posts;
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?
And pray tell how does the enviroment direct in a random world?
Non-random means directed or planned. Which of course secular naturalism cannot do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by NoNukes, posted 03-21-2011 1:11 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by NoNukes, posted 03-21-2011 8:06 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 106 by NoNukes, posted 03-21-2011 8:13 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 114 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-22-2011 7:40 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 116 by Taq, posted 03-22-2011 10:59 AM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 100 of 760 (609625)
03-21-2011 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Granny Magda
03-21-2011 5:53 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
Granny Magda writes;
Exactly as I described above. You spent two years looking for ways to prop up your pre-existing belief in Catholic dogma. In fact your desire to find ways to pick holes in the ToE has been your primary pre-occupation during your time here. You dig out these little holes and then you inject your little god into them.It's plainly rationalisation.
Oh what a horrible thing to do. How can anyone challenge our precious modern systhesis beliefs which we accept as dogma?
Granny Magda continues:
I suspect that you do this because you know perfectly well that Catholic theology is extremely shaky on the subject of evolution and you are looking for a way to make that problem go away. Well this isn't it my friend. You are wasting your energy.
I think Catholic theology can stand on it merits. More than I can say for an entity that still stands on the merits of Monarchy.
Again from Granny Magda;
Oh please do tell! I would sincerely love to hear your scenario. What exactly do you imagine is going on? Does Yaweh meddle in every mutation? Just a few? What exactly is his involvement? How does God fill the alleged gaps in the ToE?
Obviously I cannot speak for God, but if you know what Divine Providence is you can take it from there. There is a plan and it is being carried out.
Granny Magda continues;
Yes, exactly as I said. You go looking to prop up your belief. You find the work of someone like Shapiro and, no matter how much that work is criticised, no matter how fringe it is, no matter how much it is derided by other scientists, you cling onto that germ of hope. I have seen it many times before. Every single one of your posts here has reeked of rationalisation, of the pursuit of a God of the Gaps argument. That is why I say that you are lying to yourself. My advice is to try and break that bad habit and stop lying to yourself, but you are free to take that as you will.
I admit that I accept the work of Shapiro, a world renown molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, who happens to be outfront of the old dogma defenders of a theory that is being devasted by molecular biology discoveries.
And you sir stand on your immutable belief that there cannot be a God, because if there is, your life is shattered.
God save the Queen and Atheism.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Granny Magda, posted 03-21-2011 5:53 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by jar, posted 03-21-2011 7:44 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 113 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-22-2011 7:39 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 117 by Taq, posted 03-22-2011 11:04 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 134 by Granny Magda, posted 03-23-2011 6:31 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 101 of 760 (609627)
03-21-2011 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by shadow71
03-21-2011 7:37 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
shadow71 writes:
I admit that I accept the work of Shapiro, a world renown molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, who happens to be outfront of the old dogma defenders of a theory that is being devasted by molecular biology discoveries.
And you sir stand on your immutable belief that there cannot be a God, because if there is, your life is shattered.
God save the Queen and Atheism.
What utter crap you post.
First, as has been pointed out to you several times, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion or atheism and certainly nothing to do with Christianity.
Stop trying to play that stupid, stupid card.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by shadow71, posted 03-21-2011 7:37 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by shadow71, posted 03-21-2011 7:59 PM jar has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 102 of 760 (609629)
03-21-2011 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by bluegenes
03-21-2011 6:19 PM


Re: Intelligently designed plasticity.
bluegenes writes;
There's one thing that I'd like to ask. You seem to see ways that genomes themselves can react to environmental stimuli as in some way indicative of teleology. What I was wondering was whether you see the same thing in phenotypic plasticity, which you must have known about before you found out that genomes can be directly effected by environmental factors.
Do you see teleology behind phenotypic plasticity, or do you think that it can be produced by variation and natural selection?
I really can't answer that question. I am not a scientist. I read the papers of scientists, and draw conclusions from them. I have no idea what phenotypic plasticity is and would need cites to some papers so I could read them and then give you an answer.
My opinions on genomes are taken from experts in the field of molecular biology. I see in their findings that there is a vast information based system in the cells that do not rely on random mutation and natural selection for their evolution.
That there is decision making in the cells and that leads me to the conclusion that evolution is planned. It is carried out by natural means, but not directed by natural means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by bluegenes, posted 03-21-2011 6:19 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by bluegenes, posted 03-21-2011 8:13 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 125 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2011 2:27 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 126 by bluegenes, posted 03-22-2011 2:43 PM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 103 of 760 (609631)
03-21-2011 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by jar
03-21-2011 7:44 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
jar writes;
What utter crap you post.
First, as has been pointed out to you several times, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion or atheism and certainly nothing to do with Christianity
Have you missed the many posts that ridicule "creationists"? There are many on this board that hold the belief that anyone who opposes the modern synthesis, do so on religious beliefs, and therefore must be ridiculed and dismissed as believers and therefore not intelligent assayers of the theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by jar, posted 03-21-2011 7:44 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 03-21-2011 8:19 PM shadow71 has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 760 (609633)
03-21-2011 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by shadow71
03-21-2011 7:21 PM


Re: Dr. Wright's conclusion
shadow71 writes:
And pray tell how does the enviroment direct in a random world?
Non-random means directed or planned. Which of course secular naturalism cannot do.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by shadow71, posted 03-21-2011 7:21 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by shadow71, posted 03-22-2011 7:16 PM NoNukes has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 105 of 760 (609635)
03-21-2011 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by shadow71
03-21-2011 7:51 PM


Re: Intelligently designed plasticity.
shadow71 writes:
I really can't answer that question. I am not a scientist. I read the papers of scientists, and draw conclusions from them. I have no idea what phenotypic plasticity is and would need cites to some papers so I could read them and then give you an answer.
Phenotypic plasticity is the ability of organisms to change their phenotypes (the physical way they are) without changes on the genome. For example, there are snails which, when attacked by crabs, will develop thicker shells due to the attack. There are aphids which, if the plant that they are on starts to get too crowded, will sprout wings in reaction to the situation so as to move to different plants.
Amongst plants it is common. The same plants with the same genomes will grow in different ways according to their environments. Our own most striking example is the ability to tan if exposed to the sun, which provides protection. Other animals will put on thick fur coats in reaction to the cold, and moult in the summer.
So, do you see what I'm getting at? These ways that organisms can adjust themselves to external stimuli could be seen as "self-engineering", just like what we've been discussing in relation to genotypes. That was why I was wondering why you wouldn't latch on to these as indications of teleology in biological systems.
What do you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by shadow71, posted 03-21-2011 7:51 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by shadow71, posted 03-22-2011 7:22 PM bluegenes has 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