|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined:
|
Until you understand what random means, you are going to continue to struggle with grasping the new evolutionary discoveries.
Shapiro doesn't call these natural genetic engineering systems random (because they are not) I have explained to you exactly how a stress input is directly related to a specific adaptive response (so that's not random), the only thing random here is your definition of the word random. Somehow you think it is connected to a species fitness level-bizarre. In other words, these actives aren't happening just because they just so happened to occur at the same time that the stress entered their environment. One is causing the other. Furthermore, before you continue to think you are somehow giving me some lesson about evolutionary processes, you need to start reading up a bit more. Shapiro says cells are sentient beings. The latest discoveries in epigentics are telling us that the genome is gathering data throughout its lifetime in a flexible manner, and passing that knowledge on to its offspring genetically through a complicate series of information storage, meanwhile you are still trying to cling on to this crazy notion of get a lucky error, wait a million years, get another one wait...without the slightest evidence to show this is possible, and with scientists now coming out right and left saying it in fact is not possible. So please save your lectures about trying to educate me, and save your lectures about manners on this forum until you do something about the one who instigates the crap. You allow Dr A to say any meaningless, snarky crap he wants ad nauseum then you say I am not following the guidelines. What's worse is that he doesn't even have the ability to formulate an interesting insult; calling people silly little men all day long? I am sure your audience must love his comedic banter. Are the guidelines as flexible as your use of the word random? This is exactly why I told you anyone with an opposing viewpoint will quickly get tired of posting here. You don't do anything to encourage a level exchange of ideas, you simply want to win your arguments at all cost, and somehow you think allowing Dr. A to just make a mockery out of civil discourse helps your side look like it must be winning. Well, it doesn't!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Two choices for the explanation of life in the world, Percy, random or non-random. Random with respect to what? You need to be specific here. Is the lottery nonrandom because all of the results are always between 1 and 50 instead of any number? Is the lottery nonrandom because it always occurs on Wednesday and Friday nights? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Until you understand what random means, you are going to continue to struggle with grasping the new evolutionary discoveries. Look who's talking. You have yet to define random as it applies to evolution and to these genetic systems.
Shapiro doesn't call these natural genetic engineering systems random (because they are not) I have explained to you exactly how a stress input is directly related to a specific adaptive response (so that's not random), the only thing random here is your definition of the word random. Somehow you think it is connected to a species fitness level-bizarre. No one is saying that the genetic engineering systems are random. We are saying that the mutations produced by these systems are random with respect to fitness. That is, these systems produce mutations that are detrimental, beneficial, and neutral. You have shown zero evidence to the contrary.
In other words, these actives aren't happening just because they just so happened to occur at the same time that the stress entered their environment. One is causing the other. So mutations are nonrandom with respect to time. I agree.
The latest discoveries in epigentics are telling us that the genome is gathering data throughout its lifetime in a flexible manner, and passing that knowledge on to its offspring genetically through a complicate series of information storage, meanwhile you are still trying to cling on to this crazy notion of get a lucky error, wait a million years, get another one wait...without the slightest evidence to show this is possible, and with scientists now coming out right and left saying it in fact is not possible. Epigenetics does not involve mutations, and epigenetics can not explain the differences seen between species. It is a non-sequitor. So I will ask again. Is the lottery non-random because it occurs at a set time every Wednesday and Saturday night (or whenever it is)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Two choices for the explanation of life in the world, Percy, random or non-random. You let me know when you can come up with a third choice. #3: Sometimes random and sometimes non-random. #4: Non-random with an added stochastic element. #5: Random and filtered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Percy, there is nothing random at all about the engineering that the cells are doing to counter specific environmental stresses. I beg to differ. As part of the SOS response in E. coli they upregulate the expression of an error prone DNA polymerase that increases the random mutation rate.
