Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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?
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 226 of 760 (610795)
04-01-2011 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Dr Adequate
03-25-2011 4:51 PM


Re: Dr. Wright's conclusion
Dr. Adequate writes:
A scientist investigating genetic mechanisms for evolution is participating in the modern synthesis. That's what it's all about.
I agree, and I believe I am presenting scientific papers that if correct would require modification or perhaps replacement of the modern synthesis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 232 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2011 12:31 AM shadow71 has replied

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


Message 227 of 760 (610796)
04-01-2011 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Theodoric
03-25-2011 8:29 PM


Re: I find this comment offensive
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.
I agree. I apologize, and I will try to be more tolerant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Theodoric, posted 03-25-2011 8:29 PM Theodoric has not replied

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


Message 228 of 760 (610797)
04-01-2011 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Dr Adequate
03-26-2011 2:30 AM


Re: Dr. Wright's conclusion
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.
thanks Dr. Adequate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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


Message 229 of 760 (610798)
04-01-2011 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Truplayer
03-27-2011 1:46 AM


Re: Source of Intelligence
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.)?
That to me is the ultilmate question. I have my beliefs as do others, but the subject of this thread is whether the modern synthesis does in fact require modification or replacement.
My thoughts are, based on the information findings and the biocommunciation hyphothesis and theories ,replacement for Macro evolution, and modification for micro evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Truplayer, posted 03-27-2011 1:46 AM Truplayer has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 760 (610801)
04-01-2011 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by shadow71
04-01-2011 7:37 PM


Re: Dr. Wright's conclusion
shadow71 writes:
So according to your intrepretation of Wright we have a mechanism generating non-random mutations that are clearly benefical
No that is not what I said and it's not what Wright said. You are simply repeating your own bogus interpretation and attributing it to me.
What Wright says is that a mechanism for generating non-random mutations, where said mutations may be beneficial, neutral, or deleterious, but where said mutations are confined to particularly parts of the genome, is a beneficial mechanism and will be selected.
Wright says the same thing more than once in the paper.
quote:
Evolution depends upon events that enhance mutation rates, thus increasing the supply of variants from which the fittest are selected. Therefore, the word mechanism in the present context will refer to the circumstances affecting mutation rates.
Get it now? The genetic engineering mechanism is a beneficial mechanism even if it generates mutations that are beneficial, neutral, or deleterious. Natural selection then cleans up.
Wright is pretty clear about what non-random means. And it does not mean planned.
quote:
By the neo-Darwinian definition, a mutation is random if it is unrelated to the metabolic function of the gene and if it occurs at a rate that is undirected by specific selective conditions of the environment.
So non-random would mean any mutation occurring at a rate directed by the environment or a mutation at some limited portion of the genome and having at least some relation to a metabolic feature of a gene. But the mutation themselves may still be deleterious, beneficial, or neutral with respect to fitness.
Even if you disagree with my interpretation of Wright, surely you can see that I don't agree with your self-serving misrepresentation of my words. Please let me know if my meaning is still unclear, or if there is some doubt about my reading of Wright.
This thread is whether the Darwinian theory requires modification or replacement.
Not exactly. It's about whether it should be modified or replaced with the nonsense you propose. I doubt most of us would bother with this discussion if the question was merely whether Dr. Wright or Dr. Shapiro disagreed with other scientists.
From the OP with my emphasis added.
shadow71 writes:
My purpose in this post is to discuss whether the Modern synthesis as it is know today should be modified? Replaced? With A theory based upon adaptations that are directed, modified, regulated and controlled by information exchanges in the cell rather than by mechanical physical, chemical driven adapations driven by random mutations and natural selection.
Finally, you have yet to show how this mechanism might work in higher animals. How does starvation result in mutations that make cheetahs run faster or give hawks more acute vision? Until we deal with that, then even the mechanisms you believe exist in bacteria are merely additions to current theory and not a replacement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by shadow71, posted 04-01-2011 7:37 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 760 (610805)
04-01-2011 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by shadow71
04-01-2011 7:08 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
shadow71 writes:
I guess I don't understand your statement that I am presenting the evidence w/o the Expert.
I presented the papers of the Experts, and then, based upon that evidence gave my interpretation of that evidence. What else could I do?
It's simple. Barbara Wright and Shapiro are not their papers.
Assuming that we are confined to court room procedures, you cannot present lab test results identifying the white powder found on the defendant as cocaine without presenting the testing scientist for cross examination. You cannot substitute an affidavit for the testing scientist. You have to produce the scientist, and we get to ask him what he meant.
Similarly, courtroom procedures will not allow you to present Wright's paper without putting Wright on the stand. That procedure, as you've acknowledged, violates the Confrontation Clause.
We want to check your interpretation against what Wright actually says, but when we ask what you Wright means, we just get your interpretation. That's pretty unsatisfying partly because you are not a scientist and because you make pretty obvious mistakes in interpretation, always in your own favor.
When we ask you to show us how Wright's data matches your interpretation which appears to differ from Wrights (or Shapiro's), you pretend to be using courtroom procedures and are that you are merely offering your closing statement which again is just your misinterpretation of Wright and/or Shapiro. But you admit that your closing statement is not evidence. So where is the evidence?
The answer to the question "what else could I do" is show us data that indicates that the mechanisms Wright and/or Shapiro describes produce mutations that are not random with respect to fitness. I don't believe you can do that using the data in those papers, because neither author makes that claim. The attempt might be enough to force even you to notice your mistake.
Of course the real problem is that you probably cannot even attempt what's been requested of you. You cannot even respond to Taq's showing that the mutations are random with respect to fitness because you don't understand the data.
And that's how life works outside of the court room.
Court room procedures are not necessary here. They are just a poor fit for a debate. So don't pretend you are using them when you are not even doing so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by shadow71, posted 04-01-2011 7:08 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 232 of 760 (610809)
04-02-2011 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by shadow71
04-01-2011 7:41 PM


