|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Shapiro treats the matter very serioucly and scientifically.He does'nt give any Teleology meaning in his nonrandomness. They way you treat Shapiro's work is not serious and seriously unscientific. I even spent an hour or so reading through a Wright paper that you suggested, and then you refused to discuss the particlulars with me. In that paper I demonstrated that the mutations cited by Wright are in fact random with respect to fitness. Also, you need to define what is nonrandom. Cite a specific mechanism that Shapiro discusses, and then show how it is nonrandom with respect to fitness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Sorry . I didn't intent to.
As i have said in other thread i can accept mutation randomness in respect to fitness. But as other mechanisms previous in time to mutation lead to somehow in directed by environment random mutations, or propably to other type of genome altering(engineering systems, HGT ) then the result can be what we say as function driven evolution. Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
As i have said in other thread i can accept mutation randomness in respect to fitness. Since the Modern Synthesis proposes that mutations are random with respect to fitness would you also agree that the theory does not need modification or replacement?
But as other mechanisms previous in time to mutation lead to somehow in directed by environment random mutations, or propably to other type of genome altering(engineering systems, HGT ) then the result can be what we say as function driven evolution. Where in the Modern Synthesis does it state that all cellular mechanisms must be undirected?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
ziko writes:
I agree. All recent fidings in evolution biology tent to support this view.but this does not mean that we have to accept inevitably Supernatural interfearence. It can be other evolutional mechanisms than could "make the decisions",as e.g Neural System, (http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com) in metazoa with neural tissue, or engineering systems and maybe other systems yet unkown ,in bacteria. I agree with your statement that nonrandom mutation does not necessarily mean Creation by a Supernatural being. My point is that to state absoutely that all mutations are random for fitness is dogmatic and not provable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Taq writes:
The mutations that Shapiro talks about are random with respect to fitness as I have pointed out time after time. On top of that, these random mutations are subject to selection. How could they not be? Can you point to any paper written by Shapiro where detrimental mutations are passed on at the same rate as beneficial mutations? Here is a quote from Shapiro's book "Evolution, A View from the 21st Century"
James A. Shapiro writes:
A Major assertion of many traditional thinkers about evolution and mutation is that living cells cannot make specific, adaptive use of their natural genetic engineering capacities. They make this assertion to protect their view of evolution as the product of random, undirected genome changes. But their position is philosophical, not scientific, nor is it based on empirical observations." He goes on to give examples of cells that can integrate processes of genome restructuring to serve adaptive needs in normal life cycles. He states there is no scientific basis on which to argue cells cannot use functional capacities to produce evolutionary novelties. This is clearly a statement that mutations are non-random with respect to fitness. Do you agree that mutations can be nonrandom with regard to fitness? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Here is a quote from Shapiro's book "Evolution, A View from the 21st Century" I am more interested in data found in peer reviewed scientific journals that backs what you are claiming.
He goes on to give examples of cells that can integrate processes of genome restructuring to serve adaptive needs in normal life cycles. How is this restructuring inherited by the next generation? How is this restructuring specific to an environmental stimuli? Do bacteria produce specific mutations in specific genes in response to antibiotics, and only those mutations?
He states there is no scientific basis on which to argue cells cannot use functional capacities to produce evolutionary novelties. You are talking past us. We agree that these "functional capacities" produce evolutionary novelties. What you seem to miss is that these functional capacities do not produce specific mutations in response to specific stimuli, and only those mutations. Rather, these functional capacities produce mutations throughout the genome and are random with respect to fitness.
