Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution.
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3649 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 421 of 433 (659191)
04-13-2012 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 419 by Taq
04-12-2012 12:00 PM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
Evidence please.
Where is the evidence for randon mutations in metazoa?
All life is exposed to mutagens, random mistakes by polymerases, indels, recombination events, and exogenous insertion of repetitive elements (e.g. transposons). We can see this in the divergence of non-coding DNA between species. The process of mutation in ALL life produces deleterious, neutral, and beneficial effects.
As it happens as well with guided mutations through environmental information. You keep forgetting that guided mutations producedeleterious anetral mutations as well.
Also, I have yet see evidence of any god or a plan set by this unevidenced god. Why would I include something for which there is no evidence?
You cant avoid to see the eternal flow of informatio from environment to organism. But you prefer to ignore its significance to evolution.
So says the person who thinks, without evidence, that there is a supernatural plan at work in evolution. You are projecting.
It could be, if you prefer, just a flow of information. You are negative in advance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Taq, posted 04-12-2012 12:00 PM Taq has not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3649 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 423 of 433 (659256)
04-13-2012 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by Taq
04-13-2012 12:18 PM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
So this famed evidence about random mutations in metazoa ends up to an indirect estimation by a scientist, who in 2002, hopes that other scientists, during next decade (which already had ended), would rather make a direct measurement, evidently necessary for any conclusion!!!!
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Taq, posted 04-13-2012 12:18 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by Panda, posted 04-14-2012 8:20 AM zi ko has replied
 Message 429 by Taq, posted 04-16-2012 12:40 PM zi ko has not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3649 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 425 of 433 (659328)
04-15-2012 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by Panda
04-14-2012 8:20 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
Taq provided 'some' evidence.
You provided 'no' evidence.
This discussion is not a competition between me and Taq or another member of this forum. It is about fiddling with the whole evolution community of this forum (only?) in order to presend a feeble theory (e.g random mutations role in evolution) as a fact, with unwarranted claims.
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

Taq provided 'some' evidence.
You provided 'no' evidence.
So this famed evidence about random mutations in metazoa ends up to an indirect estimation by a scientist, who in 2002, hopes that other scientists, during next decade (which already had ended), would rather make a direct measurement, evidently necessary for any conclusion!!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Panda, posted 04-14-2012 8:20 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by Panda, posted 04-15-2012 6:09 AM zi ko has replied
 Message 430 by Taq, posted 04-16-2012 12:42 PM zi ko has not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3649 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 427 of 433 (659470)
04-16-2012 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by Panda
04-15-2012 6:09 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
The only person making unwarranted and unevidenced claims is you.
You have provided no evidence
I have stated it from the very begining of this thread that i couldn't provide any evidence. But your admission that Taq had provided 'some' evidence was a very big help to my position that Modern Synthesis theory was an nonproved theory or rather a hypothesis as regards the random mutations part of it. Isn't it a big joke?

Taq provided 'some' evidence.
You provided 'no' evidence.
So this famed evidence about random mutations in metazoa ends up to an indirect estimation by a scientist, who in 2002, hopes that other scientists, during next decade (which already had ended), would rather make a direct measurement, evidently necessary for any conclusion!!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Panda, posted 04-15-2012 6:09 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by Panda, posted 04-16-2012 10:52 AM zi ko has not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3649 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 431 of 433 (660271)
04-23-2012 8:57 AM


Re: Are there ONLY RANDOM MUTATIONS?
'If that much-spoken 'evidence" of followers of random mutations is this 'some evidence' of Panda, then there is a serious matter of credibility in this forum.

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3649 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 433 of 433 (662596)
05-17-2012 11:50 AM


SUMMATION.
Firstly I would like to thank all, without any exception, participants of the thread.
As far as it concerns my most important and provocative new ideas, I can say:
NEURAL INVOLVEMENT AS A CAUSATIVE FACTOR IN EVOLUTION.
It i s still far from being proved. But the trend of expanding scientific work on neural system, I hope, will give at least some causative role of neural system on evolution process. As the importance of information flow from environment, ending to genome, is more and more gaining scientific recognition, the role of neural system is going to be more accepted.
EMPATHY AS ESSENSIAL MECHANISM OF INFORMATION TRANSFER RELATIVE TO EVOLUTION is going to be even more difficult.
THERE ARE BOTH TYPES OF MUTATIONS RANDOM AND DIRECTED.
Here I felt being astonished. All over these months of conversation I was bombarded by big mouth accusations for not presenting evidence. And it ended that fanatic advocates of hard scientific evidence, presented without any shame, as the only evidence of randomness in mutation for metazoa, the indirect measurements of a researcher at 2002, who hopes on next decade ( we are already in 2012) other scientists would make the direct measurements !! And we talk about the main pillar of classic Darwinism and the Modern Theory as well. At least Taq talks about the hypothesis of randomness. So Modern Theory is not a Theory, but simply ahypothesis!!!!
Maybe these truths were the reason for Percy to treat me so unfairly!!!

'If that much-spoken 'evidence" of followers of random mutations is this 'some evidence' of Panda, then there is a serious matter of credibility in this forum.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024