Re: Dr. Wright's conclusion
I agree, and I believe I am presenting scientific papers that if correct would require modification or perhaps replacement of the modern synthesis.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by shadow71, posted 04-01-2011 7:41 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by shadow71, posted 04-05-2011 11:25 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 233 of 760 (610831)
04-02-2011 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by bluegenes
03-28-2011 9:24 PM


Re: The modern synthesis is not modern
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.
I agree evolution is a fact, but the theory is not a fact. By that I mean evolution occurs, but how is the theory, and I don't agree wtih the theory as stated in the modern synthesis up to now.
That is an interesting name for the theory. If that is the correct definition then I guess it can never be proven incorrect. If for example, the Biocommunciation findings show that random mutations for fitness is not correct, is the theory wrong or is it just modified to acknowledge random mutations for fitness is no longer a component of the theory?
The technical name no longer contains the name Darwin, is that acceptable to the scientific community?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by bluegenes, posted 03-28-2011 9:24 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by bluegenes, posted 04-02-2011 2:29 PM shadow71 has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 234 of 760 (610833)
04-02-2011 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by shadow71
04-02-2011 1:10 PM


Is phenotypic plasticity magic?
shadow71 writes:
I agree evolution is a fact, but the theory is not a fact.
By definition.
s71 writes:
By that I mean evolution occurs, but how is the theory, and I don't agree with the theory as stated in the modern synthesis up to now.
Go for a brief description of Darwin's theory like this: "The origin of species is due to descent with modification from one or several original life forms, a process driven primarily by natural selection."
That holds out well now, 152 years after Darwin published OoS, and the papers you're discussing fit it easily. Other processes recognised today like genetic drift create variation, and are encompassed by the word "modification".
s71 writes:
That is an interesting name for the theory. If that is the correct definition then I guess it can never be proven incorrect.
If for example, the Biocommunciation findings show that random mutations for fitness is not correct, is the theory wrong or is it just modified to acknowledge random mutations for fitness is no longer a component of the theory?
You can work out for yourself that mutations are largely random, because there are always far more that are detrimental to the organisms than are advantageous. Speeding up mutation in reaction to the environment just means the possibility of getting a random "hit" positive mutation more quickly. It's an initially random tendency in itself that would be selected for if it's advantageous.
s71 writes:
The technical name no longer contains the name Darwin, is that acceptable to the scientific community?
My name was a joke, but yes it's certainly acceptable to leave out Darwin's name. Scientists names aren't at all important in descriptions of theories.
Incidentally, "gene" is a twentieth century word, and mutations on genes is nothing to do with Darwin.
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.
When our skin cells react positively to radiation by tanning to protect their DNA, is that an indicator of intelligent design or sapient cells to you? Organisms making positive changes in direct reaction to their environments is something that was observed long before Darwin's time, so it's rather puzzling that you see anything special about the cell reactions described by Shapiro and Wright.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by shadow71, posted 04-02-2011 1:10 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by shadow71, posted 04-05-2011 4:50 PM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 235 of 760 (610984)
04-04-2011 1:27 PM


