|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 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: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Read his paper "The Origin of mutants" Why should we read papers that you refuse to discuss?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024