Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 6 of 760 (609061)
03-16-2011 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by shadow71
03-15-2011 4:03 PM


A theory based upon adaptations that are directed, modified, regulated and controlled by information exchanges in the cell rather than by mechanical physical, chemical driven adapations driven by random mutations and natural selection.
Well, far be it from me to point out the bleedin' obvious, but however you slice these mechanisms they are in fact "mechanical physical, chemical driven adaptations", because everything that happens to the genome, which is a mechanical and physical and chemical thing, is; and they are subject to natural selection because everything that reproduces is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by shadow71, posted 03-15-2011 4:03 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by shadow71, posted 03-16-2011 1:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 9 of 760 (609074)
03-16-2011 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
03-16-2011 8:51 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
To put it as succinctly as possible:
The theory of evolution is genetics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 03-16-2011 8:51 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 26 of 760 (609136)
03-16-2011 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by shadow71
03-16-2011 1:50 PM


The difference is that these are driven by information in the cell, not by purely mechanical processes.
This is a false dichotomy. You can talk about "information in the cell" all you want; but the fact remains that the changes are made to an actual physical sequence of DNA in accordance with the laws of chemistry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by shadow71, posted 03-16-2011 1:50 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by shadow71, posted 03-17-2011 3:05 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 27 of 760 (609137)
03-16-2011 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by shadow71
03-16-2011 4:52 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
If in fact the theory does change in accord with Shapiro and others who are researching about a 21st century theory of evolution that does not rely on random mutation, but rather information in the cell that engineers change then Special Creation will become something that Science will have to deal with.
No it won't. One more actual known physical mechanism contributing to evolution would not be a reason to put more credence in imaginary supernatural mechanisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by shadow71, posted 03-16-2011 4:52 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 03-16-2011 9:09 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 476 by zi ko, posted 05-02-2011 11:15 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 760 (609138)
03-16-2011 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by slevesque
03-16-2011 1:52 PM


This is because you effectively touch upon one of the two basic principles.
Well no, not really.
As I explained in the last thread on this, the fact that mutations are random is actually a problem for evolution. The genius of Darwin was to realize that the law of natural selection surmounts this problem. The theory of evolution explains how evolution happens despite variation being random. It doesn't depend on the randomness, it explains how even though variation is random evolution still manages to happen.
If it turns out that some variation is Lamarckian, that's all grease to the wheels of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by slevesque, posted 03-16-2011 1:52 PM slevesque has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 67 of 760 (609490)
03-20-2011 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by shadow71
03-20-2011 7:17 PM


Re: Modification or replacement
Determinism is not a synonym for planning.
(Your mistake is presumably the natural counterpart to the standard creationist blunder of confusing "unplanned" with "random".)
As to whether NS is deterministic, that depends how you look at it. You could say that NS was merely stochastic; or you could say that NS as such is deterministic and that any random element is genetic drift.
As with Shapiro's blather, your choice of description would do nothing whatsoever to change the underlying reality.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by shadow71, posted 03-20-2011 7:17 PM shadow71 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 71 of 760 (609513)
03-21-2011 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by techristian
03-21-2011 12:42 AM


Yes. Soon this era between Darwin and the present will be labelled the "dark age of modern science".
"Soon" ... The Longest Running Falsehood In Creationism.
The belief that you guys will triumph any day now has literally been handed down from generation to generation. This is most amusing.
Ah, paranoia.
There are nearly as many scientists on both sides of the argument ...
I'm afraid that someone has been telling you silly lies.
... and recent finds in RNA and DNA disprove Darwinism.
Though apparently this fact is known only to you (who have never made any discovery concerning DNA and RNA) rather than to scientists, who have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by techristian, posted 03-21-2011 12:42 AM techristian has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 112 of 760 (609668)
03-22-2011 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Wounded King
03-21-2011 8:21 PM


