|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I think the immune system is probably a good example of where people's objections to Shapiro's use of non-random comes in. The immune system does not presciently produce antibodies tailored to a specific future challenge nor does it produce them initially in response to such a challenge. Instead a huge number of random, though constrained and not equiprobable, antibody variations are produced. When one of these encounters an antigen to which they correspond then they can stimulate an expansion of and further mutation in the particular subpopulation of antibody producing cells corresponding to that antibody. But this production of high affinity antibodies again works by producing a vast repertoire of randomly mutated, though constrained and not equiprobable, variants and relies on subsequent selection to pick the highest affinity ones.
I think this links to a point Slevesque raised previously about foresight. What we see in these systems is not the result of foresight but feedback. Not all outcomes are equiprobable some mutational systems have a constrained spectrum of mutations they can produce, many transposable elements have specific affinities for target sequences they will insert into, certain chromatin states are genetic sequences are more susceptible to mutation than others. All of these mean that mutation is not truly random but none of them provide any mechanism of foresight or even genuinely directed mutation. At best some of the feedback mechanisms skew the probabilities slightly so certain classes of mutation become more likely. TTFN, WK Edited by Wounded King, : Spelling Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
My purpose in this post is to discuss whether the Modern synthesis as it is know today should be modified? Of course it should. The "Modern Synthesis" dates from the 30s and 40s and predates even the discovery of DNA, yet alone the entire of modern molecular biology and genetics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Shapiro's paper is way over my head. But Shapiro seems to be saying that some mutations are triggered by environmental stresses and that these particular stresses produce mutations that are more likely than mere random mutation to be responsive to the stress. Table I of the pair gives a list of stimuli and response mechanisms for various organism along with pointers to substantiating papers. While I don't see the connection to special creation, since even the presence of "genetic engineering" systems in a cell is attributed to evolution, I also don't see how Shapiro is simply misusing the term nonrandom. This goes back to the lottery analogy I used in the other thread. The numbered ping pong balls used for the lottery results do not randomly fall out of the sky, nor are they the product of a breakdown at the ping pong factory. The ping pong balls are drawn in a set way on a set day at a set time. In this respect, the lottery is nonrandom in the "Shapiro" sense. There are engineered lottery systems that produce the results. However, the results of the lottery are random with respect to the tickets that were bought. Each and every ticket has the same chance of winning. In this respect, the lottery is random. How does this relate to mutations? The cell can purposely increase it's mutation rate using specific systems whose purpose is to produce mutations. This is done at specific times in response to specific stimuli. This is analogous to the timing and choosing of the ping pong balls in the lottery. However, like the randomness of the ping pong balls with respect to the tickets the mutations produced by these processes are random with respect to fitness in accordance with the Modern Synthesis. When molecular biologists talk about random mutations they mean random with respect to fitness. They do not mean that mutations are random with respect to genomic features, time, or environment. Shapiro mixes all of this up. When Shapiro says that mutations are nonrandom he is not referring to fitness. He is referring to genomic features, time, and environment. While all of this can be ferreted out by reading his papers it can still be unnecessarily confusing as shadow has illustrated so well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
taq writes;
What is not random? Chromatin binding? DNA binding complexes? Protein-DNA interactions? DNA methylation? What specifically is not random? If you will recall in the thread "potential falsifications " I e-mailed Shaprio and his whole answer is on that thread.In my first question to him I asked: Has Natural Genetic Engineering, changed the modern Darwinian theory of evolution as we know it today? He answered.
"Of course. Going from random accidents to regulated biochemical systems as the source of genetic variation is a fundamental change. It allows us to understand how outside events can trigger change (see table in my 2006 'genome informatics' article), makes it clear how combinatorial change can occur using established adaptive components (e.g. protein domains, regulatroy modules), and provides a way to investigate what kind of heuristic guidance may be operating in genome change." Shapiro seem to be very specific in his choice of words and is a highly regarded professional. When he uses the phrase "going from random accidents to regulated biochemical systems" and "heuristic guidance", which to me means they may be discovering or learning something for themselves., leads me to the conclusion that the whole process is nonrandom. He was also asked "When you use the term sentient do you mean that the cells are capable of making decisions that affect their evolution?" He replied;
Yes, such as when they activate mobile elements in response to DNA damage, starvation or interspecific hybridization. So I am of the opinion that he is proposing a system of decision making in the cells that go beyond nonrandom mutation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
jar wrote;
Fortunately, it is simply that you totally misunderstand what he is saying and Special Creation will never be more 5than a joke and something for Christian con men to use to keep the gold coming in. If you will recall Shapiro told me in his reply to me e-mail, "You have understood my position pretty well..." So perhaps you can enlighten me on what I am missing.I assume your comment on Special Creation is based upon some scientific finding, and I don't believe all who do have faith in Special Creation, in my case as per the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, are all "con" men.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
shadow71 writes: jar wrote;
Fortunately, it is simply that you totally misunderstand what he is saying and Special Creation will never be more than a joke and something for Christian con men to use to keep the gold coming in. If you will recall Shapiro told me in his reply to me e-mail, "You have understood my position pretty well..." So perhaps you can enlighten me on what I am missing.I assume your comment on Special Creation is based upon some scientific finding, and I don't believe all who do have faith in Special Creation, in my case as per the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, are all "con" men. Not all that support Special Creation are con men, most are simply the suckers that get conned. There is NO evidence of any outside non-natural influence or guidance. It really is that simple. As I said in my first reply, the whole question is pretty much irrelevant. The Theory of Evolution will change as additional evidence comes forward but it is also impossible for any evidence to come forward that does not point to entirely natural unguided events. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes;
