|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
My question is has it been demonstrated by experments that all mutations are random with respect to fitness? I have already answered this question multiple times. If my previous replies were not satisfactory I doubt another reply will be.
If so would you please cite me to paper so I can read and understand the proces or logic behind the statement that all mutations are random with respect to fitness. I have already done this as well. Just for kicks, here are the two experiments that laid the foundation for our understanding of random mutations with repsect to fitness: Page not found – UF ICBR http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/BB/A/B/F/J/_/bbabfj.pdf
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I am defining non-random as deterministic in re a TE that lodges in a loci in a gene in distress to repair that cite. Transposons do not repair DNA. Nowhere in any of Shapiro's papers did I read anything that would indicate that transposable elements are part of DNA repair. If anything, they have a penchant for doing away with the function of a gene once they insert.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I take it that you believe that the complexity of such a single cell came about by random accident? You really need to work on reading comprehension. We believe that the complexity of the cell is the result of evolution which is a non-random stochastic process due to the non-random mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations.
Would you agree that it also may have come about by a directed plan? Would you say that Zeus creates lightning bolts, or is the naturalistic explanation satisfactory?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
When I submit a quote I am relying on the expertise of the scientist who wrote the paper and that that quote is what my opinon is based upon. The problem we seem to be having is that you don't understand what the scientists are saying, and through this misunderstanding you project your own biases. You see "non-random" somewhere in a sentence and you automatically assume that the use of this word indicates that mutations are non-random with respect to fitness. You even use quotes that are related to gene expression and then claim that it is talking about mutations. When your opinion is based on something other than your ignorance of the subject at hand we can actually start to discuss the science. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Shapiro doesn't like ID'st using his work. So what? can he prove their conclusions wrong, based on his work? If not, what does his opinion or worldview matter, if it is not evidenced by hard science? The point that we have made in multiple threads is that no evidence can falsify ID because ID is not science. Once again we have and ID supporter playing the Argument from Ignorance card in support of an unfalsifiable belief.
Instead of cherry picking the words of Shapiros that you choose to believe, and the ones you choose to crticize, why don't you show where in his work there is evidence to show that all of the conclusions could only be arrived at naturally. But we can show that the work he cites demonstrates that mutations are random with respect to fitness, which you and shadow seem to ignore. Even more, since you and shadow want to cite Shapiro's work as evidence for ID it is incumbent on you to demonstrate how Shapiro's work evidences ID. Still waiting for that.
Your pompous capital letters do not change the fact that its one man's opinion and nothing more; based on his own preference. Earlier in this thread Shapiro's authority on the subject was cited by shadow as support for his argument. I now see that the tune has changed once Shapiro says something the ID crowd disagrees with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I cited Shapiro's work for what it is, that there is some sort of intelligence, engineering, or planning in he cells processes. You keep making the mistake of extrapolating these processes beyond what Shapiro actually states. Shapiro argues that the timing of mutagenesis is engineered, but he does not extrapolate this to mean that the mutations themselves are deterministic.
That in my opinion will lead to what I beleive, that evolution is in fact a created phenemon. Created by what?
Would you really beleive that I think Shapiro supports ID when the name he gives to his 21st Century is NATURAL genetic engineering? (emphasis mine) Are you saying that Shapiro's work does not support ID, or is at least unrelated to the claims made by ID supporters?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Look what [Shapiro] wrote about mutations and randomness: Shadow: Do you have an opinion whether mutations are random with respect to fitness per the modern Darwinian Theory? Shapiro: I gave examples in my 2010 article (e.g. biasing retrovirus insertion upstream of coding regions) where certain changes are non-random with respect to their potential biological utility.
This is a perfect example of what I have been referring to. Shapiro argues that these natural engineering systems use exon shuffling instead of point mutations to find novel functions which produces a higher probability of finding beneficial adaptations compared to just point mutations. This is what Shapiro means when he states "certain changes are non-random with respect to their potential biological utility." He does NOT say that mutations are non-random with respect to fitness. He says that processes like exon shuffling make the chances of finding biological utility (aka beneficial adaptation) more probable. However, the process of mutation involved in exon shuffling is still random with respect to fitness.
quote: Notice that he calls exon shuffling a "search process". This is neo-Darwinism 101. This is how evolutionists have always described random mutation (with respect to fitness) coupled with natural selection. Non-random mutations (with respect to fitness) would not need to search for anything. The precise mutations needed to overcome a specific challenge would be pre-programmed into the engineering systems, and only those mutations needed to overcome the challenge would be produced.
He does not rule out non random changes in fitness. It all depends on the context of non-random. Again, you keep changing the context and pretending that non-random applies to all contexts. It doesn't. Did you read those two experiments I cited for you? I think it would be really helpful to discuss those experiments if you have time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
No he doesn't, but I don't think he rules it out. So the only one claiming that mutations are non-random with respect to fitness is you, and without any evidence to support the assertion. If you want to claim that mutations are non-random with respect to fitness then it is incumbent on YOU to cite the evidence necessary to conclude that mutations are, in fact, non-random with respect to fitness. What you have now constructed is a negative argument which is a logical fallacy. You have started with an assumption and until that assumption is completely ruled out you will not budge from this assumption. This is not how science works.
