Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,332 Year: 3,589/9,624 Month: 460/974 Week: 73/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 303 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 181 of 760 (610024)
03-25-2011 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by shadow71
03-25-2011 12:34 PM


Re: Dr. Wright's conclusion
It surely seems some scientists are in fact challenging the modern synthesis.
A scientist investigating genetic mechanisms for evolution is participating in the modern synthesis. That's what it's all about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2011 12:34 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Dr Jack, posted 03-28-2011 9:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 226 by shadow71, posted 04-01-2011 7:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2952 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 182 of 760 (610026)
03-25-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Taq
03-25-2011 12:48 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
taq writes:
already read it. It is wrong. You don't get to present expert testimony even as a written affidavit. Even worse, you don't get to present your interpretation of the expert testimony as evidence. Expert witnesses have to present the data that supports their conclusion, and they have to be available for cross. That's how it works. That is how it worked in the famous Dover ID trial where ID advocates were not allowed to submit written affidavits. They had to be available for cross. You should know that.
Taq, your on my territory now. You did not fully read my post or misunderstood it.
Here is my quote
shadow writes:
In re the Expert. The evidence would be presented by the Expert under direct examination by Plaintiff's counsel and then cross examination by defendants's counsel
The data would be admitted by both the experts testimony and the admission of the papers into evidence.The jury, in some cases, may even take the actual papers with them to the jury consulation room where they reach their verdict.
There is no hearsay problem under that procedure.
I am clearly saying that the expert is on the witness stand under both direct and cross examination. That his testimony and ID'ed documents would also be admitted into evidence.
The Dover trial was a bench trial, i.e. before a judge with no jury. However both Plantiff's and Defendant's attorneys made closing arguments to the judge as to what they believed the evidence showed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Taq, posted 03-25-2011 12:48 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Taq, posted 03-25-2011 5:04 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10021
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 183 of 760 (610027)
03-25-2011 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by shadow71
03-25-2011 5:00 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
shadow writes:
In re the Expert. The evidence would be presented by the Expert under direct examination by Plaintiff's counsel and then cross examination by defendants's counsel
The data would be admitted by both the experts testimony and the admission of the papers into evidence.The jury, in some cases, may even take the actual papers with them to the jury consulation room where they reach their verdict.
Then please show us the presentation of the evidence.
The Dover trial was a bench trial, i.e. before a judge with no jury. However both Plantiff's and Defendant's attorneys made closing arguments to the judge as to what they believed the evidence showed.
That evidence was first presented by the witnesses who were cross examined.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2011 5:00 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2952 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 184 of 760 (610037)
03-25-2011 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Taq
03-25-2011 12:41 PM


Re: Dr. Wright's conclusion
She seems to be challenging the experiments of Luria and Delbruck in re random mutations that Taq previously cited.
taq writes:
What data does she cite that challenges the Luria and Delbruck's conclusions?
These are the sources cilted in Wrights paper.
Wright writes:
Transcriptional activation as a mechanism for increasing mutation rates was first proposed in 1971, by Brock (8) and Herman and Dworkin (38). Their work demonstrates that recA-independent lac reversion rates of frameshift and point mutations are higher when transcription is induced by isopropyl--D-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG), and that the effect is specific. More recently, specifically induced, transcription-enhanced mutations have also been shown for a lys frameshift mutation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae (16, 74). Starvation-induced stringent response mutations in E. coli (62, 109-111) and Bacillus subtilis (90) occur as a result of transcriptional activation triggered by gene derepression, not induction. In this system, mutations arise during the transition between growth and stationary phase and they are recA independent, similar to the lac reversions mentioned above. This distinguishes them from prolonged stress-induced adaptive mutations (11) and from DNA damage-induced SOS mutagenesis (104), both of which require recA (and will not be discussed in this minireview). It is noteworthy that the experiments described above on the effects of artificially induced transcription on mutation rates in growing cells are all examples of specifically directed mutations. However, none of the researchers come to that conclusion or challenge the assumptions and implications inherent in the experiments of Luria and Delbruck (63), which reinforce neo-Darwinism.
I will be gone from this board for a about a week but when I return I will try to reply to all messages.
I will be at New Melleray – A Cistercian Abbey
praying for all on this board and relaxing in contemplative prayer and reflection.
Talk to you all in about a week

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Taq, posted 03-25-2011 12:41 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Theodoric, posted 03-25-2011 8:03 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 189 by fearandloathing, posted 03-25-2011 8:32 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-26-2011 2:30 AM shadow71 has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9130
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 185 of 760 (610039)
03-25-2011 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by shadow71
03-25-2011 7:57 PM


I find this comment offensive
praying for all on this board
Please do not insult me by performing your voodoo of praying for me.
By doing that you imply there is something wrong with me that needs to be fixed. Nothing wrong, nothing needs to be fixed.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2011 7:57 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2011 8:20 PM Theodoric has replied
 Message 187 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2011 8:26 PM Theodoric has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2952 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 186 of 760 (610043)
03-25-2011 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Theodoric
03-25-2011 8:03 PM


