Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3610 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 181 of 296 (637292)
10-14-2011 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Percy
10-14-2011 2:25 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
You apparently do not require evidence for what you believe. You only require that you want to believe it, at which point you construct a rationale that makes sense to you but whose illogic is apparent to everyone else. As Feynman said, the easiest person to fool is yourself.
At least i am honest to state that what i am saying about innate intelligent is without evidence, while you believe man has been created by pure chance, again with no evidence whatsoever. Which of us two seem to fool himself more?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 10-14-2011 2:25 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Taq, posted 10-14-2011 4:04 PM zi ko has replied
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 10-14-2011 4:54 PM zi ko has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 182 of 296 (637298)
10-14-2011 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by zi ko
10-14-2011 2:55 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
while you believe man has been created by pure chance,
Where did Percy ever say that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by zi ko, posted 10-14-2011 2:55 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by zi ko, posted 12-14-2011 11:33 AM Taq has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 183 of 296 (637304)
10-14-2011 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by zi ko
10-14-2011 2:55 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
zi ko writes:
At least i am honest to state that what i am saying about innate intelligent is without evidence, while you believe man has been created by pure chance, again with no evidence whatsoever.
So you understand that your thinking is fallacious, but you justify it because you believe my thinking is also fallacious. Well, all I've got to say is thank God two wrongs make a right. Oh, wait a minute, they don't.
Which of us two seem to fool himself more?
Well, apparently you're not fooling yourself about your fallacious thinking, since you understand it's fallacious, but you are fooling yourself about what I believe. I don't believe man was created by pure chance. I believe all life on Earth came about through a lengthy process of mutation, remixing and recombining of variation, and natural selection.
You seem to be having a difficult time understanding that natural selection is not random. It isn't directed, there's no goal, but it is certainly not random.
Do you have anything to say about the topic?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by zi ko, posted 10-14-2011 2:55 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by shadow71, posted 10-14-2011 8:27 PM Percy has replied
 Message 189 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-12-2011 6:43 AM Percy has replied
 Message 218 by zi ko, posted 12-14-2011 12:02 PM Percy has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2924 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 184 of 296 (637319)
10-14-2011 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Percy
10-14-2011 4:54 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
Percy writes:
I don't believe man was created by pure chance. I believe all life on Earth came about through a lengthy process of mutation, remixing and recombining of variation, and natural selection.
You seem to be having a difficult time understanding that natural selection is not random. It isn't directed, there's no goal, but it is certainly not random.
First of all, how did Life on Earth come about?
How did this lengthy process of mutation begin?
What exactly is your definiltion of Natural Selection?
Did natural selection just happen?
What is your defintion of "natural"?
Did nature just come into being?
You can't just say, well that is not a question for Evolution. It is the most crucial question there is.
Please show me the "DATA" for the statement:
Percy writes:
You seem to be having a difficult time understanding that natural selection is not random. It isn't directed, there's no goal, but it is certainly not random.
Thats a belief isn't it Percy?
It's your faith in Nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 10-14-2011 4:54 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 10-14-2011 9:15 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 185 of 296 (637323)
10-14-2011 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by shadow71
10-14-2011 8:27 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
shadow71 writes:
First of all, how did Life on Earth come about?...etc...
Could you at least pretend to be interested in the topic?
You can't just say, well that is not a question for Evolution. It is the most crucial question there is.
Well, then why are you wasting time in this thread? Get over to Proposed New Topics and propose a new thread for this most crucial question.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by shadow71, posted 10-14-2011 8:27 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3610 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 186 of 296 (637398)
10-15-2011 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Taq
10-13-2011 2:39 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
Look up the term "conflation". This is what you are doing here. Again and again we have said that MUTATIONS are random with respect to fitness. Nowhere do we say that EVOLUTION is random. Mutation and evolution are two different things. Mutation is just one mechanism within the larger process of evolution. This larger process also consists of natural SELECTION. Selection, by the very definition, is NOT RANDOM.
I understand that current theory has a (superficially ?) powered logical form for evolution entirely mechanistic and simple: Random mutations- natural selection and we have solved the problem of life evolution. But there are some nags here.fe.c 1.The number of random mutations needed for a succesfull phenotype or genotype advance. Mathematicians think they are needed many more than the given time permits (even millions of years). 2.The instinct formation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Taq, posted 10-13-2011 2:39 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Percy, posted 10-15-2011 10:33 AM zi ko has not replied
 Message 188 by Taq, posted 10-17-2011 12:18 PM zi ko has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 187 of 296 (637403)
10-15-2011 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by zi ko
10-15-2011 10:15 AM


