Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8842 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2018 9:55 PM
98 online now:
GDR, kjsimons, Meddle, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tanypteryx (5 members, 93 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 833,839 Year: 8,662/29,783 Month: 909/1,977 Week: 47/380 Day: 47/79 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
13141516
17
18Next
Author Topic:   About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory
zi ko
Member (Idle past 1418 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 241 of 264 (682434)
12-02-2012 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Taq
11-26-2012 3:13 PM


Re: General commentary on the Koonin and Wolf paper
There is some merit in the claim that cellular damage can trigger mechanisms that increase HGT.....
..... The mechanisms that move DNA from one bacteria to another do not read the DNA before taking in the DNA. The bacteria have no idea what the sequence of the plasmids are before it enters the bacteria.

Of course bacteria don't know.But environment ,as you are suggesting by your first sentence, can fascilitate HGT (why not and other mechanisms as well ?)
Why should we include these other explanations when there is no evidence for them?

Coonin at all have brought quite a lot of evidence, enough to convince themselves and others as well, or at least to make some to rethink about their fixed and uninevidenced ideas.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Taq, posted 11-26-2012 3:13 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Larni, posted 12-02-2012 5:46 PM zi ko has not yet responded
 Message 243 by Taq, posted 12-03-2012 11:39 AM zi ko has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3953
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 242 of 264 (682468)
12-02-2012 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by zi ko
12-02-2012 9:38 AM


Re: General commentary on the Koonin and Wolf paper
or at least to make some to rethink about their fixed and uninevidenced ideas.

I wish you would.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by zi ko, posted 12-02-2012 9:38 AM zi ko has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7433
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 243 of 264 (682507)
12-03-2012 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by zi ko
12-02-2012 9:38 AM


Re: General commentary on the Koonin and Wolf paper
Of course bacteria don't know.But environment ,as you are suggesting by your first sentence, can fascilitate HGT (why not and other mechanisms as well ?)

However, the bacteria have no way of knowing if the DNA will be helpful, detrimental, or make no difference. In other words, it is random with respect to fitness.

Coonin at all have brought quite a lot of evidence, enough to convince themselves and others as well, or at least to make some to rethink about their fixed and uninevidenced ideas

Their "quasi-Lamarckian" mechanisms are random mutations. They are not guided.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by zi ko, posted 12-02-2012 9:38 AM zi ko has not yet responded

  
dayalanand roy
Junior Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 11-27-2012


Message 244 of 264 (682590)
12-04-2012 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by zi ko
09-28-2012 9:22 AM


A fresh look at Lamarckism is needed
Really, I sincerely feel that Lamarck was not given his due credit though I have all regards for Darwin's theory. Darwin's propositions are almost flawless, but not complete. And nay, Lamark was a victim of some some misunderstanding too. Weisman's experiment on rats in which he chopped of their tails for many generations and showed that he never got tailless offsprings was a gross misunderstanding of Lamark's 'acquired characters'. It was not an acquired character but rather a 'thrust upon' character. I also have great expectations from data coming out from Epigenetic research.

When I consider the erect posture of humans, my conscience refuses to accept that it was simply due to some mutations followed by natural selection, and the efforts of humans themselves had nothing to do. I wonder if this was the case, why not mutation causes any other single member of another species to acqiure an erect posture, even if it is not selected by nature.

Plants are provided with a great gift of nature, chloroplast that enables it to synthesise its own food. Animals were deprived of this gift. But this handicap led them to search for their food themselves and, in turn, they developed a marvellous property, their nervous system. Why did not a single plant dsevelop this property? Because, I think, they did not need it. Why did random mutation did not create a nervous system in even a single plant? This example suggests that we must give a fresh look on guided mutation, or guided evolution on which most scinetists frown upon. But I humbly plead that my view of guided mutation or guided evolution does not involve a 'supernatural hand', rather a very natural hand, which we may have yet to discover. I am posting my views on this guided mutation in a separate thread,' what is missing in the the theory of evolution.

regardss
Dayalanand

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by zi ko, posted 09-28-2012 9:22 AM zi ko has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2012 1:53 AM dayalanand roy has responded
 Message 247 by Dr Jack, posted 12-04-2012 12:30 PM dayalanand roy has not yet responded
 Message 248 by Taq, posted 12-04-2012 12:44 PM dayalanand roy has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19509
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 245 of 264 (682601)
12-04-2012 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by dayalanand roy
12-04-2012 12:25 AM


science versus opinions
Hi dayalanand roy, and welcome to the fray.

