|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3645 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Then you misunderstand, the system that Wright describes only 'directs' mutation in the weakest sense. Wright notes an elevated rate of mutation at specific loci associated with a particular response to the environment. She then posits that these elevated rates are more likely to produce beneficial mutations relevant to the specific challenge, although there is no actual evidence of this. There is also an elevated rate of deleterious mutations but the hypothesis relies on NS to weed those out. The problem is not if the system 'directs' mutation in a weak or strong sense, but if it does exist or not. You can deny it. But then you should bring evidence against it. If it exists, we can next discuss how strong or weak its effect might be.
It is perfectly logical for the very clear reason I pointed out. In bacteria there is no division of the somatic and germ cells. There is only one cell so it can profit from the modification of it's own genome in a way that is impossible for metazoa.
But how it is logical as you seem not to accept it? ( you said i misunderstood you). If you accept it then you have to explain why a useful mechanism in protozoa has to be excluded( enriched of course) in metazoa. There is no plausible mechanism by which the phenomenon Wright describes could operate on anything other than perhaps genes involved in germ cell development itself.Yes as i know there isn't such mechanism known up to now, but this doesn't mean that it couldn't exist. A complex neural system in no way serves the same purpose and it is biologically incoherent to claim that it does. In what way does your neural system act as a mechanism to derepress specific genes as an environmental response? And even if we were to accept this dubious premise how is this information supposed to be transmitted from the somatic cells to the germ cells? You would need to be activating/derepressing specific genes in the germ cells in response to the particular environmental challenge. As this is a new theory, with entirely new ideas, you can't expect me to cite differeent relevant scientific worcs to edorse my claims. It is only simple logic on which i rely to think that neural system is the theater all this does happen, and it must have these (unknown yet) mechanisms to accomplish the job. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
The problem is not if the system 'directs' mutation in a weak or strong sense, but if it does exist or not. You can deny it. But then you should bring evidence against it. If it exists, we can next discuss how strong or weak its effect might be. Let's use the lottery as a non-biological example. Let's say that those facing economic hardship are more likely to buy lottery tickets. By doing so, they increase their chance of becoming rich and solving their economic woes. Does this make the results of the lottery "directed"? Does this make the lottery non-random?
If you accept it then you have to explain why a useful mechanism in protozoa has to be excluded( enriched of course) in metazoa. Because mutations that are beneficial in somatic cells are not transferred to germ cells, those that are used produce the next generation. For example, there is a "directed" mutation system in B-cells that are responsible for producing antibodies. In this system the genes responsible for producing antibodies experience higher rates of random mutations. These mutated antibodies are then displayed on the surface of the cell. When an antigen binds to the antibody the cell is stimulated to replicate and produce more antibody. This process is repeated in each generation of B-cell resulting a population of antibodies that have passed through a process of mutation and selection. However, none of these evolved antibody genes are passed on to the next generation. They occur in somatic cells only, not in the germ line cells (sperm and ova). Each individual has to start from scratch. This is not the case in bacteria. A mutation that confers resistance to antibiotics or bacteriophage, for example, are passed on to the next generation because there is no separation between somatic and germline cells. What you need to keep in mind is how evolution affects a reproducing population over time, not a single individual during its lifetime.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3645 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Because mutations that are beneficial in somatic cells are not transferred to germ cells, those that are used produce the next generation
But ithink, i am not sure, B-cells in next generations are more prone to produce antibodies, specally if the reason of this production is repeated again and again.Otherwise this 'experience' will be in vain and it could be againnst nature;s economy law and so illogical. Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
But ithink, i am not sure, B-cells in next generations are more prone to produce antibodies, specally if the reason of this production is repeated again and again. B-cells are terminally differentiated. B-cells never become sperm/ova cells, therefore the mutations that occur in B-cells after birth can not be passed on to offspring. It is that simple. You do not pass on your B-cells to your offspring.
Otherwise this 'experience' will be in vain and it could be againnst nature;s economy law and so illogical.