Re: I find this comment offensive
theodoric writes:
Please do not insult me by performing your voodoo of praying for me.
By doing that you imply there is something wrong with me that needs to be fixed. Nothing wrong, nothing needs to be fixed.
No offense meant Theodroic. I am glad that your are perfect, but, I guess I will pray that perhaps your attitude will change and you become a little more tolerant and forgiving of those who do not agree with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Theodoric, posted 03-25-2011 8:03 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Theodoric, posted 03-25-2011 8:29 PM shadow71 has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 760 (610045)
03-25-2011 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Theodoric
03-25-2011 8:03 PM


Rerobably not intended to cause offense.
Theodoric writes:
praying for all on this board
Please do not insult me by performing your voodoo of praying for me.
By doing that you imply there is something wrong with me that needs to be fixed. Nothing wrong, nothing needs to be fixed.
I don't think shadow71 meant anything like that. He just means to wish us well until he returns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Theodoric, posted 03-25-2011 8:03 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Theodoric, posted 03-25-2011 8:34 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9130
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 188 of 760 (610046)
03-25-2011 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by shadow71
03-25-2011 8:20 PM


Re: I find this comment offensive
I tell you I find your wanting to pray for me offensive and then you compound it. What an asshole.
I am glad that your are perfect, but, I guess I will pray that perhaps your attitude will change and you become a little more tolerant and forgiving of those who do not agree with you.
Amazing how you turned around what I said to fit your purposes.
Maybe you should take your own advice and be more tolerant. It seems you are the one with toleration issues.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2011 8:20 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by shadow71, posted 04-01-2011 7:46 PM Theodoric has not replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4163 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 189 of 760 (610047)
03-25-2011 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by shadow71
03-25-2011 7:57 PM


Re: Dr. Wright's conclusion
If you want to help me then vote for somebody that might help the construction industry. Lord knows we need a bailout.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2011 7:57 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9130
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 190 of 760 (610048)
03-25-2011 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by NoNukes
03-25-2011 8:26 PM


Re: Rerobably not intended to cause offense.
I don't think shadow71 meant anything like that. He just means to wish us well until he returns.
Exactly the point. He doesn't understand or think that what he thinks is a wonderful thing, is in fact offensive to some people.
If he wants to wish us well he should do it. Not pray for us.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2011 8:26 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 303 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 191 of 760 (610075)
03-26-2011 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by shadow71
03-25-2011 7:57 PM


Re: Dr. Wright's conclusion
I will be gone from this board for a about a week but when I return I will try to reply to all messages.
I will be at New Melleray – A Cistercian Abbey
praying for all on this board
Thank you so much. In return, I shall spend much of the week dedicating your soul unto Ba'al-Hamon, Lord of the Multitude, in the goetic rite of the Threefold Sacrifice.
I go now to purify myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2011 7:57 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Theodoric, posted 03-28-2011 10:06 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 228 by shadow71, posted 04-01-2011 7:48 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Truplayer
Junior Member (Idle past 4769 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 03-27-2011


Message 192 of 760 (610164)
03-27-2011 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by shadow71
03-15-2011 4:03 PM


Source of Intelligence
Under this hypothesis intelligence would be required to establish the mechanical and chemical forces that drive 'Natural Genetic Engineering'.
Is the intelligence that determined these forces from (1) an external source (God), (2) part of life itself (i.e. life itself has inherent intelligence) or (3) randomly exists along with all the other "ordering" forces in the universe (like gravity, thermodynamics, mathematics, physics, chemistry, psychology, etc.)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by shadow71, posted 03-15-2011 4:03 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by shadow71, posted 04-01-2011 8:00 PM Truplayer has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 760 (610225)
03-28-2011 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by jar
03-25-2011 9:37 AM


Re: Cart/Horse
jar writes:
So Shadow is once again just blowing smoke?
Yes. He seems to believe that others understanding of court room procedures are on par with his own understanding of science. He isn't the only lawyer posting here.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by jar, posted 03-25-2011 9:37 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.3


(1)
Message 194 of 760 (610226)
03-28-2011 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Dr Adequate
03-25-2011 4:51 PM


The modern synthesis is not modern
I don't agree.
The "modern" synthesis dates from the 30s and 40s. It includes nothing about genetic mechanisms because, back then, we didn't even know about DNA. The modern synthesis remains broadly correct in its overarching view, but its been wildly superseded.
That current evolutionary thinking isn't exactly in line with a body of knowledge constructed a lifetime ago shouldn't surprise anyone.
Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2011 4:51 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2011 12:20 PM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 207 by Taq, posted 03-28-2011 8:45 PM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9130
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 195 of 760 (610227)
03-28-2011 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Dr Adequate
03-26-2011 2:30 AM


Voodoo?
I wonder how he would feel if someone offered to perform a voodoo ritual over him.
Or if wished him a good life, but hope that when he dies, his body is put into a hole in the ground so it can rot and creatures in the soil can get to it(legal in Wisconsin).
That is my wish for my body. Would a number of people feel that is offensive? Yes. That is why I don't tell people that I wish that for them.
Instead of IOKIYAR, with IOKIYAC(It's OK if you're a christian).

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-26-2011 2:30 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2011 12:16 PM Theodoric 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