I read your two proposed posts first and then followed you to this thread. You seem to have a common problem in all three posts so far: reliance on feeling or opinion rather than evidence and the scientific method.

When I consider the erect posture of humans, my conscience refuses to accept ...

And yet we see Bonobos ("Pygmy" Chimpanzees) walking erect, and there are observations of other primates walking erect.

When we look at the stresses this posture puts on the human skeleton and muscles, we also see that this has been adapted to upright posture rather than designed for it: it is not a good design.

Curiously, what your conscience can accept or not is totally irrelevant to what actually occurs, and your conscience or opinions are stunningly incapable of altering reality.

... that it was simply due to some mutations followed by natural selection, and the efforts of humans themselves had nothing to do. ...

The "efforts of humans themselves" in taking an upright posture is part of the natural selection of that behavior, so this had a lot to do with it.

... I wonder if this was the case, why not mutation causes any other single member of another species to acqiure an erect posture, even if it is not selected by nature.

... Animals were deprived of this gift. ...

... Why did not a single plant dsevelop this property? ... Why did random mutation did not create a nervous system in even a single plant? b ...

This is confused thinking -- mutations do not turn up because they are needed or could be useful. Nor does the appearance of a mutation in one species mean that it should occur in any other species: that would in fact be quite an extraordinary event.

... This example suggests that we must give a fresh look on guided mutation, or guided evolution on which most scinetists frown upon. But I humbly plead that my view of guided mutation or guided evolution does not involve a 'supernatural hand', rather a very natural hand, which we may have yet to discover. I am posting my views on this guided mutation in a separate thread,' what is missing in the the theory of evolution.

Or this example suggests one should learn what evolution actually involves.

... Weisman's experiment on rats in which he chopped of their tails for many generations and showed that he never got tailless offsprings was a gross misunderstanding of Lamark's 'acquired characters'. ...

Curiously, it amply demonstrated that physical characteristics acquired during life are not passed on by heredity. If you can think of some way for a trait to be developed by an organism during its life to be passed on by heredity, please elucidate.

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by dayalanand roy, posted 12-04-2012 12:25 AM dayalanand roy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by xongsmith, posted 12-04-2012 12:24 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 249 by zi ko, posted 12-05-2012 11:15 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 257 by dayalanand roy, posted 12-12-2012 11:50 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1846
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009


Message 246 of 264 (682663)
12-04-2012 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by RAZD
12-04-2012 1:53 AM


Re: science versus opinions
RAZD writes:
This is confused thinking -- mutations do not turn up because they are needed or could be useful. Nor does the appearance of a mutation in one species mean that it should occur in any other species: that would in fact be quite an extraordinary event.

Says it all in a nutshell. Parallel evolution is very rare and noteworthy. And even then it is never exactly the same.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2012 1:53 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(2)
Message 247 of 264 (682664)
12-04-2012 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by dayalanand roy
12-04-2012 12:25 AM


Re: A fresh look at Lamarckism is needed
Why did not a single plant dsevelop this property? Because, I think, they did not need it.

Precisely. Natural selection in plants did not reward the steps towards developing a nervous system so not such system developed.

Why did random mutation did not create a nervous system in even a single plant?

Because a nervous system is not created by a random mutation; it's formed over millions of years by iterative positive mutations building it up in small steps.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by dayalanand roy, posted 12-04-2012 12:25 AM dayalanand roy has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7433
Joined: 03-06-2009


(2)
Message 248 of 264 (682665)
12-04-2012 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by dayalanand roy
12-04-2012 12:25 AM


Re: A fresh look at Lamarckism is needed
I also have great expectations from data coming out from Epigenetic research.

