|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are mutations enough to explain natural selection? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Having just read the paper (link posted by SLPx) by Dr. CaporaleI would agree that she has provided detailed explanation of features of DNA sequences that can lead to a higher or lower rate of mutation at any particular location. I have not disagreed with this, and niether has anyone else I have seen taking a counter-view to your NRM posts. What I have contended is that your choice of defintion of'random' is not that used in NDT, nor indeed that used by Dr.Caporale. 'Random' in the NDT sense is intended to mean 'not in directresponse to any stimulus'. That is mutations occur when they occur, there is no causativeeffect (beyond mutagenic effects ... and these increase mutation rate they do not 'cause' mutation). Mutations have not been shown, to occur in directresponse to an environmental pressure. The relevent aspect of evolutionary theory is the bit that goesalong the lines that heritable variation within the population is either selected for or against, causing a shift in trait frequencies over time. Random (as in 'unprovoked') changes to these heritable characteristics is the origin of that variation. If there is a mechanism that can facilitate the trial of differentproteins, mitigate mutations (leading to lower fatal mutations?), or other biochemical processes that govern mutations this does not 'falsify NDT'. The mutations still cause variation, and are still 'unprovoked'. You additionally claim that NRM's can cause an illusion ofcommon descent. Presumably your premise is that there are a number of createdkinds all with similiar DNA sequences, and that NRM (in your sense) cause these to look like they were descendended from a common ancestor. The end result would be indistinguishable fromcommon descent. This is effectively the same problem that you run into whenever you discuss common design vs. common descent. If the end result would be the same for both premises then weneed something else to tip the balance ... otherwise we can say nothing in either direction. For the common descent argument we have comparative anatomy,fossil data, observed speciation, and observed natural selection (there may be more, but this will do for now). What do we have for NRM as a cause of apparent common descent?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7695 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Peter,
PW: Having just read the paper (link posted by SLPx) by Dr. CaporaleI would agree that she has provided detailed explanation of features of DNA sequences that can lead to a higher or lower rate of mutation at any particular location. I have not disagreed with this, and niether has anyone else I have seen taking a counter-view to your NRM posts. PB: O I see, I have been debating for 6 months because everyone agreed on the NRM in the 1G5 genes and their impact for evolutionism. Get real, Peter. Don't fool me. PW: What I have contended is that your choice of defintion of'random' is not that used in NDT, nor indeed that used by Dr.Caporale. PB: Problem with you guys is that you are to blind to see what is really going on in this world. My definition of nonranom mutaions was that these mutations are random with respect to position where the are introduced and usually with respect to nucleotide. That is exactly the same as DR CAporalse's definition and if you don't believ it look at page 41: "Thus mutations are not random, at least with respect to their position in a DNA sequence". And, as Dr Caporale told me she had had a lot of dogmatic arguments from orthodox evolutionists too. So, my advise: update. PW: 'Random' in the NDT sense is intended to mean 'not in directresponse to any stimulus'. PB: Ever heard about the immunoglobulin genes? They mutate in response to antigen. That is a direct stimulus. The ATP6 gene mutates as a response to the climate, etcetera. PW: That is mutations occur when they occur, there is no causativeeffect (beyond mutagenic effects ... and these increase mutation rate they do not 'cause' mutation). Mutations have not been shown, to occur in directresponse to an environmental pressure. PB: ...and the denial goes on and on and on. Why don't you just give up, like everybody els already did. In short, NRM are real and can be induced by environmental factors. PW: The relevent aspect of evolutionary theory is the bit that goesalong the lines that heritable variation within the population is either selected for or against, causing a shift in trait frequencies over time. Random (as in 'unprovoked') changes to these heritable characteristics is the origin of that variation. PB: Listen, Peter, you dont have to teach me what ToE learns