Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

taq writes:What data does she cite that challenges the Luria and Delbruck's conclusions?

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.

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.

NoNukes writes:That's right. But presenting the evidence without the expert, as you are doing here, would be improper in court.My question is, why are you trying to justify yourself by appealing to courtroom procedures when you aren't even following them

NoNukes writes:That's right. But presenting the evidence without the expert, as you are doing here, would be improper in court.My question is, why are you trying to justify yourself by appealing to courtroom procedures when you aren't even following them?

shadow71 writes:I interpret that to mean that a mechanism is limiting the mutation rates to non-random mutations to certain genes under stress would be beneficial to those genes and selected for evolution.

NoNukes writes:I know how you interpret it. But your interpretation is facially incorrect. Wright says, quite unambigously, that it is the mechanism for generating the non-random mutations that is clearly beneficial. She also says that most mutations are deleterious and does not disclaim that characterization for the mutations produced by her method.Wright's point is instead that the deleterious effect of mutations is limited to specific portions of the genome. This is also stated unambigously in the same paragraph.

Dr. Adequate writes:A scientist investigating genetic mechanisms for evolution is participating in the modern synthesis. That's what it's all about.

Theodoric writes:I tell you I find your wanting to pray for me offensive and then you compound it. What an asshole.

shadow71 writes: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.

Theodoric writes: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.

Dr. Adequate writes: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.

Truplayer writes: 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.)?

bluegenes writes:If they say "evolution needs to be replaced" they would be asking for a fact to be replaced, not a theory. But I know what you mean.The full technical title of the Current Theory is "The Evolving and Ever Current Theory of Biological Evolution". It is self-replacing.

taq writes:Swing and a miss.The data is the data. Shapiro's opinions are separate from the data. For example, the results from DNA sequencing is the data. Whether or not this indicates a valid DNA match is the opinion of the expert. You need both. So far you have only presented opinion, not the data.

Wright writes:Although the mutations per se are random, as described above
for background mutations, the mechanisms that target operons
for increased rates of transcription are highly specific. This
specificity is not compatible with current neo-Darwinian
dogma.

Dr. Adequate writes: If by the "modern synthesis" you mean our current state of knowledge, then since the mechanisms we're talking about have been known about for the past four decades or more, the "modern synthesis" does not require modification in the light of these well-known facts. It would require modification in the light of new discoveries, not discoveries older than I am.

Shapiro writes: Cell mergers and WGDs are the kinds of events that activate mobile DNA and genome restructuring. In order to fully integrate the genomic findings with our knowledge of mobile DNA, we have to make use of information about the molecular regulation of mobile DNA activities as well as McClintock's view that cells respond to signs of danger, frequently restructuring their genomes as part of the response [1]. This regulatory/cognitive view of genome restructuring helps us to formulate reasonable hypotheses about two unresolved questions in evolutionary theory: (i) the connections between evolutionary change and ecological disruption; and (ii) the origins of complex adaptive novelties at moments of macroevolutionary change.

bluegenes writes: Have you decided whether phenotypic plasticity is an indication of magic yet? It's very common, and your link about "root brains" is a good example.

Baluska et. al writes:Recent 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.

Dr. Adequate writes: Otherwise, her "current neo-Darwinian dogma" is a straw man --- a "current dogma" which is actually currently held by no-one whatsoever.You've certainly not found anything of the sort on this thread. Instead you're surrounded by advocates of "the current neo-Darwinian dogma" who rather than disputing the existence of these processes and mechanisms on the grounds that it's "not compatible" with our "dogma", instead say: "Yes, we've known about that for the past forty or fifty years, please tell us something we don't know."

taq writes: By your own admission, this opinion is not informed by the evidence. Therefore, it is meaningless. In science, it is the evidence that matters, not opinions.It's not that hard to understand. Is a 1 in a billion success rate a sign of a guided, intelligent process or not? We can start with this question.