|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Until enough time passes and then they start referring to "Current Evolutionary Theory" as that of the 2010's.... The creationists could still be saying that evolution needs to be replaced just like the OP. Its inexcapable. Sadly, they have not caught up to the geology of the 1800's. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Shadow71,
Please reply to message 205.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
So according to your intrepretation of Wright we have a mechanism generating non-random mutations that are clearly benefical, that are then subject to selection, "purifying selection" which is defined as the selective removal of alleles that are deleterious.
What we have is an increase in the random mutation rate in genes that are actively transcribed. In Wright's model, only 1-4 in every billion bacteria get the beneficial mutation using this mechanism. Also, the increase in random mutations is not directly tied to whether or not mutations in that gene would be beneficial as shown by the increase in mutants in lueB revertants under control of the IPTG inducible T7 promoter. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I cannot summarize or interpret the data, I am not a scientist.
Then you can not summarize or interpret the conclusions, either. Data and conclusions are intrinsically linked.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I have read many papers about the new findings about "intelligence" in cells, and I have come to the opininon that this tremedous communciations systems in the cells is not the result of random mutations for fitness and natural selection. 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.
So in re your interpretation of Wright's data I cannot intelligently give you an answer. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I have been reading a few papers on phenotypic plasticity and one issue I see is that it appears that the genetic alterations by the enviroment take place within a single generation, which does not appear to fit into the gradual change of Darwinian evolution.
It is not due to genetic alteration. With phenotype plasticity there is no change in the DNA sequence. For example, when your skin darkens in the summer this is not due to a mutation. It is due to an upregulation of melanin production in response to DNA damage by UV radiation.
Shapiro also wrties about novel adaptations that require change at multiple locations in the genome that can arise within a single generation. What types of changes are we talking about? Changes in gene regulation or gene sequence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Is it your position that both Wright and Shapiro are unqualified scientists who do not understand the "Current neo-Darwinian Dogma" and the scientists on this board are all well qualified and infallible?
It is my position that both Wright and Shapiro are qualified, but their opinion is in the minority amongst their peers for the reasons that have been listed in this and the other thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Shaprio writes: The second major aspect of evolutionary change by natural genetic engineering is that it generally takes place after an activating event which produces what McClintock called a 'genome shock' [160]. Activating events include loss of food [18], infection and interspecific hybridization (Tables 3 and 4) - just the events that we can infer from the geological and genomic records have happened repeatedly. Episodic activation of natural genetic engineering functions means that alterations to the genome occur in bursts rather than as independent events. Thus, novel adaptations that require changes at multiple locations in the genome can arise within a single generation and can produce progeny expressing all the changes at once. There is no requirement, as in conventional theory, that each individual change be beneficial by itself. The episodic occurrence of natural genetic engineering bursts also makes it very easy to understand the punctuated pattern of the geological record [161]. Moreover, the nature of activating challenges provides a comprehensible link to periodic disruptions in earth history. Geological upheavals that perturb an existing ecology are likely to lead to starvation, alteration of host-parasite relationships and unusual mating events between individuals from depleted populations. If it was observed that: 1. a large proportion of that generation all had the same rearrangements from independent events, 2. the shared rearrangement were beneficial, 3. the shared rearrangement only happened in response to a specific stimuli, then I would say that neo-Darwinism needs to be modified. However, this is not what we see, nor has this been observed by Wright or Shapiro. Instead, we find that beneficial re-arrangements are rare, and of the arrangments that are beneficial they are often different rearrangements. We also see that these rearrangements are in response to very general stimuli, such as starvation. We do not see specific reactions to specific stimuli, such as the specific mutation to produce spectinomycin resistance in response to the presence of spectinomycin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I have just been reading some papers on "directed mutations" and one very qualified researcher QI Zheng states as follows: Why do you say that you read the papers when you don't even understand what you are reading? It's like listening to a blind man describe the sunset.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
It's interesting that Darwin's theory was random mutation period. Now we have studies about directed mutation, adapatilve mutation, intelligence in the cells etc. and all you regulars keep saying all's well with the theory. Those studies demonstrate that directed and adaptive mutations are random with respect to fitness as I demonstrated in the Wright paper. I spent time to thoroughly read the paper and report on the findings. I also discussed why the mutations cited by Wright were random with respect to fitness. Your response? You ignored it, citing your lack of expertise. You have been dishonest through this entire discussion, as exemplified in the previous paragraph. You are being dishonest again with the quote above. Only when you are willing and able to slog through the data will you opinions matter.
Face it, the days of random mutation are gone. How would you know? You can't even interpret the data.
I will keep reading papers and learn, while you rest in your complacency. Complacency? Who is the one who thoroughly read the an entire Wright paper? Who is the one who presented that data and discussed it? Who is the one who demonstrated that the mutations that Wright spoke of were random with repsect to fitness? It wasn't you. That was me. Physician, heal thyself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The above quote from Wright's paper is where I believe evolutions is going. Don't you find it strange that Wright has to reference a Weismann paper from 1893 to get the material she needs? I thought we were talking about the Modern Synthesis as it stands now, not back in 1893.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Read his paper "The Origin of mutants" Why should we read papers that you refuse to discuss?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Where did I say QI Zheng supported Creationism? He is saying, in re the debated about, random, directed, adapative mutations, that there is no proof that random mutation is true. He said the exact opposite. He said that random mutations should be considered the null hypothesis. Do you understand what the null hypothesis is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
This all complies with Shapiro papers i.e.sentience in the cells, non random mutations for fitness etc. and the biocommunciative, information schools, that are moving away from the random mutation accidential evolultion hypothesis. Shapiro never demonstrated that mutations were non-random with respect to fitness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
He claims he did.
No he didn't. Read it again: "where certain changes are non-random with respect to their potential biological utility." Potential biological utility is not fitness.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024