|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,765 Year: 4,022/9,624 Month: 893/974 Week: 220/286 Day: 27/109 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
shadow71 writes: All data is subject to an opinion. One scientist may assert the data shows this conclusion, while anothr scientist asserts the data shows a different conclusion. Data does not speak for itself, it must be interpreted. Great. Start interpreting. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Percy writes:
Great. Start interpreting. I have been citing Wright, who is interpreting her findings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Data does not speak for itself, it must be interpreted. I fully agree. Like Percy says, start interpreting. That is what I have been asking you to do from the very start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Percy writes:
Shadow, you're doing it again, get a grip. Stop taking surveys of what people believe and start discussing the topic. If you can support your position with data from the paper, this is the time and place to do it. Percy, you make that statement that is off the wall as far as modern synthesis thought goes and then you don't want to answer for it's validity.This is a debate forum. You can't make statements like that w/o being accountable. My position is that if your statment is true, then there is no question that there has to be a plan to evolution, it cannot be random. Here is the statement I am taking about. Taq, Wounded King what do you think about this statement?
Percyy writes:
and as I commented to Taz last week, if we discover a process producing specific beneficial mutations it will fit within the modern synthesis while still providing no evidence for an intelligent designer. Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
I have been citing Wright, who is interpreting her findings. If Wright has interpreted the leuB- reversion findings as evidence of directed mutations then Wright has misinterpreted the findings. That is the whole point of this thread. Let's even agree, for the sake of argument, that Wright does think that these findings indicate directed mutations. With that out of the way, it is now time for you to address my arguments as to why these findings do not indicate directed mutations. 1. These are not directed mutations because the beneficial reversion only occurs once in every 500 million divisions. If this was a directed process then at least 1-10% of the population should have the needed mutation. 2. Wright's own findings show that the mechanism responsible for the directed mutations in the leuB- gene would also produce neutral and deleterious mutations in all genes that are upregulated in a given environment, including vital housekeeping genes. 3. Wright also demonstrated that changing the leuB- promoter and promoter alone changed the rate of hypermutation. This indicates that hypermutation is not specific to the function of the gene, but rather it's physical state as single stranded DNA. If this does not disprove Wright's conclusion* of directed mutations, then what would? *this conclusion is only being linked to Wright for this discussion only. This does not indicate that Wright holds this conclusion in real life, but only for the purposes of this discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
shadow71 writes: Percy writes: Great. Start interpreting. I have been citing Wright, who is interpreting her findings. In the last paragraph of the paper, Wright's interpretation of her findings are that they are "a reasonable extension of what is known." Her findings are that the environment can increase the probability of viable variants, with the probability around one in 500 million with nary a hint of direction. Taq and I agree with Wright's interpretation of her findings. It would be helpful if you could explain how you're interpreting the Wright paper to reach a different conclusion. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Hi Shadow,
I know you would like to discuss the modern synthesis and whether Wright's findings conform to it, but that isn't the topic of this thread. This thread is about whether Wright's paper contains evidence of the environment directing mutations. If you want to discuss the modern synthesis then you should return to your Shapiro thread. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
But the big problem in this thread is that the IDists have one definition of "directed" while biology has another. The IDists see what they interpret as claims of directed evolution (in the biological sense) and interpret this as supportive of an intelligent designer. To be fair to the IDists, Wright and Shapiro do frame their research as part of a narrative of overturning or radically altering the current evolutionary paradigm, so it isn't exactly hard to see how people already prone to false dichotomies see that automatically as supportive of their preferred 'theory'. I think both Wright and Shapiro could do with the T-shirt carrying this slogan ... Come to think of it, I'd like that T-shirt too, in case any of you were wondering what to get me for Christmas. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3645 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Fitness and your own term, "life perseverance," are synonyms.
Life perservation is a term wider than fitness. Fitness can be included in "life perservation" concept, as others as well; e.g life perservation through intelligent act or through a Designer's decision.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
zi ko writes: Life perservation is a term wider than fitness. Fitness can be included in "life perservation" concept, as others as well; e.g life perservation through intelligent act or through a Designer's decision. I think you're getting your terms mixed up. You originally said "perservance," which I assumed was just a misspelling of "perseverance". Now you're saying "perservation," which isn't a word and looks like a combination of "perseverance" and "preservation." Whatever word you mean, to me you appear to be talking about fitness, but you say you are not. Okay, but then when you ask if mutations are random in relation to "life <whatever-term-you-come-up>", you'll have to concisely define the term before we can answer. You say, "Life perservation [sic] through intelligent act or through a Designer's decision," but intelligence and designers are not part of any theory of mutation. Maybe you can provide an example of what you're thinking of? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Percy writes:
If you want to discuss the modern synthesis then you should return to your Shapiro thread. I agree Percy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Life perservation is a term wider than fitness. Doesn't matter. In this experiment the probability of a bacterium surviving the conditions in the environment is 1 in 500 million. Out of 500 million bacteria a single bacterium will survive, and it will be a random bacteria. There is no way you could ever predict beforehand which bacterium is going to get the needed mutation. If you have 100 bacteria then the chances of any of those bacteria survivng is 100 in 500 million, or 1 in 5 million if you want to get rid of some zeros. Life perserverance is determined by random probabilities when it comes to the appearance of beneficial mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
HI Wounded King,
Just wondering if you have read Shapiro's book, " Evolution a view from the 21st century"? If so do you belive his science is wrong? Or is it that he strikes a cord that challenges some of the accepted Modern synthesis beliefs?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Hi Shadow,
No, I haven't read Shapiro's books. I'm not really one for reading books on the biological sciences any more, although I read many as an undergrad, I much prefer the primary literature nowadays. So as to what Shapiro say in his book I can't comment. In terms of what he has said in the published literature I think that I have already made my opinion clear in several threads and indeed in the post you just replied to here. In the discursive elements of his papers and review he frequently goes well beyond what the data will actually support. He also seems to use very confusing non-standard terminology to try and shoehorn a whole series of processes into the category of intelligent, processes which I would argue really don't belong there. I find it very unlikely that he is more circumspect and restrained in his book than he was in his papers. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Just wondering if you have read Shapiro's book, " Evolution a view from the 21st century"?
I'm with WK on this one. I don't read books on biology. I read the primary lit (and even help write some of it). If I do read a book it is more along the lines of Netter's Infectious Diseases (btw, I know one of those authors personally). When I am curious about something in that book I order the primary lit paper that is referenced in the interesting bit. So, are we done discussing Wright's paper? Do you agree with the rest of us that there is no evidence of directed mutations in the paper (your opinion, not Wright's)?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024