Re: Enhanced mutation rates.
In a very real sense the majority of bacterial evolution is Lamarckian. It is only with the establishment of a germline/soma distinction that offspring stop inheriting virtually all the mutations that their parent organisms acquired.
But Lamarckism does not merely require that somatic changes should also be changes in the germ-line; it also requires that they should be reactive adaptations to the environment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Wounded King, posted 03-21-2011 8:21 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Wounded King, posted 03-22-2011 12:32 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 113 of 760 (609670)
03-22-2011 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by shadow71
03-21-2011 7:37 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
I admit that I accept the work of Shapiro, a world renown molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, who happens to be outfront of the old dogma defenders of a theory that is being devasted by molecular biology discoveries.
("Devastated", of course, in a way that has gone completely unnoticed by molecular biologists.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by shadow71, posted 03-21-2011 7:37 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 114 of 760 (609671)
03-22-2011 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by shadow71
03-21-2011 7:21 PM


Re: Dr. Wright's conclusion
And pray tell how does the enviroment direct in a random world?
A moot question, since we don't live in one.
Non-random means directed or planned.
Of course not, don't be silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by shadow71, posted 03-21-2011 7:21 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 132 of 760 (609757)
03-22-2011 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by shadow71
03-22-2011 7:29 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
I have read and quoted experts on this board who disagree with some very important tenets of the modern synthesis and have taken the postion that the modern synthesis's postion that "secular naturalism" is not the explanation of evolution.
Translated from Shadowese into English, you have repeatedly pointed to a naturalistic evolutionary mechanism which is a minor but well-accepted part of the theory of evolution --- and talked gibberish about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by shadow71, posted 03-22-2011 7:29 PM shadow71 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 164 of 760 (609965)
03-25-2011 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by shadow71
03-24-2011 3:54 PM


Re: Cart/Horse
It is your opinion that I misinterpret Shapiro's findings.
But they aren't "Shapiro's findings", are they? He has attained notoriety by talking nonsense about discoveries which have, overwhelmingly, been made by people other than him.
In a court of law I, as the attorney, present the Expert, in this case Shapiro via his papers that contain the data, and then with the evidence admitted into evidence, I interpret his testimony in my argument to the jury. That is what I am trying to do in this thread.
We the jury find your client guilty of being nonsensical in the first degree and sentence it to perpetual derision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2011 3:54 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Wounded King, posted 03-25-2011 5:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 174 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2011 12:03 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 168 of 760 (609987)
03-25-2011 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Wounded King
03-25-2011 5:38 AM


Re: Cart/Horse
That is a bit unfair, he has done quite a bit of work on Mu bacteriophage transposable elements, and that also seems to be the principle basis for most of his claims.
Is there anything special about his pet transposable elements that makes them different from all the others? If there is, shouldn't they have been mentioned more often on this thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Wounded King, posted 03-25-2011 5:38 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Wounded King, posted 03-25-2011 11:36 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 181 of 760 (610024)
03-25-2011 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by shadow71
03-25-2011 12:34 PM


Re: Dr. Wright's conclusion
It surely seems some scientists are in fact challenging the modern synthesis.
A scientist investigating genetic mechanisms for evolution is participating in the modern synthesis. That's what it's all about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2011 12:34 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Dr Jack, posted 03-28-2011 9:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 226 by shadow71, posted 04-01-2011 7:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 191 of 760 (610075)
03-26-2011 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by shadow71
03-25-2011 7:57 PM


Re: Dr. Wright's conclusion
I will be gone from this board for a about a week but when I return I will try to reply to all messages.
I will be at New Melleray – A Cistercian Abbey
praying for all on this board
Thank you so much. In return, I shall spend much of the week dedicating your soul unto Ba'al-Hamon, Lord of the Multitude, in the goetic rite of the Threefold Sacrifice.
I go now to purify myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2011 7:57 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Theodoric, posted 03-28-2011 10:06 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 228 by shadow71, posted 04-01-2011 7:48 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024