Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 271 of 760 (611946)
04-12-2011 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by shadow71
04-11-2011 8:19 PM


Re: LURIA & DELBRUCK random mutation experiment
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by shadow71, posted 04-11-2011 8:19 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by shadow71, posted 04-12-2011 8:23 PM Taq has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 272 of 760 (612052)
04-12-2011 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Taq
04-12-2011 11:03 AM


Re: LURIA & DELBRUCK random mutation experiment
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.
Face it, the days of random mutation are gone. And sometimes blind men can be more sensual of the facts of nature, than one who can see, but does not.
I will keep reading papers and learn, while you rest in your complacency.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Taq, posted 04-12-2011 11:03 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2011 8:37 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 274 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-12-2011 9:34 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 277 by NoNukes, posted 04-12-2011 10:08 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 278 by Taq, posted 04-13-2011 11:22 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 273 of 760 (612056)
04-12-2011 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by shadow71
04-12-2011 8:23 PM


Re: LURIA & DELBRUCK random mutation experiment
It's interesting that Darwin's theory was random mutation period.
Back in the real world, it's interesting that Darwin never used the word "mutation" and that he was way more or a Lamarckist than the evidence now supports.
But that's only true, so you may feel free to ignore it.
Face it, the days of random mutation are gone.
Mad people are funny.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by shadow71, posted 04-12-2011 8:23 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 274 of 760 (612069)
04-12-2011 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by shadow71
04-12-2011 8:23 PM


Re: LURIA & DELBRUCK random mutation experiment
shadow71 writes:
It's interesting that Darwin's theory was random mutation period.
Good Grief, shadow!
No wonder everyone thinks you don't know what you are talking about. Darwin's theory was Natural Selection not mutation, random or non-random. He knew there was variation in populations but he did not know what caused it or how it was passed on.
Face it, the days of random mutation are gone.
Whew, thanks for letting us know. I was worried that I might have a hundred or so mutations.
Now we have studies about directed mutation, adapatilve mutation, intelligence in the cells etc.
What you have are a handful of papers with opinions, speculations, and inflated assertions, but very little actual data or evidence that shows that something new has been discovered.
The affects in the papers you seem to be so enthusiastic about happen in a narrow set of circumstances, in a few species and are still random with respect to fitness. There is not one shred of evidence that these mechanisms apply widely to the rest of the life on this planet.

Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are out of alignment. -- S.Valley
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by shadow71, posted 04-12-2011 8:23 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by jar, posted 04-12-2011 9:42 PM Tanypteryx has replied
 Message 298 by shadow71, posted 04-14-2011 11:56 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 275 of 760 (612071)
04-12-2011 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Tanypteryx
04-12-2011 9:34 PM


On the intelligence he's trying to market.
If someone is going to claim that the behavior of plants or mutations at the genetic level are "intelligent" then they have reduced intelligence to absolutely nothing more than an unthinking response to environmental stimuli.
Makes Intelligent Design pretty irrelevant.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-12-2011 9:34 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-12-2011 9:51 PM jar has not replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 276 of 760 (612073)
04-12-2011 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by jar
04-12-2011 9:42 PM


Re: On the intelligence he's trying to market.
Intelligent Cells......Yep, that one is so silly it sucks the fun right out of any response I could make.

Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are out of alignment. -- S.Valley
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by jar, posted 04-12-2011 9:42 PM jar has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 760 (612075)
04-12-2011 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by shadow71
04-12-2011 8:23 PM


What is the baseline theory?
shadow71 writes:
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.
Of course your summary of Darwin's theory is completely wrong.
Darwin's theory is descent with modification. Darwin does not identify a source of modification in Origin of Species. In fact, Darwin knew nothing at all about genetics. I don't think Dawin would have taken much issue with a neo-Lamarkian approach to variation.
Perhaps you'd have been a bit closer to the mark if you said "modern synthesis" instead. But even modern synthesis is not the current state of the theory of the evolution.
I will keep reading papers and learn, while you rest in your complacency.
More accurately, you'll continue to misread scientific papers looking for a places to insert your personal theology. In the future, I expect you'll do it without correction from others. Your pretended reading of Zheng's work was pathetic.
And sometimes blind men can be more sensual of the facts of nature, than one who can see, but does not.
So now you are Einstein, toiling away in the patent office?
Your ignorance of the topic of biology is a handicap and not strength. Don't you think it would have been a good idea to become familiar with the current state of evolutionary theory before beginning to insist that it was all wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by shadow71, posted 04-12-2011 8:23 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 278 of 760 (612115)
04-13-2011 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by shadow71
04-12-2011 8:23 PM