Re: beneficial mutations
Hi Zi Ko,
This thread is about whether the Wright paper presents evidence of directed evolution. The sufficiency of mutation to provide adequate variation and the evolution of instinct are not the topic of this thread.
You and Shadow have raised many off-topic issues and questions, and you can discuss them as much as you like, but you need to find threads where they would be on-topic, or you need to propose topics for them over at Proposed New Topics.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by zi ko, posted 10-15-2011 10:15 AM zi ko has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 188 of 296 (637680)
10-17-2011 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by zi ko
10-15-2011 10:15 AM


Re: beneficial mutations
I understand that current theory has a (superficially ?) powered logical form for evolution entirely mechanistic and simple: Random mutations- natural selection and we have solved the problem of life evolution. But there are some nags here.fe.c 1.The number of random mutations needed for a succesfull phenotype or genotype advance. Mathematicians think they are needed many more than the given time permits (even millions of years). 2.The instinct formation.
Two things:
1. This has nothing to do with this thread. This thread is focusing on a single paper, and how the data demonstrates the randomness of mutations (not evolution).
2. You have not acknowledged the mistakes that I have pointed out. You keep saying that evolution is random. It isn't. Trying to change the subject does not make this mistake go away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by zi ko, posted 10-15-2011 10:15 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by zi ko, posted 12-23-2011 11:15 AM Taq has replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4478 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 189 of 296 (643821)
12-12-2011 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Percy
10-14-2011 4:54 PM


Long time no contradict
Hi Percy.
This is off-topic, but you lead me here, so mea non culpa.
thank God two wrongs make a right. Oh, wait a minute, they don't.
No, but three can. You are meant to turn right, in stead you turn left. Three times. You're going right. Okay, that's frivolous but I'm just warming up.
I don't believe man was created by pure chance. I believe all life on Earth came about through a lengthy process of mutation, remixing and recombining of variation, and natural selection.
So although mutation, remixing and recombination are clearly random, natural selection isn't?
...natural selection is not random. It isn't directed, there's no goal, but it is certainly not random.
But surely the conditions bringing about selection are random. Heat, cold, wet, dry, plentiful food, little food, intense competition, little competition, intense predation, little predation- the list is endless.
If the conditions deciding selection are random, how can selection itself not be random?
Are you seriously suggesting that a random cause can have a non-random effect?
And of course, the longer we make that list of random causes, the more obvious it becomes that selective fitness can best be described as ...luck.
Which, at the risk of annoying you, brings us back to the position of our old mate Kimura.

"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 10-14-2011 4:54 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 12-12-2011 7:00 AM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 191 by Wounded King, posted 12-12-2011 9:59 AM Kaichos Man has replied
 Message 192 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-12-2011 10:33 AM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 193 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-12-2011 11:59 AM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 194 by Taq, posted 12-12-2011 12:06 PM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 190 of 296 (643822)
12-12-2011 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Kaichos Man
12-12-2011 6:43 AM


Re: Long time no contradict
Hi Kaichos Man,
Your position is that evolution could not possibly produce adaptation to the environment because it is random. But it is only mutation and allele remixing that are random. Selection is specific to the environment.
AbE: I should add that mutation is usually completely random with respect to producing adaptations to the environment, while remixing through either non-sexual conjugation or sexual reproduction is operating on alleles that have already passed through generations of selection.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : AbE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-12-2011 6:43 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 191 of 296 (643831)
12-12-2011 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Kaichos Man
12-12-2011 6:43 AM


Re: Long time no contradict
But surely the conditions bringing about selection are random. Heat, cold, wet, dry, plentiful food, little food, intense competition, little competition, intense predation, little predation- the list is endless.
Hi Kaichos Man,
What you have produced here is a list of variables (temperature, humidity, predation, food supply), can you provide us with your rationale for considering them all to be random variables?
I'm a bit worried about where you must live that all of these factors are random from day to day. I have to say that I have yet to encounter a pride of lions coming down the street so little predation is pretty consistently the norm round my way. It must be hell going out without any idea of whether you are going to find a desert or a flood outside your door, but I guess it is only to be expected in a world where a capricious god turns the weather on and off at whim regardless of the natural order of the world.
Which, at the risk of annoying you, brings us back to the position of our old mate Kimura.
It so totally doesn't, at least not in relation to any position that Kimura actually held. His position as a popular source of misconceptions for creationists, perhaps.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-12-2011 6:43 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-13-2011 7:50 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 192 of 296 (643835)
12-12-2011 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Kaichos Man
12-12-2011 6:43 AM