Epigenetics does not involve a change in DNA sequence. The differences between species is due to a difference in DNA sequence. Epigenetics can not be the cause of divergence between species.

When I consider the erect posture of humans, my conscience refuses to accept that it was simply due to some mutations followed by natural selection, and the efforts of humans themselves had nothing to do.

There were those whose conscience refused to accept that the Earth moved about the Sun, and yet it was so.

Why did random mutation did not create a nervous system in even a single plant?

Lineage specific adaptations are a hallmark of random mutations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by dayalanand roy, posted 12-04-2012 12:25 AM dayalanand roy has acknowledged this reply

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 1418 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 249 of 264 (682773)
12-05-2012 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by RAZD
12-04-2012 1:53 AM


Re: science versus opinions
Curiously, what your conscience can accept or not is totally irrelevant to what actually occurs, and your conscience or opinions are stunningly incapable of altering reality.

It is so strange to me that this type of authoritarian remark, so many times repeated on this forum, in spite of, many times at least by me, questioning about the evidence that supports this authoritative opinion, the responce was very poor, regarding metazoans. One would expect on such crucial matter(random vs guided+random mutations) the amount and quality of such evidence to be overwhelming in the favor of randomness. Nothing of this it happens. Just choosing a suspiciously handy theory and that is all.Instead, again very much authoritatively, it is asked by the 'shaking' opponent to bring the needed evidence. They well know (from their own experience on this matter) this is at present level of science almost impossible.

Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2012 1:53 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Taq, posted 12-05-2012 2:39 PM zi ko has responded
 Message 253 by herebedragons, posted 12-08-2012 8:41 AM zi ko has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7433
Joined: 03-06-2009


(1)
Message 250 of 264 (682816)
12-05-2012 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by zi ko
12-05-2012 11:15 AM


Re: science versus opinions
It is so strange to me that this type of authoritarian remark, so many times repeated on this forum, in spite of, many times at least by me, questioning about the evidence that supports this authoritative opinion, the responce was very poor, regarding metazoans.

The only one making authoritarian remarks is you. You are arguing that mutations are not guided because you think they do. You do not offer evidence. All you offer is your insistence that you have to be right because you say so.

Your entire argument in an authoritarian argument.

One would expect on such crucial matter(random vs guided+random mutations) the amount and quality of such evidence to be overwhelming in the favor of randomness.

And it is. You just refuse to look at the evidence. Instead, you fall back to your authoritarian argument where the world has to be a certain way because you say so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by zi ko, posted 12-05-2012 11:15 AM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by zi ko, posted 12-07-2012 10:40 AM Taq has responded

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 1418 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 251 of 264 (683075)
12-07-2012 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Taq
12-05-2012 2:39 PM


Re: Who is authoritarian?
The only one making authoritarian remarks is you.

This could be the ultimate brass!
Lamarckism had been so unjustly neglected for centuries, and now that serious scientists try with evidence to put it on the right place, you accuse their advocates as being authoritarian!
I only asked to discuss their new evidence as an alternative to evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Taq, posted 12-05-2012 2:39 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Taq, posted 12-07-2012 10:52 AM zi ko has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7433
Joined: 03-06-2009


(2)
Message 252 of 264 (683078)
12-07-2012 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by zi ko
12-07-2012 10:40 AM


Re: Who is authoritarian?
Lamarckism had been so unjustly neglected for centuries,

Why? Because you say so?

and now that serious scientists try with evidence to put it on the right place, you accuse their advocates as being authoritarian!

No, I am accusing YOU of being authoritarian. You are trying to claim that mutations are guided simply because you want it to be true. You offer no evidence. The papers you have cited involve random mutations, not guided mutations, and yet you still insist that mutations are guided? Why? Because you say so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by zi ko, posted 12-07-2012 10:40 AM zi ko has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1459
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 253 of 264 (683161)
12-08-2012 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by zi ko
12-05-2012 11:15 AM


Re: science versus opinions
zi ko ...