as dogma. It simply cannot hold in the light of contemporary knowledge. PW: If there is a mechanism that can facilitate the trial of differentproteins, mitigate mutations (leading to lower fatal mutations?), or other biochemical processes that govern mutations this does not 'falsify NDT'. The mutations still cause variation, and are still 'unprovoked'. PB: No of course not. Nothing can falsify your silly atheistic humbug. That's the way it was meant to be. Unfortunately, such directed NRM do falsify NDT. PW: You additionally claim that NRM's can cause an illusion ofcommon descent. PB: I am glad you understand this part. PW: Presumably your premise is that there are a number of createdkinds all with similiar DNA sequences, and that NRM (in your sense) cause these to look like they were descendended from a common ancestor. PB: Yep. PW: The end result would be indistinguishable fromcommon descent. This is effectively the same problem that you run into whenever you discuss common design vs. common descent. PB: If such were true than it would be a draft for ever. However, fortunately there is the ZFY region that proofs my vision is right. You cannot have it both ways, my dear friend. It cannot be both common descent AND common design (or could it?). Since the ZFY region demonstrated clearly NRM, common design must be the right vision. PW: If the end result would be the same for both premises then weneed something else to tip the balance ... otherwise we can say nothing in either direction. PB: the balance is tipped by the ZFY region and by genetic redundancies. Both clearcut evidence of design. PW: For the common descent argument we have comparative anatomy,fossil data, observed speciation, and observed natural selection (there may be more, but this will do for now). PB: The comparative anatomy is utterly subjective. It doesn't mean anything to me. It could as well be common design. Observed speciation is nothing but the GUToB, and natural selection is included in the GUToB. However, natural selection can not explain the existence of genetic redundancies. And I am not going into that again. (Okay, only if you really don't get it). PW: What do we have for NRM as a cause of apparent common descent? PB: The mtDNA for one, the ZFY for two, the rest of the alignments that you take as evidence for common descent. Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: No-one (check the replies) has denied that there are mutationalhot spots. Dr.Caporale talks about mechanisms that explain such hot-spots. What is being contended is that there is a directing influenceon these locations, or that the mutations are non-random in the sense of 'deterministic'. quote: Which is what I just said ... the replied you have recieved onthis subject accept hot-spots ... i.e. that there are areas with a higher mutation rate than others, and that there is a mechanism involved in this. 'not random with respect to position' is the phrase. When they occur and why is still considered 'random'.
quote: The immune system responds to 'foreign' proteins, I know, there iseven suggestion that the DNA sequences within the brain change and may be how memory is stored, so perhaps there is a precedent for change as a response to direct encounters with unusual proteins .... this is very far removed from a change in DNA being provoked by a change in climate. The differences in the ATP6 that you mentioned previouslycan equally well be explained via selection. quote: Where is the reply in this section?
quote: I wasn't attempting to teach ... merely pointing out therelevent area (which is what the paragraph said after all) of the theory. quote: The existence of a mechanism as interpreted above does notrefute NDT. If you (or anyone) can show sufficient evidence that an environmentalfactor has caused a genetic change then we can proceed. Perhaps Lemark was right.
quote: What's to understand, it's an assertion?
quote: I managed to understand something then
quote: The ZFY region can be explained just as well within a commondescent framework. The two positions start with different initial conditions andhave a slightly different set of processes, but then end point is the data as we see it now. Both explanations can work, but the assumptions upon which theyare based are radically different. Your assumptions are harder to justify. It comes down to evidence of design ... and for you that NRM's,which are founded upon the presumption of design ... which makes them no evidence at all. You cannot proove something objectively if you start with an assumption which makes the conclusion correct. quote: The ZFY region would look as it does if common descent iscorrect .... or are all other genetic researchers mistaken? We can come back to the redundancies again if you want.