Re: Long time no contradict
Which, at the risk of annoying you, brings us back to the position of our old mate Kimura.
Really? Glad you could join us.
Although much progress has been made in biology since Darwin's time, his theory of natural selection still remains as the only scientifically acceptable theory to explain why organisms are so well adapted to their environments. (Kimura, The neutral theory of molecular evolution, Chapter 6)
We cherish Darwin for we owe to him our enlightened view of the nature of living things, including ourselves; our civilization would be pitifully immature without the intellectual revolution led by Darwin. (Kimura, The neutral theory of molecular evolution, Chapter 1)
So if you've really come round to "the position of our old mate Kimura", let me be the very first to congratulate you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-12-2011 6:43 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 193 of 296 (643852)
12-12-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Kaichos Man
12-12-2011 6:43 AM


Re: Long time no contradict
But surely the conditions bringing about selection are random. Heat, cold, wet, dry, plentiful food, little food, intense competition, little competition, intense predation, little predation- the list is endless.
For example, in the Arctic Circle, the snow is sometimes hot and sometimes cold, sometimes black and sometimes white. So why are polar bears all white and well-insulated? Clearly natural selection has nothing to do with it, so it must be the will of God.
Or rather the whim of God, since he could just as well have made them black and naked, and that would have fitted them just as well or badly to their ever-changing environment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-12-2011 6:43 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 194 of 296 (643853)
12-12-2011 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Kaichos Man
12-12-2011 6:43 AM


Re: Long time no contradict
So although mutation, remixing and recombination are clearly random, natural selection isn't?
Nope, it isn't. Let's use the Wright et al. paper as our example since it is the topic of this thread. In this study they consistently ended up with colonies of bacteria with a specific mutation in the leuB gene. This mutation only occurred once very 500 million cell divisions, and yet those 1 in 500 million oddballs were the only ones growing on the plate every time. The other 499,999,999 bacteria did not grow on that plate. Obviously, you can not get this consistent result with a random process.
But surely the conditions bringing about selection are random.
Random with respect to what?
If the conditions deciding selection are random, how can selection itself not be random?
Natural selection is not random with respect to fitness. The most fit individuals within a population have a higher probability of passing on their genes.
Are you seriously suggesting that a random cause can have a non-random effect?
Are you saying it can't? If you randomly add antibiotics to random bacterial cultures you still get non-random selection of antibiotic resistant mutants.
And of course, the longer we make that list of random causes, the more obvious it becomes that selective fitness can best be described as ...luck.
It is best described as being fitter and therefore having a higher probability of passing on your genes.
Which, at the risk of annoying you, brings us back to the position of our old mate Kimura.
You mean the guy who described the random nature of neutral mutations compared to the non-random nature of mutations under selection?
ABE:
[quote]The neutral theory asserts that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of protein and DNA sequences, are caused not by Darwinian selection but by random drive of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutants. The theory does not deny the role of natural selection in determining the course of adaptive evolution, but it assumes that only a minute fraction of DNA changes in evolution are adapative in nature, while the great majority of phenotypically silent molecular substitutions exert no significant influence on survival and reproduction and drift randomly throught he species--Kimura, (not sure on the specific source for this since I am pulling it from a Google Books preview of a secondary source).
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-12-2011 6:43 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-12-2011 12:46 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 196 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-13-2011 7:33 AM Taq has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 195 of 296 (643863)
12-12-2011 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Taq
12-12-2011 12:06 PM


Re: Long time no contradict
The neutral theory asserts that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of protein and DNA sequences, are caused not by Darwinian selection but by random drive of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutants. The theory does not deny the role of natural selection in determining the course of adaptive evolution, but it assumes that only a minute fraction of DNA changes in evolution are adapative in nature, while the great majority of phenotypically silent molecular substitutions exert no significant influence on survival and reproduction and drift randomly throught he species--Kimura, (not sure on the specific source for this since I am pulling it from a Google Books preview of a secondary source).
It's the first paragraph of the Introduction to The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. I guess when Kaichos Man was studying up on Kimura's ideas, he didn't get quite that far through the book.
Indeed, he must not have gotten all the way through the Preface, where he'd have read: "[Darwin's] theory of evolution by natural selection has been the great unifying principle of biology."
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Taq, posted 12-12-2011 12:06 PM Taq 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