Your argument that biology must follow your made up laws of economy are illogical. You can not replace reality with how you think reality should work. In the reality I live in, B-cells do not become sperm, nor are they passed on to the next generation. If you are looking for effeciency in biology then you are going to be left wanting. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3645 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
B-cells are terminally differentiated. B-cells never become sperm/ova cells, therefore the mutations that occur in B-cells after birth can not be passed on to offspring. It is that simple. You do not pass on your B-cells to your offspring. Here is where my theory offers a different answer:Neural system being the intermediator, passes information between sperm/ova and somatic cells . Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Neural system being the intermediator, passes information between sperm/ova and somatic cells . But, but, but, you have no evidence that that actually happens! This is not very removed form the idea that there is unconsious transmission of information from mother to feotus. Again, a pretty idead but there is no evidence to support it so it has to be rejected based on there being no evidence. How is uncounsious transmission different from your idea of information exchange between neurones and sperm and ova?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3645 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Neural system being the intermediator, passes information between sperm/ova and somatic cells . But, but, but, you have no evidence that that actually happens! This is not very removed form the idea that there is unconsious transmission of information from mother to feotus. Again, a pretty idead but there is no evidence to support it so it has to be rejected based on there being no evidence. How is uncounsious transmission different from your idea of information exchange between neurones and sperm and ova? It is true. There is not any evidence at the moment .It might be in the future, or it might never be.It is exactly where falsfiability of a theory or idea is applied. Presently i can only see that ALL findings ln genetic biology dp not contradict with my theory. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
It is exactly where falsfiability of a theory or idea is applied. Can you tell us how your idea is falsifiable then? What sort of evidence would you expect to see for such a mechanism. Presumably there would need to be some mechanistic system for transferring genetic information from the nervous system to the germ cells. For something to be falsifiable there needs to be a coherent framework to build testable hypotheses from, at the moment I fail to see that in your proposal. Frankly as it stands your theory might as well be that invisible pixies transmit information from the environment to the germ cells to direct mutation and there would be just as little evidence against it and it would be just as consistent with "ALL findings ln genetic biology". That is putting aside the fact that you are proposing a mechanism for a phenomenon which there is similarly no evidence of, environmentally directed mutations in metazoan germ cells. This is as opposed to the wealth of evidence for stochastic processes of mutation insensitive to fitness based on observed frequencies both in vivo, in vitro and in trans-generational studies. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
It is true. There is not any evidence at the moment .It might be in the future, or it might never be.It is exactly where falsfiability of a theory or idea is applied. Presently i can only see that ALL findings ln genetic biology dp not contradict with my theory. Falsifiability is such an interesting concept: for a hypothesis to get off the ground it needs to be falsifiable. This means we need a null hypothesis. What is your null hypothesis? If you don't know how a null hypothesis relates to a hypothesis you have no business using the word falsify. I don't think you know what it means: prove me wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3645 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Falsifiability is such an interesting concept: for a hypothesis to get off the ground it needs to be falsifiable. This means we need a null hypothesis.
What is your null hypothesis? If you don't know how a null hypothesis relates to a hypothesis you have no business using the word falsify. I don't think you know what it means: prove me wrong.
It is true. There is not any evidence at the moment .It might be in the future, or it might never be.It is exactly where falsfiability of a theory or idea is applied. Presently i can only see that ALL findings ln genetic biology dp not contradict with my theory. Falsifiability is such an interesting concept: for a hypothesis to get off the ground it needs to be falsifiable. This means we need a null hypothesis.What is your null hypothesis? If you don't know how a null hypothesis relates to a hypothesis you have no business using the word falsify. I don't think you know what it means: prove me wrong. I quote from Rationalwikie. Falsifiability is the ability of a theorya working framework for explaining and predicting natural phenomenato be disproved by an experiment or observation.[1] The ability to evaluate theories against observations is essential to the scientific method, and as such, the falsifiability of theories is key to this and is the prime test for whether a proposition or theory can be described as scientific. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I can cut n paste stuff off the net with no idea what it means, too.
Please restate what H0 is in your own words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Here is where my theory offers a different answer: Neural system being the intermediator, passes information between sperm/ova and somatic cells . That's not an answer. That is a made-up fantasy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3645 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
wounded king writes: It is exactly where falsfiability of a theory or idea is applied. Can you tell us how your idea is falsifiable then? What sort of evidence would you expect to see for such a mechanism. Presumably there would need to be some mechanistic system for transferring genetic information from the nervous system to the germ cells. For something to be falsifiable there needs to be a coherent framework to build testable hypotheses from, at the moment I fail to see that in your proposal. My theory (http://www.sleepgadgedabs.com) lacks any evidence. But it is strongly logical, comprehensive, broadly coherent , basically Lamarckian.It doesn't exlude random mutations and natural selection, although it reduces their role,it does not imply supernatural interference. It is based on common sense.It does not serve any predetermined belief. It takes into account nature's continuity and economy laws.I expect knowledge about information,neural system function,and empathy,j to advance, so my ideas to be able to be tested. Frankly as it stands your theory might as well be that invisible pixies transmit information from the environment to the germ cells to direct mutation and there would be just as little evidence against it and it would be just as consistent with "ALL findings ln genetic biology". That is putting aside the fact that you are proposing a mechanism for a phenomenon which there is similarly no evidence of, environmentally directed mutations in metazoan germ cells. This is as opposed to the wealth of evidence for stochastic processes of mutation insensitive to fitness based on observed frequencies both in vivo, in vitro and in trans-generational studies. I think there is not any evidence as well of information DIRECTLY not participating in evolution process.In contrast there are so many clues that it is participating.We know that environment has the ability, ( as this is a fact, we can infer that the mechanism does exist) to affect peri-genome area. Is it difficult from there to think that ,under some circumstances, this affec goes even further to genome? And , not to be forgotten, my theory does not serve any preconcieved belief that might suit any personal life attitude.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3645 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
tag writes: Here is where my theory offers a different answer:Neural system being the intermediator, passes information between sperm/ova and somatic cells . That's not an answer. That is a made-up fantasy. Epigenetics give us important clues. Environment affects peri-genome. So there is the mechanism for it. Do you think that neural system does not participate on it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3645 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
larmi writes: I can cut n paste stuff off the net with no idea what it means, too.Please restate what H0 is in your own words. Falsifiability for a theory is to be able to be tested in order to be found wrong or wright. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024