|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2933 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement? | |||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Based on what I have read I believe it shows that the CRISPR System is nonrandom for fitness. Way to miss the point, no one doubts that the system is beneficial the question is whether any given incorporation by the system is beneficial. The Wiedenheft paper doesn't seem to be making any new points that I can see. The specificity they are talking about is in the actual operation of the immunity system in defence, i.e. the way already incorporated spacer sequences target their counterparts in the phage genome. they do mention that the sequences incorporate site-specifically within the CRIPSR locus, but I've already said that. It certainly doesn't counter my point that the sequences themselves which are incorporated seem random. I really wish you would try and develop an ability to argue in your own words with appropriate links rather than just plonking down badly formatted walls of text you have taken from others. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
I think you should coherently define information for us or just stop posting here. At the moment you are in three different threads promoting exactly the same nonsense. As my "theory" coincides completely in its basic aspect regarding information role to evolution process,with Shapiro's 21st cetury evolutin theory, i adress you to his paper for informtion definition and other questions as well. My only additions to his theory, which i confes didn't know when i was forming my "theory", are the ideas of neural system inolvement in the evolutional process and empathy's importance on affecting genome, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
zi ko writes: To me information is what the senses bring in from outside or inside word. Yes, that's correct, but everything in the universe is exchanging information with everything else all the time, not just with our senses. Light brings information, whether it strikes a leaf or an eye. Sound brings information, whether it causes vibration in a champagne glass or an eardrum. Fumes bring information, whether they react with curing meat or your nose. .As my "theory" coincides completely in its basic aspect regarding information role to evolution process,with Shapiro's 21st cetury evolutin theory, i adress you to his paper for informtion definition and other questions as well. My only additions to his theory, which i confes didn't know when i was forming my "theory", are the ideas of neural system inolvement in the evolutional process and empathy's importance on affecting genome,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Zi Ko,
To have a discussion you have to respond to what people actually say, but you instead used the same paragraph of text as the response to two different people. It answers the questions of neither but just refers us to Shapiro. We were talking about Shannon information. You have throughout this thread been arguing that only intelligence can produce information. I provided examples of non-intelligence creating information, and here is that passage again:
Percy in Message 634 writes: Light brings information, whether it strikes a leaf or an eye. Sound brings information, whether it causes vibration in a champagne glass or an eardrum. Fumes bring information, whether they react with curing meat or your nose. If you still think that only intelligence can produce information then describe in your own words your definition of information. You can provide a link to Shapiro as a supporting reference. If the Shapiro link is longer than a single page then you'll need to be specific about where the supporting information is. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I am not moderating this thread, but I am moderating the Information's role in evolution.Should we put it more in the picture? thread. This message is just to alert the participants here that I have asked Zi Ko to confine his discussion of information to that thread. Zi Ko will not be discussing information in this thread anymore.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
If you still think that only intelligence can produce information then describe in your own words your definition of information. You can provide a link to Shapiro as a supporting reference idon't ever remember me sayjng that only intelligence can produce information, not Shapiro either i think.His computer type architexture of cell organisation implies his definition of information. Do i need to say that the meaning i give to the word information is based on the binary system.Of course light ,sound, smell, ect bring information. I don't understand.... Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Zi Ko,
Thanks for the response, but discussion of information should move to the Information's role in evolution.Should we put it more in the picture? thread. I'm not a participant over there, so since I won't be able to respond to this message there I should say here that you could be right that you've never claimed that only intelligence can produce information. I may have you confused with Shadow. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2933 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
I am reading Ernst Mayr's book "What evolution Is" 2001, and he states in the conclusion of chapt 7 p. 157 Adaptedness and Natural Selection: Anagensis:
"Genetic material (nucleic acids) is constant and impervious to any influence from the environment. No genetic information can be transmitted from proteins to nucleic acids, and so the inheritance of acquired characters is therefdore impossible. This provides an absolute refutation of all Lamarckian theories of evolution. The Darwinian model of evolution, based on random variation and natural selection, explains satisfactorily all phenomena of evolutionary change at the species level, and in particular adaptation." This to me seems to be statement that the "Central Dogma" is in fact correct and that Shapiro et al. are wrong. Any comments on the accurracy of Mayr's statement? If he is incorrect doesn't this in fact support this thread? "Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
shadow71 writes: I am reading Ernst Mayr's book "What evolution Is"... That's great. Perhaps you can quote from page 155? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Any comments on the accurracy of Mayr's statement?
Not without reading more of the book to understand what he is getting at. Does Mayr deal with transposons, retrotransposons, or the process of mutagenesis at all in the book?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
From Mayr's essay 80 Years of Watching the Evolutionary Scenery (2004):
quote: From that quote, do you think Mayr is happy with the current Modern Synthesis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2933 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Taq writes:
Not without reading more of the book to understand what he is getting at. Does Mayr deal with transposons, retrotransposons, or the process of mutagenesis at all in the book? He devotes one paragraph to transposable elelments and then suggest the reader confer a genetics textbook for detailed treatment on the manifold manifestations of transposable elements. He does write at p100 "No selectively valuable contributions are known for any of the TEs."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2933 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Taq writes:
From that quote, do you think Mayr is happy with the current Modern Synthesis? yes he seems to be, but is he up to date and correct in that quote? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 1270 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined: |
If he is incorrect doesn't this in fact support this thread? "Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?" That depends, do you think Shapiro or Wright are suggesting that genetic information is being transmitted from proteins to nucleic acid, and if so can you quote the relevant data?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
yes he seems to be, but is he up to date and correct in that quote?
Using your argument from authority, it doesn't matter. Mayr is an authority. Period. Therefore, anything he says is gospel, right? Or are you saying that you have a firm enough grasp on the biology to challenge Mayr on this subject? Of course this is just rhetorical given the fact that Mayr passed away a few years back. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024