Re: LURIA & DELBRUCK random mutation experiment
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by shadow71, posted 04-12-2011 8:23 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 279 of 760 (612116)
04-13-2011 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by AZPaul3
04-11-2011 8:45 PM


Re: LURIA & DELBRUCK random mutation experiment
AZPaul writes:
shadow, do you know what a "null hypothesis" is in science?
Wilkepedia writes:
The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are falsifiable using a test of observed data. The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position. For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena,[1] or that a potential treatment has no effect.[2] In most legal systems, the presumption that a defendant is innocent ("until proven guilty") can be interpreted as saying that his or her innocence is the null hypothesis. Other legal systems may exist in which the null hypothesis is that the defendant is guilty.
[edit] PrincipleHypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how probable the data are, assuming the null hypothesis is true. If the data are very improbable (usually defined as observed less than 5% of the time), then the experimenter concludes that the null hypothesis is false. If the data do not contradict the null hypothesis, then no conclusion is made. In this case, the null hypothesis could be true or false; the data give insufficient evidence to make any conclusion.
By this definition would you agree that the hypothesis of random mutation is neither true or false. ie. not proven.
I didn't spend $45 for the paper. I have in my trial career met and worked with many experts in all fields of medicine, so I have access to many papers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by AZPaul3, posted 04-11-2011 8:45 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by NoNukes, posted 04-13-2011 12:20 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 296 by AZPaul3, posted 04-13-2011 7:20 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 280 of 760 (612119)
04-13-2011 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Coyote
04-11-2011 8:46 PM


Re: Creationist research
Coyote writes:
Where in all of this do you see support for creationism or ID? I suspect the author would be aghast at the uses to which creationists are putting his research.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Coyote, posted 04-11-2011 8:46 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Taq, posted 04-13-2011 12:06 PM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 281 of 760 (612120)
04-13-2011 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by NoNukes
04-11-2011 10:05 PM


Re: LURIA & DELBRUCK random mutation experiment
shadow71 writes:
This is an exciting event.
NoNukes writes:
What event might that be?
That random mutation for fitness is not a proven hypothesis. That directed and adapative mutations do occur.
That this is admitted is exciting to me.
Wright writes:
As this minireview is concerned with the importance of the environment in directing evolution, it is appropriate to remember that Lamarck was the first to clearly articulate a consistent theory of gradual evolution from the simplest of species to the most complex, culminating in the origin of mankind (71). He published his remarkable and courageous theory in 1809, the year of Darwin's birth. Unfortunately, Lamarck's major contributions have been overshadowed by his views on the inheritance of acquired characters. In fact, Darwin shared some of these same views, and even Weismann (106), the father of neo-Darwinism, decided late in his career that directed variation must be invoked to understand some phenomena, as random variation and selection alone are not a sufficient explanation (71). This minireview will describe mechanisms of mutation that are not random and can accelerate the process of evolution in specific directions.
The above quote from Wright's paper is where I believe evolutions is going.
The days of Dawkins's seflish genes are gone.
There is more to evolutions than accidential random mutation in the evolution process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2011 10:05 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Taq, posted 04-13-2011 11:56 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 292 by NoNukes, posted 04-13-2011 12:39 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 282 of 760 (612121)
04-13-2011 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Wounded King
04-12-2011 5:41 AM


Re: LURIA & DELBRUCK random mutation experiment
Thanks Wounded King.
That in so many words is what I thought was being said.
Am I wrong in taking from his paper that the random mutation hypothesis is not proven?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Wounded King, posted 04-12-2011 5:41 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Wounded King, posted 04-13-2011 12:08 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 283 of 760 (612122)
04-13-2011 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Dr Adequate
04-12-2011 8:14 AM


Re: LURIA & DELBRUCK random mutation experiment
Shadow 71 writes:
I know Cairns and others have challenged the Luria & Delbuck experiment, but it this scientist is correct, we may have no proof of random mutations.
Dr Adequate writes:
Please quote him saying so.
Read his paper "The Origin of mutants"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2011 8:14 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Taq, posted 04-13-2011 11:57 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 297 by NoNukes, posted 04-14-2011 7:03 AM shadow71 has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 284 of 760 (612123)
04-13-2011 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by shadow71
04-13-2011 11:40 AM


Re: LURIA & DELBRUCK random mutation experiment
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by shadow71, posted 04-13-2011 11:40 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 285 of 760 (612124)
04-13-2011 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by shadow71
04-13-2011 11:47 AM


Re: LURIA & DELBRUCK random mutation experiment
Read his paper "The Origin of mutants"
Why should we read papers that you refuse to discuss?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by shadow71, posted 04-13-2011 11:47 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024