|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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 .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024