Do you agree that mutations can be nonrandom with regard to fitness? No I don't, and I have the data from peer reviewed papers to back it up. Do you? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
I agree with your statement that nonrandom mutation does not necessarily mean Creation by a Supernatural being. My point is that to state absoutely that all mutations are random for fitness is dogmatic and not provable. All of the data I have seen demonstrates that the mutations observed in the study were random with respect to fitness. I will gladly accept data showing otherwise. When are you going to present this data?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Shapiro's Book writes:
Because genome evolution is multilevel, amplifying, and combinatorial in nature, the end results are complex hierarchical structues with characteristic system architectures. Genomes are sophisticated data storage organelles integrated into the cellular and multicellular life cycles of each distinct organism. Thinking about genomes from an informatic perspective, it is apparent that systems engineering is a better metaphor for the evolutionary process than the conventional view of evolution as a selection-biased random walk through the limitless space of possible DNA configurations" Taq writes:
Can you? You are the one who keeps citing Shapiro when you claim that mutations are nonrandom. You tell us, and be specific where it concerns the supporting data. Would you agree that Shapiro in the above quote from his book is proposing that mutations for fitness may be other than random? If so I will cite you to his examples of non-random mutations for fitness.If not we should agree to disagree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Would you agree that Shapiro in the above quote from his book is proposing that mutations for fitness may be other than random? Yes, but it doesn't require modification or replacement of the current Theory of Evolution because it is still random with respect to fitness. This has been explained to you for over 100's of posts over the last few months.
If so I will cite you to his examples of non-random mutations for fitness.
Cite away!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
If so I will cite you to his examples of non-random mutations for fitness. Please do. I have asked for this multiple times. Please reference the data as it is found in the peer reviewed papers. Added by edit at a much later time point: You might want to use "Letting Escherichia coli Teach Me About Genome Engineering" written by Shapiro. In this essay he actually references peer reviewed papers that supposedly support his claims. Those referenced peer reviewed papers will contain the data you need. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3000 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?
The clearest and simplest answer is yes, it does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement? The clearest and simplest answer is yes, it does. Why does it need modification or replacement? Your reply was not clear at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Taq writes:
Please do. I have asked for this multiple times. Please reference the data as it is found in the peer reviewed papers. Shapiro cites the paper below as an example of dedicated, nonrandom, beneficial change . Another paper in re CRISPR is found at The CRISPR system: small RNA-guided defense in bacteria and archaea - PMC which specifically says the changes are nonrandom. CRISPR/Cas, the Immune System of Bacteria and ArchaeaPhilippe Horvath1,* and Rodolphe Barrangou2,* + Author Affiliations 1Danisco France SAS, BP10, F-86220 Dang-Saint-Romain, France.2Danisco USA, Inc., 3329 Agriculture Drive, Madison, WI 53716, USA. *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: philippe.horvath@danisco.com (P.H.), rodolphe.barrangou@danisco.com (R.B.) Abstract Microbes rely on diverse defense mechanisms that allow them to withstand viral predation and exposure to invading nucleic acid. In many Bacteria and most Archaea, clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) form peculiar genetic loci, which provide acquired immunity against viruses and plasmids by targeting nucleic acid in a sequence-specific manner. These hypervariable loci take up genetic material from invasive elements and build up inheritable DNA-encoded immunity over time. Conversely, viruses have devised mutational escape strategies that allow them to circumvent the CRISPR/Cas system, albeit at a cost. CRISPR features may be exploited for typing purposes, epidemiological studies, host-virus ecological surveys, building specific immunity against undesirable genetic elements, and enhancing viral resistance in domesticated microbes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Shapiro cites the paper below as an example of dedicated, nonrandom, beneficial change . This is perfect. This is the exception that proves the rule. The paper you cited was not available for free, so I would direct your attention to this paper: http://www.biochemj.org/bj/imps/pdf/BJ20110901.pdf It is the same system you are pointing to, and it details the molecular mechanisms that produce the mutations. In this case, we have an entire operon devoted to inserting phage DNA into a specific area of the genome. I will gladly accept this example as directed mutations. The problem, however, is that an entire set of proteins is devoted to specifically mutating this section of DNA, and it is very specialized. What you have pointed out is the very reason that random mutations are so prevalent in evolving organisms. How large would the bacterial genome need to be in order to guide mutations for the entire genome? For each protein devoted to guiding mutations you also need another set of proteins devoted to mutating that protein, and so forth. Also, is the CRISPR system important for anything other than phage resistance? Nope. This system does not guide mutations for the evolution of new enzymes involved in metabolism, for example. On top of that, this system is not seen in eukaryotes. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
Yes, but it doesn't require modification or replacement of the current Theory of Evolution because it is still random with respect to fitness. Cite away! There are 2 cites in my message 643 in reply to Taq. If in fact mutations are nonrandom with respect to fitness, would you consider that the theory as we know it today needs modification?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024