Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 151 of 760 (609900)
03-24-2011 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by shadow71
03-23-2011 4:13 PM


Re: Do not pass go, do not collect ...
Are you agreeing that these are non-random mutations that are beneficial for fitness?
Are you agreeing that these mechanisms that produce mutations also produce neutral and detrimental mutations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by shadow71, posted 03-23-2011 4:13 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2011 4:05 PM Taq has replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 152 of 760 (609908)
03-24-2011 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by shadow71
03-23-2011 4:13 PM


Re: Do not pass go, do not collect ...
I'm probably missing something here, but ...
The mutations that are acted upon by selection occur not in a living individual but in their 'germ' cells (i.e. sperm or ova or whatever).
Why would an evironmental factor cause a directed mutation in a cell which only interacts with it's 'host' and not the environment at large?
If such mutations were directed they would tend to lag the environment depending upon the duration of the life cycle of the organism in question ... making them less likely to produce 'fit' offspring than a purely random mutation which may 'just happen' to confer some enhanced fitness to the next generation.
Like I say, perhaps I'm just missing something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by shadow71, posted 03-23-2011 4:13 PM shadow71 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Wounded King, posted 03-24-2011 12:54 PM Peter has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 153 of 760 (609911)
03-24-2011 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Peter
03-24-2011 12:27 PM


Re: Do not pass go, do not collect ...
What is 'missing' is that virtually all of this work has been done in bacteria or yeast.
So what is missing is any connection between this research and evolution in metazoa where there is a germ/soma divide. The, as yet missing, basis for such a mechanism was something I was just speculating on.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Peter, posted 03-24-2011 12:27 PM Peter has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 154 of 760 (609924)
03-24-2011 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by New Cat's Eye
03-23-2011 4:41 PM


Catholic Scientist writes;
How so? What does it say that goes in the same direction?
This quote is from the paper "the root-brain hypothesis... cited in my message
Outlook: Complex Social Life of Plant RootsRecent advances in chemical ecology reveal the astonishing communicative complexity of higher plants as exemplified by the battery of volatile substances which they produce and sense in order to share with other organisms information about their physiological state.102—109 The next surprise is that plants recognize self from nonself; 109 and roots even secrete signaling exudates which mediate kin recognition.10,11 Finally, plants are also capable of a type of plant-specific cognition,3,110 suggesting that communicative and identityre-cognition systems are used, as they are in animal and human societies, to improve the fitness of plants and so further their evolution. Moreover, both animals and plants are non-automatic, decision-based organisms. Should Charles and Francis Darwin have witnessed these unprecedent discoveries, they would surely have been pleased by them.
The paper clearly is in line with what Shapiro is saying about cells in his papers .
The plant cells are capable of cognition and communciative systems such as those in animals and human societies that improve their fitness and further their evolution.
Thus these cells are, per Shapiro's papers also beyond the tenets of the modern synthesis, and in my opinon that suggests planning and not randon mutation and selection.
I cannot prove this at this point, but it is a valid interpretation of a planned process .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2011 4:41 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 155 of 760 (609925)
03-24-2011 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Wounded King
03-23-2011 5:31 PM


Re: Just blowing smoke
Barbara Wright writes:
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.
Do you agree that she is proposing that her paper does support non-random mutations for fitness?
And if so is that in conflict with the modern synthesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Wounded King, posted 03-23-2011 5:31 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Taq, posted 03-24-2011 4:21 PM shadow71 has replied

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


Message 156 of 760 (609927)
03-24-2011 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Taq
03-24-2011 11:02 AM


Re: Cart/Horse
taq writes:
You also present your misinterpretation of Shapiro's findings. What I want to see is how the data in those papers supports YOUR interpretations.
If we were going to compare this to a court of law, you are only presenting the opinions of the forensic scientists without ever presenting the forensic evidence itself.
It is your opinion that I misinterpret Shapiro's findings. He said I understood them pretty well.
In a court of law I, as the attorney, present the Expert, in this case Shapiro via his papers that contain the data, and then with the evidence admitted into evidence, I interpret his testimony in my argument to the jury. That is what I am trying to do in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Taq, posted 03-24-2011 11:02 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Taq, posted 03-24-2011 4:18 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 161 by jar, posted 03-24-2011 4:21 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 164 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2011 12:04 AM shadow71 has replied

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


Message 157 of 760 (609928)
03-24-2011 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Taq
03-24-2011 11:05 AM


Re: Do not pass go, do not collect ...
taq writes:
Are you agreeing that these mechanisms that produce mutations also produce neutral and detrimental mutations
Barbara Wright writes:
This minireview will describe mechanisms of mutation that are not random and can accelerate the process of evolution in specific directions. The existence of such mechanisms has been predicted by mathematicians (6) who argue that, if every mutation were really random and had to be tested against the environment for selection or rejection, there would not have been enough time to evolve the extremely complex biochemical networks and regulatory mechanisms found in organisms today.
She does not mention neutral and detrimental mutations, but only those that are non-random for fitness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Taq, posted 03-24-2011 11:05 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Taq, posted 03-24-2011 4:16 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 162 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2011 11:41 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 158 of 760 (609931)
03-24-2011 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by shadow71
03-24-2011 4:05 PM