quote: What about the discovery that some supposed 'redundant' regionsare essential links in the chain of actions leading to protein synthesis? Knock-outs leaving viable organisms isn't the same as havingno impact of a creatures fitness for some natural environment or another. quote: But this is the problem ... all of your evidence is the data thatcan be equally well explained in the common descent framework. You need to find something that common descent cannot explainfor your suggestions to carry weight. You might want to start trying to identify and justifyyour starting assumptions while your at it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Of course, Dr.Caporale told me that she was upset that her book was being misinterpreted.... I wonder by whom?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: As you are an asthma reseacher, I should not have expcted you to understand that the hypervariation in Ig genes is not heritable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I don't know about this section, but I posted this: http://EvC Forum: for Conspirator -->EvC Forum: for Conspirator and it was Borger that "gave up." Said he would get to them when we finished up elsewhere. Easier to ignore evidence counter to your claims and then insist that everyone els "gave up" after you refuse to deal with it....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7695 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Dr Page,
I presume you've got a better interpretation. You still don't get it Page. For you once more: Science = interpretation. I don't mind you keep interpretating your data according to your paradigm, but than you shouldn't mind that I will point out the flaws in your interpretation. I will keep interpreting the same data in the new paradigm. Why? Since it fits better. Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7695 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Dr Page,
Amazing how you are always able to find a straw man. Better pay some attention to your analyses of the mtDNA, ZFY region, the IL-1beta genes, the swimreflex in newborn, etcetera, etcetera. Still waiting Dr Page. I know you can do it Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7695 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Page,
SP: Of course, Dr.Caporale told me that she was upset that her book was being misinterpreted.... I wonder by whom? PB: Maybe you could quote her. By the way, I mailed my examples of NON-random mutations months before her book was published, so what's your point? She only confirms what I and others were thinking about the genome. If you wanna cry about the fall of your worldview, do it somewhere else and not on this board, please. Or send me a personal e-mail than we can talk about it in private. Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
If you check back I think SLPx did quote Dr.Caporale
in a previous post ... can't seem to find it to reference for you but I'm sure it's there. Dr.Caporale's work seems to indicate a mechanism behind theexistence of differing mutational rates in different parts o genomes. There is nothing in the work which suggests that the mutations are 'non-random with respect to environmental conditions or time'. Re: NRM's:: Yes you mailed your 'examples' a while ago,but you have also just stated that you view is just another interpretation of the data. The problem you seem to be missing with you assertion that youare right and everyone else is wrong can be summed up like this:: You say:: 10 + 5 = 15 therefore 3 X 5 cannot possibly be 15. i.e. you are looking at a data set and proposing an explanation whichfor you fits the data. The mainstream view also fits the data. The departure from my above analogy in this case is that youhave no support for your starting assumptions (the one's that I can identify anyhow) nor have you fully stated what those assumptions are. Perhaps now would be the time for that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7695 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Peter,
PW: If you check back I think SLPx did quote Dr.Caporalein a previous post ... can't seem to find it to reference for you but I'm sure it's there. PB: You're too eager. It was me who contacted Dr Caporale and I quoted her, not Page. It was about orthodox evolutionists and not understanding NRM (like Page and you). PW: Dr.Caporale's work seems to indicate a mechanism behind theexistence of differing mutational rates in different parts o genomes. There is nothing in the work which suggests that the mutations are 'non-random with respect to environmental conditions or time'. PB: The point that is pretty clear here is that the observed change that Darwin -and other biologists- observed is already present in the genome, and therefore (yes I have to reiterate this again how many times this time I wonder) cannot be extrapolated to microbe to man, because it implicated that evolution is mechanistically dericted and that is creation. Listen, Peter, you evo-guys have a problem. I don't, I have the GUToB. PW: Re: NRM's:: Yes you mailed your 'examples' a while ago,but you have also just stated that you view is just another interpretation of the data. PB: Yes, and as it stands now, my interepretations discribe equally well, and often better what we see. PW: The problem you seem to be missing