Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 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 121 of 760 (609700)
03-22-2011 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Dr Adequate
03-22-2011 7:31 AM


Re: Enhanced mutation rates.
I've heard it both ways
I admit I was exclusively focusing on the 'inheritance of acquired characteristics' aspect.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-22-2011 7:31 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 122 of 760 (609701)
03-22-2011 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Wounded King
03-22-2011 12:31 PM


Re: Do not pass go, do not collect ...
So not something showing bias towards fitness necessarily?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Wounded King, posted 03-22-2011 12:31 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Wounded King, posted 03-22-2011 1:11 PM jar has replied

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


Message 123 of 760 (609705)
03-22-2011 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by jar
03-22-2011 12:39 PM


Re: Do not pass go, do not collect ...
So not something showing bias towards fitness necessarily?
Well the idea from Wright's article is that the bias towards derepressed/transcriptionally active genes focuses mutation, good and bad, on those genes. Over the entire population this may lead to a higher proportion of beneficial mutations suitable to the current stress. In this new speculation we might say that it will tend to make early development more robust.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by jar, posted 03-22-2011 12:39 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 03-22-2011 1:20 PM Wounded King has replied

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


Message 124 of 760 (609706)
03-22-2011 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Wounded King
03-22-2011 1:11 PM


Re: Do not pass go, do not collect ...
Wounded King writes:
So not something showing bias towards fitness necessarily?
Well the idea from Wright's article is that the bias towards derepressed/transcriptionally active genes focuses mutation, good and bad, on those genes. Over the entire population this may lead to a higher proportion of beneficial mutations suitable to the current stress. In this new speculation we might say that it will tend to make early development more robust.
TTFN,
WK
Okay, but by filtering out the "bad" mutations early?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Wounded King, posted 03-22-2011 1:11 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Wounded King, posted 03-23-2011 5:21 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 760 (609710)
03-22-2011 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by shadow71
03-21-2011 7:51 PM


Hello shadow71,
I see a few others have been trying to explain to you about being non-random not necessarily being decision based nor implying teleology. There's plenty of examples to draw from, but I just happened to be planting grass yesterday...
The seeds were somewhat rod shaped and fell on their sides. Then when I was watering, the pressure of the water droplets forced one end of the rod to embed in the ground a little bit and the other end stick up a little. I chuckled to myself: "Gee, I hope the root ends are the ones that are sinking..."
But I knew it doesn't matter, when the plant starts to grow, the roots will grow downward and the blade will grow upward, its called gravotropism <-- it:
quote:
Abundant evidence demonstrates that roots bend in response to gravity due to a regulated movement of the plant hormone auxin known as polar auxin transport (Swarup et al., 2005). Auxin exists in nearly every organ and tissue of a plant, however its concentration in an organ/tissue is regulated by the auxin transport, synthesis and conjugation. In roots, an increase in auxin concentration generally inhibits cell expansion. Therefore the redistribution of auxin toward the lower flank of a root, that has been reoriented in the gravity field, can initiate differential growth resulting in root curvature.
Can you see that the fact that they do not grow in random directions does not imply that God is determining which way the root of every planted grass seed will grow in?
Can you see how all this relates to the arguments your putting forward in regards to Shapiro's work?
Shapiro would seems to want to describe the gravotropism as the plant sensing gravity and deciding which way to grow. Then you would come along and argue that plants have some sort of sentient process in their root growth. I mean, obviously its non-random so it must be, right?
Is this helping clear up the error of your argumentation at all?
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

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 141 by shadow71, posted 03-23-2011 4:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 126 of 760 (609711)
03-22-2011 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by shadow71
03-21-2011 7:51 PM


Sentient Cells and the human being delusion.
shadow71 writes:
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.
Shapiro is talking about it being directed by natural means, and so is Wright. I think you may be getting a bit over excited by expressions like "natural engineering" which, like "natural selection", has nothing to do with teleology.
But particularly, I think you may have been carried away by Shapiro's description of cells as sentient.
Apart from eastern philosophers, the people most likely to describe single cells as "sentient" are ultra-reductionist - materialists. They are not seeing any magic here at all.
Here's a paper from another biologist putting forward the hypothesis of single cell sentience (and consciousness) in neurones.
Jonathan Edwards on single cell sentience.
And here's a little piece from him that might illustrate for you what I mean by "ultra-reductionists", and will show you where he's coming from.
The human being delusion
quote:
Almost all scientists, apparently including Dawkins, believe in something that could be called a 'sentient human being', despite the fact that William James pointed out 100 years ago that such a suggestion is incompatible with science, or even with rational thought. The reasons are given on the linked webpages [see above]. Very briefly, human beings are colonies of cells and everything we know about these cells is that they have separate inputs of information about the world. They cannot have combined sentience for information that is only available to one or other of them. They could only be sentient separately. And there is no published reason why this should not be the case (to my knowledge) however surprising this might at first appear. I would suggest that to get a full perspective on the God Delusion it may be handy to see the full absurdity of the Human Being Delusion; they may be closely linked.
Dr. Jonathan Edwards, University College, London.
Be wary about basing your religious ideas about life on the language of biologists. It's not only that they might not believe in your God, they might not even believe in you.

