|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 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: 10084 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What Shapiro is doing is taking all of the discoveries of the last 40 years plus and formulating hypothesis to explain those findings. Well, no. The hypotheses that explain the phenomena are the physical, biochemical mechanisms that cause them to occur --- the nuts and bolts of how transposons transpose, how increased transcription increases mutation rates, and so forth. Shapiro's additional blather about intelligence in the cell adds nothing to this and is not a hypothesis, just a misleading way of describing facts discovered by other people. It has no predictive or explanatory power --- in the words of Pauli: "It's not right --- it's not even wrong".
He at least has the courage to acknowledge that Darwin and the Neo-Darwinists did not have all the correct answers ... Well, they didn't. It doesn't take courage to acknowledge that; a timid acquiescence in the bleedin' obvious would do just as well. What Shapiro has is chutzpah --- he's trying to pass himself off as a radical and revolutionary with the "courage" to tell us all what we already know. Again, I would ask you to find me anyone, on this thread or elsewhere, who denies the existence of the mechanisms that he and Wright are talking about. Otherwise he is fighting against an orthodoxy that no-one in the world believes in, and which is therefore neither ortho nor a doxy. Next thing you know he'll be chiding astronomers for their hidebound insistence on geocentrism. But in order to don the mantle of Galileo it is not enough to be right. Other people must be wrong.
Do you disagree that there are two unresolved questions in the theory as he states? His statement of them is vague and imprecise. Given that difficulty, I should say that "the connections between evolutionary change and ecological disruption" is something that is fairly well understood; and that "the origins of complex adaptive novelties at moments of macroevolutionary change" is a phenomenon for which there is as yet no evidence and which therefore doesn't really need an explanation. But as I say, his writing is vague and it's not completely clear what he has in mind. Also I might add that the mechanisms he points to would not in fact explain the unevidenced phenomenon of "complex adaptive novelties at moments of macroevolutionary change". He may if he chooses call known blind unthinking chemical mechanisms a form of "intelligence"; but it is a far cry from that to showing that there are also (as yet undiscovered) mechanisms in the cell which are so intelligent that they can perform intellectual feats which would baffle a team of biologists equipped with a supercomputer. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2962 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
shadow71 writes: So it appears that phenotypic plasticity is directed by some entity. It's certainly advantageous. That might give you a clue as to the entity. Charles and Francis Darwin would have known. I thought it might excite your interest, anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. Bollocks. In a single generation, I can raise and lower my right arm. Several times. Would you say that that "does not appear to fit into the gradual change of Darwinian evolution"? Actually, you might just be confused enough to do so. But you might think about why no biologist has proposed this as a challenge to Darwinism in the course of the last 150 years. If thinking about things was the kind of thing that you did. And then you try to bolster your nonsense by quoting a paper which explicitly says how delighted Charles Darwin would have been with the results! Sheesh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2962 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2962 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Dr. Adequate writes:
Again, I would ask you to find me anyone, on this thread or elsewhere, who denies the existence of the mechanisms that he and Wright are talking about. Otherwise he is fighting against an orthodoxy that no-one in the world believes in, and which is therefore neither ortho nor a doxy. Neither Wright or Shapiro are denying the existence of the mechanisms, but are rather challenging the How and Why of what is happening.
Dr. Adequate writes:
His statement of them is vague and imprecise. Given that difficulty, I should say that "the connections between evolutionary change and ecological disruption" is something that is fairly well understood; and that "the origins of complex adaptive novelties at moments of macroevolutionary change" is a phenomenon for which there is as yet no evidence and which therefore doesn't really need an explanation. But as I say, his writing is vague and it's not completely clear what he has in mind. So am I correct that at this time the Current neo-Darwinian theory cannot explain Macroevolutionary change?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Dr. Adequate writes:
And then you try to bolster your nonsense by quoting a paper which explicitly says how delighted Charles Darwin would have been with the results!Sheesh. The authors of that paper put in the following quotation from Charles and Francis Darwins book "The Power of Movement of Plants." Here we amplify the final sentence of this book in which the Darwins proposed that:
The power of Movement of Plants, by Charles and Francis Darwin writes:
"It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the tip of the radicle thus endowed with sensitivity and having the power of directing the movements of the adjoining parts, acts like the brain of one of the lower animals; the brain being seated within the anterior end of the body, receiving impressions from the sense-organs, and directing the several movements.
The authors then state. This sentence conveys two important messages: first, that the root apex may be considered to be a ‘brain-like’ organ endowed with a sensitivity which controls its navigation through soil; second, that the root apex represents the anterior end of the plant body. In this article, we discuss both these statements. That quote by the Darwins sure sounds alot like Shapiro.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
taq writes: What types of changes are we talking about? Changes in gene regulation or gene sequence? Here is the quote from his paper "Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21st century" p.14 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Neither Wright or Shapiro are denying the existence of the mechanisms ... I don't see how you managed to misunderstand me so thoroughly. I did not say nor suggest nor imply that Wright and denied these mechanisms. What I said was that in order for them to be defying some neo-Darwinian orthodoxy by adducing these mechanisms, there would have to be some orthodox neo-Darwinians who denied the existence of these mechanisms. Otherwise they're not challenging the orthodox view, they're agreeing with it.
... but are rather challenging the How and Why of what is happening. The "How and Why" is the biochemistry. If Wright and Shapiro wished to claim that (for example) transposons transpose, not because of the biochemical properties that make them do so, but because of magic performed by a Transposition Fairy, then they would be unorthodox. Oh, and completely wrong.
So am I correct that at this time the Current neo-Darwinian theory cannot explain Macroevolutionary change? No, you are fantastically, fatuously wrong; and once more, you have completely misunderstood me. Macroevolution is well explained by the current theory. But the current theory does not need to explain "complex adaptive novelties at moments of macroevolutionary change" (note the italics) because there is no evidence whatsoever that any such thing has ever taken place. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." --- Bertrand Russell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That quote by the Darwins sure sounds alot like Shapiro. Indeed. So how can Shapiro be challenging the orthodox view of evolution by agreeing with what Darwin wrote back in the nineteenth century and which has never been questioned since? In order for Shapiro's views to be radical and unconventional, he would have to be disagreeing with someone. Whereas the existence of phenotypic plasticity is something that everyone agrees with.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024