I believe ID supporters would find that his work is supportative to a degree of their position. How so, just out of curiousity? For the purposes of this question I am assuming that you are NOT an ID supporter so don't worry about getting your head bitten off.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
He inspires me by his directness and honesty and self confidence. From the viewpoint of an actual biologist, I would never call Shapiro's thesis "direct". It's a lot of showmanship. Frankly, there is nothing wrong with this per se. There needs to be a bit of salesmanship in every scientific paper. In fact, I have seen papers that are actually quite thin when it comes to actual scientific content but due to the style of the writing (aka showmanship) it was accepted for publication in a prestigious journal. What I see in Shapiro's papers is a lot of terms that were invented simply to make Shapiro's work seem more original. Everything he discusses is already known and described by terms already in general use amongst biologists. Instead of using these well known terms he invents his own (e.g. natural engineering systems). It would be like me describing the aerodynamics of a wing as the "fluidic engineered dynamos of turbulent lift", and then write an entire textbook as if I am describing a whole new field of physics. Why not just call it aerodynamics? At the same time, I don't want to discount Shapiro's contributions as it relates to his actual original research. He does quality lab work with well designed experiments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
My question is: May the mutations be non-random and in fact deterministic in regards to fitness? The results of experiments are not consistent with non-random, deterministic mutations. The results are consistent with random, non-deterministic mutations. This is made clear in the two experiments I cited (twice) for you earlier. The mutations conferring phage and antibiotic resistance occur in a random generation in the absence of either phage or antibiotics. When these mutations occur they are either neutral or slightly deleterious (in the case of the tonB mutations conferring phage resistance). These mutations are not produced in response to the presence of either phage or antibiotics. In fact, these same mutations can be produced in the absence of the entire cell. They can be produced with nothing more than a DNA template and the required polymerases and cofactors.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Thanks again Taq. I have downloaded both papers and am in the process of trying to understand them.
The Luria-Delbruck paper is going to very hard to understand for the layman. That is why I linked to a webpage that boiled it down. However, the Lederberg paper is actually written in a very straightforward manner that you shouldn't have too much trouble understanding. It is also worth mentioning that Luria and Delbruck won a Nobel Prize primarily for the work described in that experiment. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
That is the understanding of science, my question goes to the possibility as to whether fitness is in fact determined by the non-random mutation itself. Again, there seems to be a disconnect here. Of course an organism's fitness is determined by the mutations in it's genome. No one is arguing otherwise. What we are saying is that the processes that produce these mutations have no way of determining which of the mutations they produce will increase or decrease fitness. These processes are blind as to the effect of these mutations on fitness. This is what makes them random.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I was giving my opinion that perhaps the ID supporters would pick up on the "Engineering" part of the theory and that means to many design. I can see that. We often see ID supporters jump to conclusions like this.
If something is Engineered wouldn't you agree it is probably not random? The lottery is engineered and it is random. I have used an engineered transposon for random mutagenesis before.
In re "Highly nondeterministic." I guess the statement that there is no possible chance it could be determinsitic would be more final. It would also be outside the realm of the scientific method. Scientific conclusions do not make absolute statements of truth. Conclusions are always tentative and based on the evidence at hand. So far, all of the evidence is consistent with random mutations with respect to fitness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
That ability may have been given to the bacteria as part of its makeup. It wasn't. The emergence of the nylonase enzyme (nylC) was the product of an insertion mutation in a plasmid carried by the bacteria. We know this because we have the parent populations and daughter populations.
Is there something aboult nylon that makes it unique? The nylon oligmers that the bacteria are now able to utilize as a food source did not exist until the 20th century, well after the flavobacterium existed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I just found a paper by Shapiro that should help illuminate the subject at hand. It actually ties together several things that I have been talking about, including the Lederberg paper that I mention in previous posts. Shapiro uses the plate replica method to demonstrate that DNA fusions resulting in beneficial adaptations are unrelated to specific selective pressures. They specifically looked at the appearance of reverse lacZ mutants that were capable of digesting lactose.
quote: The paper can be found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...95473/pdf/emboj00069-0222.pdf So the same randomness of mutations established by the Lederberg and Luria-Delbruck experiments is the same randomness seen in the genetic engineering systems that Shapiro actually studies. The paper also goes on to mention that the same results are produced by the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation method. In addition, this paper really spells out how Shapiro views "random" mutations and genetic engineering systems. A perfect example is this quote:
quote: So Shapiro sees two different sources for random mutations: the breakdown of the normal replication process and specific cellular complexes. IMO, he does a disservice in other papers referring to the former as random and the latter as non-random, even though both are random according to the standard assays used to determine the randomness of mutations with respect to fitness.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024