Shadow71,
Please reply to message 205.

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


Message 236 of 760 (610986)
04-04-2011 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by shadow71
04-01-2011 7:37 PM


Re: Dr. Wright's conclusion
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by shadow71, posted 04-01-2011 7:37 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 237 of 760 (611007)
04-04-2011 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Taq
03-28-2011 7:06 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
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.
We have a misunderstanding about data and my opinions. I cannot summarize or interpret the data, I am not a scientist.
I read for example Shapiro's papers where he presents his findings. i.e. his data to his scientifically trained readers.
He then especially in his summary papers presents his interpretation of and opinions formed from his data.
I form my opinions on his opinions presented in the papers, based upon his interpretation of the data.
Does this make any sense to you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Taq, posted 03-28-2011 7:06 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Taq, posted 04-05-2011 12:20 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 238 of 760 (611008)
04-04-2011 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Taq
03-28-2011 7:47 PM


Re: Just blowing smoke
Reply to Taq message 205.
I can't argue the data or the interpretation with you as Wright would be able to do.
I read the papers and when I see a Biologist such as Wright stating in the paper:
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.
From that I know she feels her research findings are not compatible with the current evolutionary theory.
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. That there has to be more to it that that.
I am also reading papers about communciation processes within and among cells being agent driven and not compatable with the neo-Darwinian theory.
I am also reading papers on talking about self organized processes of adapative evolution also claimed to be inconsistent with the neo-Darwinian theory.
So in re your interpretation of Wright's data I cannot intelligently give you an answer.
I will provide sources of the above mentioned papers when I feel comfortable with them and we can proceed from there.
Hope this makes some sense to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Taq, posted 03-28-2011 7:47 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-04-2011 9:46 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 242 by Taq, posted 04-05-2011 12:22 PM shadow71 has replied

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


Message 239 of 760 (611045)
04-04-2011 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by shadow71
04-04-2011 4:56 PM


Re: Just blowing smoke
I read the papers and when I see a Biologist such as Wright stating in the paper:
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.
From that I know she feels her research findings are not compatible with the current evolutionary theory.
And yet she's talking about an idea which is older than I am and which so far as I know no-one disputes.
So I think she's blowing smoke.
In order to show that she's not, it's no use quoting her trying to make her work sound exciting and controversial --- what you need to do is find at least one proponent of "current neo-Darwinian dogma" who says that the mechanisms she's discussing do not exist.
Good luck with that.
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."
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by shadow71, posted 04-04-2011 4:56 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by shadow71, posted 04-06-2011 4:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 240 of 760 (611089)
04-05-2011 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Dr Adequate
04-02-2011 12:31 AM


Re: Dr. Wright's conclusion
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.
What Shapiro is doing is taking all of the discoveries of the last 40 years plus and formulating hypothesis to explain those findings. He at least has the courage to acknowledge that Darwin and the Neo-Darwinists did not have all the correct answers and he is attempting to provide them, not just saying, Our theory is correct and anyone who disagrees is an idiot.
Do you disagree that there are two unresolved questions in the theory as he states?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2011 12:31 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-05-2011 12:24 PM shadow71 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