|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
You are falling back to you original idea that there is intelligence or what you erroneously called empathy at work in directing evolution. Again.
You have have already admitted that you don't have any evidential support for this: it is just an idea you have had. The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
There is the long lasting, environmetally positioned, epigenetical change. This last couldn't go astray. Nature wouldn't allow it to happen, as it is a very economic short cut road to evolution. Again, what does this statement mean? You've attempted to distinguish epigenetical change from mutations which could be beneficial or detrimental by saying that nature will not allow the former to go astray? If your statement means something other than saying that Nature won't allow detrimental epigenetical changes, then I cannot figure out what you are saying.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Well, you may still have time to register to vote. Even North Carolinians can still register for early voting. State Registration Deadlines
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
If they are random processes when they produce detrimental and neutral mutations then they are random when they produce beneficial mutations.
Detrimental, neutral and beneficial mutations in metazoa are not random. All of them are happening in a frame of loose guidance of the prevailing, for maybe thousands of years, epigenetic tedencies. imply detrimental or neutral mutations do not find their target.As for your analogy i can offer a better one. If during the gabling game process the dices are exchanged (by environment) with others, which have three instead of six numbers, would you still say the gabling is not guided?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Those are not mutations.
Nobody said they are. But they can lead to "desired" by environment mutations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
If your statement means something other than saying that Nature won't allow detrimental epigenetical changes, then I cannot figure out what you are saying.
Epigenetic changes are never detrimental, as they had been selected by natural selection. What i am saying is that nature would not allow epigenetic changes to go astray.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Epigenetic changes are never detrimental "Epigenetic changesstable but potentially reversible alterations in a cell’s genetic information that result in changes in gene expression but do not involve changes in the underlying DNA sequencemay mediate some of the detrimental effects of prenatal alcohol exposure and contribute to the deficits and abnormalities associated with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders."Alcohol Res Health Volume 34(1); 2011 - PMC "IGT during pregnancy was associated with leptin gene DNA methylation adaptations with potential functional impacts. These epigenetic changes provide novel mechanisms that could contribute to explaining the detrimental health effects associated with fetal programming, such as long-term increased risk of developing obesity and type 2 diabetes."Leptin Gene Epigenetic Adaptation to Impaired Glucose Metabolism During Pregnancy - PMC So we have detrimental epigenetic effects seen in both fetal alcohol syndrome and type 2 diabetes.
What i am saying is that nature would not allow epigenetic changes to go astray. Obviously, they do go astray and cause detrimental changes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Nobody said they are. But they can lead to "desired" by environment mutations. Based on what evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Detrimental, neutral and beneficial mutations in metazoa are not random. All of them are happening in a frame of loose guidance of the prevailing, for maybe thousands of years, epigenetic tedencies. Based on what evidence?
If during the gabling game process the dices are exchanged (by environment) with others, which have three instead of six numbers, would you still say the gabling is not guided?
Yes, because the results of the roll will still be random with respect to the bet made. The only thing that would change is the payout for the bets as judged by the odds of randomly hitting specific results. Reducing the number of slots on the roulette wheel does not make the results non-random. They are still random. Reducing the number of ping pong balls in the lottery hopper does not make the lottery non-random. It is still random.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Epigenetic changes are never detrimental, as they had been selected by natural selection. Are you truly unable to see the contradiction in this sentence?
What i am saying is that nature would not allow epigenetic changes to go astray. Where "astray" means what exactly? Perhaps if you cite an example of an astray epigenetic change that nature won't allow. Or even better, stop referring to nature anthropomorphically and just talk plainly about what process you are referring to.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Well, you may still have time to register to vote. Even North Carolinians can still register for early voting. State Registration Deadlines
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Are you truly unable to see the contradiction in this sentence?
Perhaps you could show me it.
Where "astray" means what exactly? Perhaps if you cite an example of an astray epigenetic change that nature won't allow. Astray =lost, useless. You ask me to give evidence of a possible phenomenon,a supposition, taking place over thousand of years. You just think the almost nil evidence, due to long time frame needed to happen, as they say, for random mutations in metazoa.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Based on what evidence?
Almost nil, as it is the evidence for random muations, to be fair.
Yes, because the results of the roll will still be random with respect to the bet made. The only thing that would change is the payout for the bets as judged by the odds of randomly hitting specific results. Reducing the number of slots on the roulette wheel does not make the results non-random. They are still random. Reducing the number of ping pong balls in the lottery hopper does not make the lottery non-random. It is still random.
I think we are reaching to some agreement. The process is not consciously guided relating fitness.It is a natural process governed by natural laws. Randomness here is an unfortunate term to describe the real thing. The crucial factor here is the permanent existance of the environment factor that changes dynamically and constantly the numbers on the dices.. We have either to exclude it once and for all, by hard evidence against it, or accept its possibility to play a significant role in evolution. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Almost nil, as it is the evidence for random muations, to be fair. Two points here: 1: You admit (again) to not having any evidence. 2: You ignore (again) the evidence of mutations (positive, neutral and negative with respect to fitness) being RANDOM!The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
You ask me to give evidence of a possible phenomenon,a supposition, taking place over thousand of years. Wrong. I did not ask you for evidence. What I asked for is an example, and it can be one you invent, of an astray epigenetic change that you believe nature would not allow. I want you to tell me how nature would prevent such a change. If you are unable to do this, I am going to conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Me writes: Are you truly unable to see the contradiction in this sentence? Perhaps you could show me it. I'll try to do so. If natural selection is at work, then the expected action is that changes are created by whatever mechanism, and the changes that provide an advantage in a given environment for the purpose of surviving to pass on inheritable change. You say that epigenetic changes are developed through natural selection, but then you deny that such changes can ever be detrimental without specifying what the environment is. That combination of ideas is nonsensical. Further, you've been provided with counter examples.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Well, you may still have time to register to vote. Even North Carolinians can still register for early voting. State Registration Deadlines
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
2: You ignore (again) the evidence of mutations (positive, neutral and negative with respect to fitness) being RANDOM!
the evidence brought here up to now were about one cell organism, which i accepted, not for metazoa.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
zi ko writes: Almost nil, as it is the evidence for random muations, to be fair. Evidence that mutations are random has been provided. You objected that evidence for randomness in mutations in unicellular organisms is not evidence for randomness in multicellular organisms, but now the onus for providing evidence is upon you because the replication mechanisms in the cells of both unicellular and multicellular organisms are pretty much the same. You position makes little sense. To use an analogy, why would the sole photocopier of a small business be more likely to introduce random errors than a photocopier in a huge corporate headquarters where there are many other copiers? So if you think the DNA copying process in a unicellular organisms can experience random errors while that in multicellular organisms cannot then you have to provide your evidence or at least a rationale. Taq is already asking you for this evidence, and I agree that you need to provide it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024