There is a saying that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

What this means is that once a particular theory has gained widespread acceptance it cannot be overturned easily. There is a reason that it has become a theory ... because it has a large amount of support from many, many observations and tests. It has survived repeated attempts to falsify it from independent sources.

For example, think of the amount of evidence you would need to bring in order to challenge the theory of gravitation. Do you think your gut feeling that the theory was wrong would be enough for people to consider an alternative. To propose that the theory of gravitation was wrong would be an extraordinary claim ... and would therefore require extraordinary evidence.

While I am sure there are some who don't want to hear any challenge to the current paradigm, for the most part scientists are willing to consider new ideas. However, if they are going to overturn the current theory ... they will require extraordinary evidence! That is all anyone here is asking for, something besides your "feelings" that mutations are guided. You have no authority to make such a claim. The current theory, being well established and accepted, does have the "authority" to claim that mutations are random with respect to fitness because that idea has been well tested and supported by the evidence.

So the "authority" by which RAZD makes such declarations is based on the accepted theories regarding those issues. If you wish to challenge that "authority" the burden of proof is on YOU! Why can't you understand this?????

What you propose is interesting and worthwhile to debate, but in order for those ideas to gain acceptance you need to bring "extraordinary" evidence.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by zi ko, posted 12-05-2012 11:15 AM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by zi ko, posted 12-09-2012 10:40 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 1418 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 254 of 264 (683267)
12-09-2012 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by herebedragons
12-08-2012 8:41 AM


Re: science versus opinions
The current theory, being well established and accepted, does have the "authority" to claim that mutations are random with respect to fitness because that idea has been well tested and supported by the evidence.

What you propose is interesting and worthwhile to debate, but in order for those ideas to gain acceptance you need to bring "extraordinary" evidence.


Yes, randomness of mutations in relation to fitness is well established and accepted , and it could well be the only explanation for evolution, but it was not well evidenced for the part of metazoans. and it is not falsifiable.

Mind you, i don't say that guided mutations are necessarily related to fitness.

As for the "extraordinary" evidence needed for my ideas, i have to insist again that current theory can work equally perfectly well, without any change, using either the notion of random mutations , or that of guided mutations. So my ideas do not need any further evidence than that offered by current theory.

...the burden of proof is on YOU! Why can't you understand this?????

Can you understand now why i can't understand???

Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by herebedragons, posted 12-08-2012 8:41 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Taq, posted 12-10-2012 1:22 PM zi ko has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7433
Joined: 03-06-2009


(1)
Message 255 of 264 (683424)
12-10-2012 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by zi ko
12-09-2012 10:40 AM


Re: science versus opinions
Yes, randomness of mutations in relation to fitness is well established and accepted , and it could well be the only explanation for evolution, but it was not well evidenced for the part of metazoans. and it is not falsifiable.

It is falsifiable. If mutations are not random then we would expect a large portion of a single generation to share the de novo beneficial mutation. IOW, their parents would not have this mutation, but a large portion of the subsequent generation would have this mutation, and it would be shown to be triggered by an environmental cue.

So what do we observe? We do not observe the environment triggering the same beneficial mutation in multiple individuals at a rate beyond that expected from random mutations. What we do observe is the same mechanism of mutation producing mutations throughout the genome, including detrimental mutations that lead to genetic diseases such as achondroplasia and hemophilia. We observe that these mechanisms produce mutations in junk DNA where it has no effect on fitness.

Mind you, i don't say that guided mutations are necessarily related to fitness.

Then what are they related to?

As for the "extraordinary" evidence needed for my ideas, i have to insist again that current theory can work equally perfectly well, without any change, using either the notion of random mutations , or that of guided mutations.

So guided mutations are indistinguishable from random mutations? And here you are accusing random mutations of being unfalsifiable. It appears that it is guided mutations that are unfalsifiable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by zi ko, posted 12-09-2012 10:40 AM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by zi ko, posted 12-12-2012 11:39 AM Taq has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
13141516
17
18Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018