|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Read the paper, Bolder.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Yep, read it. Now please answer the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
shadow71 writes: This quote is taken from the same cite. James Shapiro
Shapiro appears to be misusing "non-random" (though that's not a big problem, since he explains what he means). He seems to actually mean "not uniformly distributed." At least in usage within probability theory, random does not imply uniformly distributed.The 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). Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Taq writes: Why can't the intelligence within the cell come about through natural means such as evolution? Bolder-dash writes:
What would be extraordinary about it?Well as I said, theoretically it could. But that would be quite extraordinary, so ... The only examples of intelligence that we see are natural. Our attempts to create intelligence (as in Artificial Intelligence) have not been a spectacular success. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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? Because such systems offer a Hail Mary pass, to use an analogy. In stressful environments accumulating some slightly deleterious mutations in order to get the beneficial mutation to survive the stress is preferable to going extinct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Which paper?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9203 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
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. Shadow doesn't want those questions asked. Like most on his side of the spectrum they do not care about facts or reality. He wants to ask Shapiro questions so he can attempt to get Shapiro in a gotcha. To Shadow, Bolder and their ilk it is not important want Shapiro meant. What matters is how the can manipulate the language of what he said to meet their needs. Honesty and integrity means nothing. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Shapiro appears to be misusing "non-random" (though that's not a big problem, since he explains what he means). He seems to actually mean "not uniformly distributed." At least in usage within probability theory, random does not imply uniformly distributed. Precisely. This is why I keep asking for the context for the randomness of the system. Using the lottery example, the lottery is not random with respect to time since it occurs at the same time on the same days each week. The lottery is not random with respect to all numbers since the results fall within a set of numbers, not all numbers from 1 to infinity. However, the lottery is random with respect to the tickets sold. That is, the results are random with respect to the winner just like random mutations. And to carry on with the lottery example, during times of stress the cell responds by buying more tickets. This increases the number of losing tickets, but it also increases the chances of getting that lucky winner. Therefore, the rate at which the cell buys tickets is not random. It is environmentally guided. However, the tickets themselves are random with respect to the "winning number". The cell that hits that winning number is then selected for, the role that NS plays in this whole process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Well as I said, theoretically it could. But that would be quite extraordinary, . . . Only if you left out natural selection, which you did in the previous post.
. . . so you would at least need some proof to make such a claim. We can at least observe the mechanisms that are being put forward for the evolution of these systems. This can not be said for intelligent design.
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. I agree. The next step is designing a research program to find these answers. Evolution offers a way of designing experiments to figure these answers out. ID does not. With evolution we can use phylogenies to tease out the basal systems and look for modifications in different lineages. A similar thing has been done with homeobox genes by comparing homologs in simpler eukaryotes such as cniderians and sponges to homeobox genes in more complex animals like us. What they found is that duplication and subsequent divergence of homeobox genes allowed for more complex developmental pathways. What research has ID done along this same vein? None.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Shapiro appears to be misusing "non-random" (though that's not a big problem, since he explains what he means). I'm sorry, but even if he does explain himself, Shapiro is still an idiot for using the term "non-random" in this context. But then, BD has made it quite clear that he only wants to use idiot-speak, so probably best if you don't mention big words like "distribution" and "probability" as they will only upset him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2964 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Dr. Shapiro
In your writings you have expressed the following; genetic change can be massive and non-random. And you also wrote; We have progressed from the Constant Genome, subject only to random localized changes at a more or less constant mutation rate, to the Fluid genome, subject to episodic, massive and non-random reorganizations capable of producing new functional architectures. Do you have an opinion whether random mutations are the primary means of evolution today? Do you have an opinion whether natural selection is a primary means of evolution today? Can genetic change come about other than by means of random mutation and natural selection? Molbiogirl, what do you think of these questions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Bolder-dash writes: 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... Explaining "how a stress input is directly related to a specific adaptive response" is precisely what you failed to do. What you said in Message 655 was:
Bolder-dash in Message 655 writes: For Extracyto-plasmic stress the response will be an F plasmid Transfer... For Plant phenolics the response will be T-DNA transfer to plant cell in a A. tumefaciens bacteria ... In E.Coli aerobic starvation will cause a Mu prophage activation. There is no "specific adaptive response" anywhere in your answer. That's because none exists for you to explain. You can't explain something that has no reality. There is no avenue by which microbiological processes could know in advance what genomic changes would improve fitness. All they can do is randomly produce mutations from which natural selection can choose winners.
...and save your lectures about manners on this forum 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. You are apparently blind to the high snark level in your own posts (your opening sentence, for example: "Until you understand what random means, you are going to continue to struggle with grasping the new evolutionary discoveries."). Dr Adequate is one of the most frequently suspended EvC members, and your continued participation in the same style will draw the same level of moderator attention. The place to brings problems you're experiencing in discussion to the attention of moderators is Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0, something you've never done despite the many times I've pointed you to that thread. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi Shadow,
I think you should ask questions that would more directly shed light on whether or not you're really misunderstanding what Shapiro is saying. We already know that Shapiro uses terms like intelligent and sentient and nonrandom in ways that are open to broad misinterpretation, and your questions will only draw answers that use those terms in the same easy-to-misinterpret way. The question you want to ask Shapiro is whether his views about nonrandom change and intelligent sentient cells mean that evolution is guided. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2964 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Hi Taq;
Taq has posted;
It is tangential to the issue of the randomness of mutations. What Shapiro is talking about is the old paradigm of one-gene, one-feature. This is where variation is primarily driven by point mutations in genes, and each mutation is modular or singular in it's actions. Biology has left this paradigm in it's rear view mirror well before Shapiro published the article in question. Biology has switftly adopted the Evo-Devo view of evolution where gene regulation plays a very important role in evolution. With the DNA revolution it was finally possible to link embryonic development (Devo) with the evolution of DNA sequence (Evo), and with it came the understanding that gene regulation plays a very important role in overall fitness. In your opinion, Does this view change the importance of random mutation and natural selection as expressed in past evolutionary views? Edited by shadow71, : add sentence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2964 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
HI Percy,
Percy wrote;
Hi Shadow, I think you should ask questions that would more directly shed light on whether or not you're really misunderstanding what Shapiro is saying. We already know that Shapiro uses terms like intelligent and sentient and nonrandom in ways that are open to broad misinterpretation, and your questions will only draw answers that use those terms in the same easy-to-misinterpret way. The question you want to ask Shapiro is whether his views about nonrandom change and intelligent sentient cells mean that evolution is guided. I think that is a a litttle narrow, because he may be of the opinion that evolution is not guided, but that random mutation and natural selection may not be as important in evolution as the prior theories of evolution express. It is not as important to me that evolution is guided , rather that the concepts of random mutation and/or natural selection, may not be as important because of Shapiro's natural genetic engineering theory. That the cells may have some type of intelligence, natural or unnatural, components in their information system. Edited by shadow71, : No reason given. Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024