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 143 by shadow71, posted 03-23-2011 4:50 PM bluegenes has not replied

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


Message 127 of 760 (609745)
03-22-2011 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by NoNukes
03-21-2011 8:06 PM


Re: Dr. Wright's conclusion
NoNukes writes;
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.
So it is agreed that Wright does not agree with the modern synthesis?
When the term "natualistic processes" is used, can you tell me how science can prove the process is "naturalistic"?
When I say that evolution is based upon God's planned process, how is that different, in regards to proving it, than to say evolution is based upon naturalistic processes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by NoNukes, posted 03-21-2011 8:06 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by NoNukes, posted 03-22-2011 8:58 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 128 of 760 (609749)
03-22-2011 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by bluegenes
03-21-2011 8:13 PM


Re: Intelligently designed plasticity.
bluegenes writes;
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?
Sounds very intriguing. I will do some reading and get back to you on this post.
Thanks,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by bluegenes, posted 03-21-2011 8:13 PM bluegenes has not replied

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


Message 129 of 760 (609751)
03-22-2011 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by jar
03-21-2011 8:19 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
jar writes;
You really can't get anything straight can you?
YOU inserted religion and even said that you began with the conclusion.
YOUR posts are more than enough to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT science but only an attempt to palm the pea, con the rube, sell the snake oil.
I have never said that Creationism and Intelligent Design are science.
I have read and quoted experts on this board who disagree with some very important tenets of the modern synthesis and have taken the postion that the modern synthesis's postion that "secular naturalism" is not the explanation of evolution.
I may be wrong, but you may be wrong.
Why are you so upset that someone may disagree with you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 03-21-2011 8:19 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by jar, posted 03-22-2011 7:35 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 132 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-22-2011 9:26 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 135 by Taq, posted 03-23-2011 11:18 AM shadow71 has not replied

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


Message 130 of 760 (609752)
03-22-2011 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by shadow71
03-22-2011 7:29 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
shadow71 writes:
jar writes;
You really can't get anything straight can you?
YOU inserted religion and even said that you began with the conclusion.
YOUR posts are more than enough to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT science but only an attempt to palm the pea, con the rube, sell the snake oil.
I have never said that Creationism and Intelligent Design are science.
I have read and quoted experts on this board who disagree with some very important tenets of the modern synthesis and have taken the postion that the modern synthesis's postion that "secular naturalism" is not the explanation of evolution.
I may be wrong, but you may be wrong.
Why are you so upset that someone may disagree with you?
On this I'm not upset at all, far more just amused. I find your posts hilarious and readily admit being greatly entertained by them.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by shadow71, posted 03-22-2011 7:29 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by shadow71, posted 03-23-2011 4:54 PM jar has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 760 (609756)
03-22-2011 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by shadow71
03-22-2011 7:16 PM


Re: Dr. Wright's conclusion
When I say that evolution is based upon God's planned process, how is that different, in regards to proving it, than to say evolution is based upon naturalistic processes?
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.
When the term "natualistic processes" is used, can you tell me how science can prove the process is "naturalistic"?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by shadow71, posted 03-22-2011 7:16 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 132 of 760 (609757)
03-22-2011 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by shadow71
03-22-2011 7:29 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
I have read and quoted experts on this board who disagree with some very important tenets of the modern synthesis and have taken the postion that the modern synthesis's postion that "secular naturalism" is not the explanation of evolution.
Translated from Shadowese into English, you have repeatedly pointed to a naturalistic evolutionary mechanism which is a minor but well-accepted part of the theory of evolution --- and talked gibberish about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by shadow71, posted 03-22-2011 7:29 PM shadow71 has not replied

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


Message 133 of 760 (609796)
03-23-2011 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by jar
03-22-2011 1:20 PM