quote: DNA Pol IV does not specifically target mutations in the lac promoter. It targets DNA breakage, and repairs it with more errors than other polymerases. So while the timing of the increase in mutations is nonrandom with respect to time the mutations produced by this genetic engineering system ARE random with respect to fitness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Percy writes;
In answer to a question posed during a "chat" at William Dembski's ISCID (International Society for Complexity, Information and Design) Shapiro answered thusly (this is taken from James Shapiro Chat, and links like this are the kind of information Molbiogirl has requested that you supply when you're cut-n-pasting, and I think everyone else here feels the same way, in addition to making unambiguous which words are your own and which are not): Before I answer about Shapiro, I want to clear something up. I had been posting quotes from Shapiro and was told that we don't want quotes we want your interpretation.I then scanned Shapiro and made notes and subsequently posted them with the preface: SHAPIRO WRITES. Because I did not copy and paste but rather read Shapiro's paper and typed notes which I supplied in my post.Some of them were actual quotes, some were not. But I gave attribution to Shapiro. I then gave my summary of what I believe Shapiro is asserting. I then posted, in reply to molbiogirl in post 648 all the cites to Shaprio in my post.Lets please drop that subject ok?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Don't you want to ask Shapiro questions that would actually cast light on whether you're misunderstanding him or not? I think you need to ask him whether non-random means guided. I agree, Percy. That's why I suggested shadow work on the questions with us here first. So they address the same issues, so they're clear, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined:
|
No one is saying that the genetic engineering systems are random. Good now we are getting somewhere, the engineering systems are not random. Now since you are struggling with the definition of random, let's use the Definition of Random: Adjective. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern. A popular synonym for random is accidental. Some popular antonyms for random are non-random, guided, organized, methodical, precise. Now hopefully we are making some headway, so let us continue. Could a system that is organized, methodical, precise intricate and with a definable pattern arise from randomness (or from an accident if you will)? Well, I suppose it COULD. We can't say definitively that this is impossible beyond a shadow of a doubt. Sure, theoretically almost anything is possible. But that would be an extraordinary event of unseen proportions. An event such as that, a methodical, precise, organized system arising by accident, well that would be so incredible that at the very least you would need implacable, undeniable evidence to ever believe such an unheard of event. Such an extraordinary claim would surely require a mountain of proof. So in lieu of such extraordinary evidence for the incredibly unlikely, we can pretty much rest assured that an organized, methodical, intricate system didn't arise by accident. And so the needle swings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Why not just ask him the crux of the matter:
Can you explain how an organized system of intelligent cells directing their own evolutionary pathways could have arisen accidentally? Or more simply, why doesn't an intelligent cell suggest an intelligent design?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Now since you are struggling with the definition of random, I'm not the one with the problem, mate.
Could a system that is organized, methodical, precise intricate and with a definable pattern arise from randomness (or from an accident if you will)? No, but then evolution as a whole is not random or accidental. It includes natural selection. Evolution is more than just random (with respect to fitness) mutations. It is a two step, stochastic process that includes the non-random mechanism of natural selection. At the same time, we could also look at other natural phenomenon such as hurricanes that are well organized and intricate systems that arise through random interactions in the atmosphere. Also, you are now avoiding the question of whether or not the mutations produced by these genetic engineering systems are random with respect to fitness, the whole point of the recent conversation. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Can you explain how an organized system of intelligent cells directing their own evolutionary pathways could have arisen accidentally? No one is claiming that they did.
Or more simply, why doesn't an intelligent cell suggest an intelligent design? Why can't the intelligence within the cell come about through natural means such as evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Percy supplied a quote from Shapiro at the ISCID cite. This quote is taken from the same cite.
Yaakov When the major genome restructuring occur in maize plants occur, are they random restructuring or non-random. Additionally, are the chromosome rearangements, mutations and spread of transosable elements observed in drosophila random or non-random producing more advanced offspring? James ShapiroThe changes occur non-randomly in the sense that they follow certain predilections (e.g. some mobile elements insert near the start sites of transcription, others prefer to insert in protein coding sequences). Often these changes have major effects on phenotype. If we set up the situation properly, we can often see quite high frequencies of changes that are advantageous to the organism, as in my own work on adaptive mutation in bacteria. Most of this experimental work has been done with microbes, and there we know for certain that important adaptive traits (e.g. antibiotic resistance) have evolved by natural genetic engineering processes. Isn't Shapiro saying these non-random changes sometimes do have an effect on the organism that are beneficial. Would that not be a non-random change that does not need a random mutation to provide adapative traits to the organism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
So while the timing of the increase in mutations is nonrandom with respect to time the mutations produced by this genetic engineering system ARE random with respect to fitness. Thank you again, Taq. "Nonrandom NGE" (natural genetic engineering) is not guided. Nor is it predetermined. Nor is it truly nonrandom. It's only nonrandom in one respect! All of the examples in his Central Dogma paper are like this too. For example, stress --> DNA uptake increases in gram positive bacteria. But the bacteria's biochemical pathway (nonrandom NGE) doesn't specify what DNA is taken up nor does it specify where it will integrate into the host genome. That's the random part. This is the original paper Shapiro cited re: this response: Claverys, J.P., M. Prudhomme & B. Martin. 2006. Induction of competence regulons as a general response to stress in gram-positive bacteria. Ann. Rev. Microbiol. 60: 451—475. And just in case anyone would like to read one of the SOS papers, I found one that's free online. Bjedov, I. et al. 2003. Stress-induced mutagenesis in bacteria. Science 300: 1404—1409. Stress-Induced Mutagenesis in Bacteria - PMC Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Why can't the intelligence within the cell come about through natural means such as evolution? Well as I said, theoretically it could. But that would be quite extraordinary, so you would at least need some proof to make such a claim. Surely you would at least need some evidence of this in order to teach this as the only theory to an entire nation of science students. A much more logical and honest approach must certainly be to say that there is intelligence within the nature of a cell that we are unable to account for at this present time. Please study the problem, as all good inquisitive minds should do and keep an open mind as to how this could be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
But the bacteria's biochemical pathway (nonrandom NGE) doesn't specify what DNA is taken up nor does it specify where it will integrate into the host genome. That's the random part. If the results of these adaptive genetic engineerings where random, and were just as likely to cause a deleterious mutational effect as a positive one (and in fact would be more likely to be deleterious since statistically most mutations are) how in the heck could such a system persevere? That's completely illogical.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024