|
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? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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 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? I know you do not like my conclusions from the evidence, but that is up to each reader to contemplate and reach their verdict. There is no hearsay problem under that procedure.
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? I am following courtroom procedures. I present the Expert testimony, their views and opinions, and then my opinions. That's how life works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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. 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.This then is a procedure that does not conform to the modern synthesis. So Wright is proposing a theory that is not in conformity with the modern synthesis.This thread is whether the Darwinian theory requires modification or replacement. Wright clearly says at the minimun modification, and most probably replacement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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 abovefor 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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. 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. This quote from the paper appears to support Shapiro and the information based decision making processes he calls Naural Genetic Engineering.
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. Shapiro also wrties about novel adaptations that require change at multiple locations in the genome that can arise within a single generation. So it appears that phenotypic plasticity is directed by some entity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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." 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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. What most on this board are doing is stating WHAT is happening in the cell, i.e. the mechanics . You do not address the WHY and HOW it happens, you just assume it is a Natural process. I don't believe you are going far enough. Your looking at the trees and ignoring the forest. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024