|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Simpson wouldn't go to such pains in defining adaptive mutations, if it was only for simply beneficial mutations. All we know them so well.
Simpson is defining adaptive mutations as increasing the random mutation rate in times of stress. The mutations are still random with respect to fitness, the opposite of guided mutations. Here is some background on adaptive mutations. One of the important experiments dealing with adaptive mutations was on lac revertants. They were trying to use the Luria-Delbruck experimental design in a situation where the challenge was not immediately lethal. They chose a bacterial strain that had a knockout mutation in the lac gene which is responsible for the metabolism of lactose. Then then put this strain on plates where the only carbon source was lactose. They then looked for mutations in the lac gene which resotored lactase activity. When the counted the number of lac revertants they found that there were many more than they expected. This opened up the possibility that the bacteria were specifically mutating the lac gene in order to fix that gene. Further experiments disproved this notion, and these experiments led to the discovery of the SOS response. The response is triggered by DNA damage, not by the presence of lactose. This response upregulates the production of error prone polymerases and increases the rate of gene duplication and recombination. The random mutation rate increases, but the mutations are not guided to the lac gene. Nowhere in the process does the bacteria sense the presence of lactose and then specifically mutate the lac gene. This is the type of system that Simpson is talking about. He is talking about the non-random nature of the random mutation rate. Nowhere is Simpson supporting your idea of guided mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
He never suggests anywhere that there is any sort of change in mutation rate due to stress. I'd be interested to know where you think he does. I was assuming that Simpson was using the modern term which is probably a bad assumption to make. If Simpson is merely talking about phenotype plasticity then Zi ko is really barking up the wrong tree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
These experiments just demonstate a limited momen of evolution life
They demonstrate that mutations are random with respect to fitness, the very thing you are trying to deny.
If this is so, why "randomness" should be seen as random? Nature or God could just use it.
Or it could be filtered through natural selection, just as we observe.
"...It is not necessary that mutation should be random for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not. Emphasizing that mutation can be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that, by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random. It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance." I think you should reread that quote and think about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
The evolution mechanism in one cell organisms is an instance in the evolution history, not the whole of it. You cannot draw conclusions for the multicellular organisms, wrhere evolution mechanims are surely more complex. I think we need an example of predictive value of random mutations in multicellular organisms too.
This thread is about your theory of evolution. Where are those predictions?
Random mutations is, somebody can easily say, a special for the case choice between other mechanisms by nature.
Random mutations is the rule. It is the only mechanism for producing heritable variation that I am aware of. If you disagree, then now would be the time to cite evidence.
The concept of of the organism-environment information interchange is very much connected with the the concept of neural's system and for the same reason of empathy's intervention in evolution process . You need more than concepts. You need evidence. Where is it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
So ,it is a matter of choice of belief, as many times i had been saying.
It is a matter of fact and observation. We observe that mutations are random with respect to fitness. We observe that these random mutations filter through natural selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
It applies only to mono-cell organisms. Evidence please.
It would be more scientific if you mention that and even more responsible if you had added that this "randomness" maybe is part of nature's or God's plan.Surely it is not only your fault. It applies to all DNA based life. 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. 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?
I discern a fiddling with of the whole evolutional community, who wand to attach to the evolutional process an aura of moral meaning. So says the person who thinks, without evidence, that there is a supernatural plan at work in evolution. You are projecting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
If i am right, i don't think you ever mention any study in metazoa to prove random mutations. Here is one done in humans:
quote: This study calculated the human mutation rate by measuring the occurence of deleterious mutations in a well defined population. They compared their results to mutation rate needed to produce the divergence seen in chimp and human pseudogenes (i.e. neutral mutations). If mutations are random with respect to fitness in humans then the two values should be close, and they are. On top of this, there is no known system by which metazoans can specifically mutate their DNA in response to a specific stimuli. All of the sources of mutation that we know of are random with respect to fitness. Polymerases are incapable of determining which mutations will affect fitness. Repair mechanisms are incapable of determining the same. Environmental mutagens can not tell which mutations will increase or decrease fitness. You claim that there are such systems, but you fail to even describe them, much less evidence them. Is it any wonder why scientists conclude that mutations are random? They are following the evidence, and the evidence clearly indicates random mutations with respect to fitness.
Existence even of tiny signal of directed mutations, as you say, it shows that there is , never mind how rare it is, the mechanism to suceed it. So why you so insistantly used to ask me to present that mechanism? Why do you insist that it exists when you have no evidence that it exists?
I suggest neural system to bridge this division.
We need evidence, not suggestions. Anyone can play make-believe. Anyone can make stuff up. What we are interested in is what is real. Surely you know this?
If you remain unable to bring the needed evidence, i insist there is fiddling with. Says the person unwilling to present evidence to back their claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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!!!!
The indirect measurement is more than enough to test the hypothesis. You claim that mutations are guided in metazoans. Where are your direct measurements?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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.
I am presenting random mutations as a conclusion drawn from evidence. I have given you this evidence. You claim mutations are guided. You have offered zero evidence. It appears that your attempts to "fiddle with" the scientific community is rather feeble, and incompetent at that. Please present evidence for your claims or withdraw the claims. It is as simple as that.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024