Making it up as I go along
Okay, but by filtering out the "bad" mutations early?
Yeees ... but, the main point is that the mutations occur around that point as well, otherwise we aren't looking at a situation analogous to Wright's. As Dr. A reminded me a key distinction here is that the mutation is a response to the environmental challenge, in this case the environmental stresses an embryo is subject to at early stages. Unless we have this bias towards genes involved with that specific stage and maintaining it in the face of environmental factors then all we would have is the normal mutation/selection cycle.
My point in emphasising the early embryonic stages is that subsequently, once the germ/soma division has been established, almost all the transcriptional responses to environmental challenges will be limited to somatic cells, and consequently any resulting mutations will be solely somatic. There is indeed evidence for the rates of somatic mutation being related to transcriptional activity, so that element of the hypothesis is at least consistent. Without some way to feed information back from the soma to the germline, which there is no evidence for, such responses are irrelevant to the discussion. That is why the only feasible stages are very early embryonic ones, or possibly genes involved in germline maturation and gamete production.
In fact it would be interesting to look and see whether there is any bias in the mutational spectrum in sperm towards genes involved in sperm production. Of course wright specifically ties the mechanism into de-repression not just transcriptional activity, so that would narrow the relevant pool of genes even further.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 03-22-2011 1:20 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 134 of 760 (609798)
03-23-2011 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by shadow71
03-21-2011 7:37 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
Hi shadow,
Granny 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.
shadow71 writes:
Oh what a horrible thing to do. How can anyone challenge our precious modern systhesis beliefs which we accept as dogma?
You misunderstand me, which is a shame, because I think I made my position quite clear;
Granny writes:
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.
Now I do not object to people challenging the modern synthesis or any other scientific theory. What I do object to are attempts to vandalise science so that someone's cherished superstitions can be forced into it. I object to assuming one's conclusion. I object to ad hoc reasoning and rationalisation. I object to people who have no idea what they are talking about claiming that they have challenged a theory that they plainly do not understand.
I have no objections to people challenging scientific theories, but you are spectacularly under-qualified for the task. You don't understand the subject and you are essentially just trying to inject magic into science. Well, science does not deal in magic.
Granny Magda continues:
You know if you just write [qs=Granny Magda] you will find that the messages take care of attribution for you. Like so;
shadow71 writes:
I think Catholic theology can stand on it merits.
Catholic dogma on evolution consists of little more than a collection of unsupported ad hoc assumptions, which are extremely far-fetched and a poor fit for known data. In fact, i would go as far as to say that Catholic teaching on Adam and Eve, for example, is in direct contradiction to known facts.
More than I can say for an entity that still stands on the merits of Monarchy.
What the hell are you talking about Shadow? What on Earth has the monarchy got to do with anything? Are you quite well?
Never mind. On to the amazing explanatory power of your Catholicised theory of Evolution.
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.
What? this is your "better explanation"? This explains nothing. This is less than nothing. This is a contemptible waste of time.
Scientific theories are supposed to have explanatory power. What you have presented is basically a refusal to provide any kind of explanation, or even an attempt.
This is exactly why superstition is banished from the scientific realm; it has no ability to explain anything.
You want to violate the good practice of science and replace it with non-explanatory hogwash which you refuse to even attempt to explore. Pathetic.
Disagree? Then provide us with an example of the explanatory power of Catholicised Evolution. Show us how one might use it to discover new fossils perhaps. Or use it to help fight disease. We're waiting...
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.
World renown! Oh that's classic! Devastated! You sure are entertaining, I'll give you that.
Shapiro is a fringe figure who attracts pseudo-scientific types such as yourself because he is feeding you want you want to hear. that's all. His obsessions are entirely within the natural realm, no magic is required.
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.
You are a very strange man. Where exactly is this horseshit about royalty coming from? Are you sure you know who you're talking to? You haven't mixed this up with some other forum, where they're droning on about the royal wedding?
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

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 100 by shadow71, posted 03-21-2011 7:37 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 135 of 760 (609813)
03-23-2011 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by shadow71
03-22-2011 7:29 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
I have read and quoted experts on this board who disagree with some very important tenets of the modern synthesis . . .
Again, we want to see the data. Theories are not overturned or modified by opinions.
. . . and have taken the postion that the modern synthesis's postion that "secular naturalism" is not the explanation of evolution
Who has taken this position? Shapiro stated quite clearly that the mechanisms he has proposed are entirely natural.
Why are you so upset that someone may disagree with you?
I have no problem with disagreement. It is refusal to deal with the data that upsets us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by shadow71, posted 03-22-2011 7:29 PM shadow71 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