with you assertion that youare right and everyone else is wrong can be summed up like this:: PB: It took Darwin almost a lifetime to produce his Origin of Species. He first had to convince himself. It is no argument. PW: You say:: 10 + 5 = 15 therefore 3 X 5 cannot possibly be 15. PB: I fail to see the connenction. I mentioned several times that evolutionism superficially seems a nice theory, but not any longer. PW: i.e. you are looking at a data set and proposing an explanation which for you fits the data. The mainstream view also fits the data. PB: No, the mainstream view is held up by so many tricks I don't accept it anymore. And mainstream view has been demonstrated to be always wrong. The mainstream view used to be a flat earth, remember, or generatio spontanea (still present in the atheist community, though). So, that can hardly be an argument, too.And now we have NRM. And now we have genetic redundancies. They also cannot be explained by evolutionary theory as I have mentioned several times before. I illustrated it with examples like alpha actinin genes, for which you have to introduce neutral purifying selection and the src-family of phosphatases (their existence cannot even be explained by duplication). It is not only one little incongruence, it is the one after the other after the other after the other. So, evo = false, GUTob = less false. I know what to choose. PW: The departure from my above analogy in this case is that youhave no support for your starting assumptions (the one's that I can identify anyhow) nor have you fully stated what those assumptions are. Perhaps now would be the time for that. PB: If you CHOOSE to be blind, than that is NOT my responsiblity. Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Check post 56.
quote: So you are entering into the 'No new information can beintroduced into the genome by random mutation' argument? But you don't believe in random mutations, or do you? If there were a naturalistic mechanism which gives direction toevolution how is that creation? quote: Jumping in before an actual point has been made ...
quote: The following i.e. was an elaboration ...
quote: Your jumping in without reading properly again. I wasn't suggesting taking the mainstream view because it isthe mainstream view ... I was pointing out that in the context of this discussion the mainstream view explains the data equally as well as your view. The flat-earth view did not fit the data very well, even less soonce we could confirm it wrong by simple observation. Your view is based upon an alternate interpretation of the sameobservation. The problems, for me, with your view come under the next segmentwhich you chose to ignore. quote: What are your initial assumptions, and why? As I understand it:: Observation:: i) We have a number of genome segments which code forsimilar genes. ii) There are differences between these genes in differentorganisms. iii) There tend to be more differences between these genes in organisms which would tend to be considred less related on morphological grounds. iv) There tend to be more similarities between these genes in organsims that would tend to be considered more closely related onmorphological grounds. Conclusion:: The current organisms represent leaves of a 'tree of life', wherethe greater the differences between any two organisms is an indication of the distance between the branch point that separated them. Assumptions:: i) Organisms pass their genome on to their offspringii) The genome passed to offspring may carry unanticipated differences from that of the parent(s). iii) Differences in the genome will build up over generations. iv) If some combination of events occur that separate a population then the unanticipated differences in the offpsring can be different in different groups. v) A tree structure is an acceptable representation of the generations of any particular organism, so this is true of species. Perhaps you could critique my list of observations and then providea conclusion and assumption list for your view point. Hopefully you will see (though you may claim sub-conscious bias) thatI have not assumed evolution in the first place, I have concluded evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Now, now, Peyey - I also emailed Dr.Caporale (other folks have email too, you know). I mentioned you. She forwarded to me her entire reply to you, and mentioned the QUOTE from her that I posted previously - the one in which she lamented that her book was being "misinterpreted." I understand that you are a megalomaniac, but lets not resort so quickly to lies, OK Pete?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I get it, Borger. You interpret things the way you want or need them to be, not the way that makes sense. Ask Dr.Caporale. Which is what I was talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Quite easy - just by looking in your posts. There are usually several in each.quote:Where are your analyses of these? Oh - thats right, you don't do any. You just carefully select a paper here and there and make stuff up. I especially like the "logic" employed wherein you implicitly require to abandonment of documented contrary data because of what are at best a hadful of anomolies. Now THATS how science is done!quote: You obviously cannot...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024