Re: Do not pass go, do not collect ...
She does not mention neutral and detrimental mutations, but only those that are non-random for fitness.
Don't you need to know the rate of neutral and detrimental mutations compared to beneficial mutations before you can claim that these mutations are non-random with respect to fitness? You seem to be jumping to conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2011 4:05 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 159 of 760 (609932)
03-24-2011 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by shadow71
03-24-2011 3:54 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
It is your opinion that I misinterpret Shapiro's findings. He said I understood them pretty well.
Then show us the data that supports your interpretations.
quote:
In a court of law I, as the attorney, present the Expert, in this case Shapiro via his papers that contain the data, and then with the evidence admitted into evidence, I interpret his testimony in my argument to the jury. That is what I am trying to do in this thread.
In a court of law you also have to supply this evidence to the opposing side so that they can examine the evidence themselves. For example, any DNA evidence submitted by a procecutor must also be available to the defense so that they can do their own sequencing if they see fit. You need to supply the data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2011 3:54 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2011 11:56 AM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 160 of 760 (609933)
03-24-2011 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by shadow71
03-24-2011 3:44 PM


Re: Just blowing smoke
Do you agree that she is proposing that her paper does support non-random mutations for fitness?
And if so is that in conflict with the modern synthesis?
Nowhere in that quote can you find the word "fitness". She mentions random mutations, but she does not mention how they are random. Like we have said many times, mutations are not random with respect to time and sequence, but they are random with respect to fitness. It's not as if skydivers acquire mutations that produce wings in their children.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2011 3:44 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2011 11:53 AM Taq has replied

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


Message 161 of 760 (609934)
03-24-2011 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by shadow71
03-24-2011 3:54 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
shadow71 writes:
In a court of law I, as the attorney, present the Expert, in this case Shapiro via his papers that contain the data, and then with the evidence admitted into evidence, I interpret his testimony in my argument to the jury. That is what I am trying to do in this thread.
Thank GOD then that science has nothing to do with a Court of Law and does NOT follow the procedures that work in such environments.
AbE:
As I tried to point out to you back in Message 107, your procedure is 180 degrees away from the scientific method. You start with a conclusion and then try to find support or manufacture support and to sway some jury. That simply does not work when it comes to science or the scientific method.
Edited by jar, : AbE:

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2011 3:54 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2011 11:48 PM jar has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 760 (609960)
03-24-2011 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by shadow71
03-24-2011 4:05 PM


Re: Do not pass go, do not collect ...
shadow71 writes:
She does not mention neutral and detrimental mutations, but only those that are non-random for fitness.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2011 4:05 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 760 (609962)
03-24-2011 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by jar
03-24-2011 4:21 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
jar writes:
shadow71 writes:
In a court of law I, as the attorney, present the Expert, in this case Shapiro via his papers that contain the data, and then with the evidence admitted into evidence, I interpret his testimony in my argument to the jury. That is what I am trying to do in this thread.
Thank GOD then that science has nothing to do with a Court of Law and does NOT follow the procedures that work in such environments.
In a court of law, attorney arguments and interpretation of data are not evidence, and the trier of fact is not to give anything the attorney says evidentiary weight.
Also in a court of law, would not presenting an expert via his papers violate the Confrontation Clause?
Edited by NoNukes, : Add Conf Clause

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by jar, posted 03-24-2011 4:21 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by jar, posted 03-25-2011 9:37 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 171 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2011 11:42 AM NoNukes has replied

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


Message 164 of 760 (609965)
03-25-2011 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by shadow71
03-24-2011 3:54 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
It is your opinion that I misinterpret Shapiro's findings.
But they aren't "Shapiro's findings", are they? He has attained notoriety by talking nonsense about discoveries which have, overwhelmingly, been made by people other than him.
In a court of law I, as the attorney, present the Expert, in this case Shapiro via his papers that contain the data, and then with the evidence admitted into evidence, I interpret his testimony in my argument to the jury. That is what I am trying to do in this thread.
We the jury find your client guilty of being nonsensical in the first degree and sentence it to perpetual derision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2011 3:54 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Wounded King, posted 03-25-2011 5:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 174 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2011 12:03 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 165 of 760 (609974)
03-25-2011 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Dr Adequate
03-25-2011 12:04 AM


Re: Cart/Horse
He has attained notoriety by talking nonsense about discoveries which have, overwhelmingly, been made by people other than him.
That is a bit unfair, he has done quite a bit of work on Mu bacteriophage transposable elements, and that also seems to be the principle basis for most of his claims.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2011 12:04 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2011 10:13 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