This is a false dichotomy. You can talk about "information in the cell" all you want; but the fact remains that the changes are made to an actual physical sequence of DNA in accordance with the laws of chemistry. I agreeThe changes are made to an actual physical sequence of DNA in accordance wtih the laws of chemistry. What Shapiro and others are trying to determine is what is causing the changes to be made and how does that system of engineering or information sharing work. It is interesting that Darwin knew nothing of Genetics, and that Ernst Mayr in his 2001 book "What is Evolution" said it was difficult to understand the great amount of non-coding DNA that was thought to be 95% and he found it difficult to belive that selection would not have been able to get rid of it if it was totally useless. Mayr was correct, it was not totally useless, and today scientists today such as John Mattick are saying that genomic non-proteincoding sequences are contolling gene expression at many levels.So the more that is being discovered about information in the cell, the more probable is that the cells have information coded properties that are playing a major role in evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
shadow71 writes: So the more that is being discovered about information in the cell, the more probable is that the cells have information coded properties that are playing a major role in evolution. Let's assume that to be true. What's the tie in to special creation? What is the evidence that any cellular element, including a genetic engineering facility, is not the product of evolution? After all, Shapiro does acknowledge that random mutation does occur.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
jar writes;
Not all that support Special Creation are con men, most are simply the suckers that get conned. There is NO evidence of any outside non-natural influence or guidance. That is a distrubing message. Is it your view that anyone who belives in God, that God has a hand in creation, is getting conned? As for any evidence of non-natural influence or guidance, of course it cannot be proven under a microscope, but one only need look at the Universe, and the wonder of life, and deduce how did this happen? I would hope you would meditate on these issues and at least consider that there may be an influence that science cannot prove by physical evidence. I know this message is off post. That is my last sermon and I truely don't want to argue religion or faith with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
No Nukes writes;
What's the tie in to special creation? What is the evidence that any cellular element, including a genetic engineering facility, is not the product of evolution? After all, Shapiro does acknowledge that random mutation does occur. That is the probably the question that will never be answered by physical evidence. One will have to meditate on the question and decide for him or herself. All I am saying right now in this post is that Scientists are questioning the modern theory of evolution. That there is more to it than mechanical physical, chemical events that have made evolution as we know it today. Where the information and sentience came from may never be known unless we can find out the Origin of Life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
shadow71 writes: jar writes;
Not all that support Special Creation are con men, most are simply the suckers that get conned. There is NO evidence of any outside non-natural influence or guidance. That is a distrubing message. Is it your view that anyone who belives in God, that God has a hand in creation, is getting conned? As for any evidence of non-natural influence or guidance, of course it cannot be proven under a microscope, but one only need look at the Universe, and the wonder of life, and deduce how did this happen? I would hope you would meditate on these issues and at least consider that there may be an influence that science cannot prove by physical evidence. I know this message is off post. That is my last sermon and I truely don't want to argue religion or faith with you. Actually I am a devout Christian and yes, I firmly believe that anyone that believes in Special Creation is either getting conned or if they claim to be a scientist or educated, a con man. Of course there can also be a few that are simply insane. Start a thread on it if you would like, I'd be glad to discuss the subject. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
shadow71 writes: All I am saying right now in this post is that Scientists are questioning the modern theory of evolution. That there is more to it than mechanical physical, chemical events that have made evolution as we know it today. Shapiro is questioning some aspects of the modern theory of evolution. The question is exactly what the scope of those questions are. I think you overstate them a bit. If information is stored in the cell, it is stored in chemical/mechanical structures and is accessed by known processes. In fact Shapiro talks about natural genetic engineering processes that are identical in nature to other processes known to be carried out in cells. Besides, you've already said more. Are you now backing away from this statement:
shadow71 writes: If in fact the theory does change in accord with Shapiro and others who are researching about a 21st century theory of evolution that does not rely on random mutation, but rather information in the cell that engineers change then Special Creation will become something that Science will have to deal with. Modification or replacement? The answer seems to be modification.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
The only thing I can contribute to talk of genetics and evolution is that genetics is not a trail.
Since creationism sees a great blueprint or computer program for biology then it follows that there is simply a dna score for parts and processes in biology. for example I discovered marsupials are just placentals with some late adaptations. yet evolutionists try to say marsupials are a group from some ancestor and unrelated to placentals. They invoke the dna formations as showing the marsupials have like dna but unlike placentals. Well then this demonstrates that the dna was simply a atomic manifestation of the biological change from placental to marsupial. In short all these creatures got the same dna score because they had the same thing happen to them. Like body change equals like dna change and addition. So drawing conclusions of biological relationships from genetics is a waste of time except in minor cases of very close and obvious relationship. Genetics is not evidence for evolution but it has only been a line of reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Well then this demonstrates that the dna was simply a atomic manifestation of the biological change from placental to marsupial. DNA phylogenies are based on a combination of highly conserved areas where homologous function is identical between species, and non-coding regions that vary on the basis of random changes, not as a result of variation in body plan or shape. So, no. The DNA being looked at in this case can't be a "manifestation of the change from placental to marsupial", because the DNA being looked at doesn't contribute to the placental or marsupial characteristics of the compared species. Biologists aren't stupid. They knew to look at and compare DNA sequences that were insulated from selection and morphological change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Shadow, you have to get out of this revisionist genetic history of yours. Mayr's book may have been published in 2001 but the position he was discounting was one that hadn't been current for decades.
In the same 1972 paper in which Susumi Ohno coined the term 'Junk DNA' he was proposing reasons why the non-coding proportions provided a selective advantage. As it happens his proposals were fairly conservative and mostly to do with structural features of the genome. Without considerably more refined technology it is hard to see how he could have anticipated the extent of function of non-coding RNAs, he was after all writing this before, or concurrent with, the development of the earliest DNA and RNA sequencing techniques. And as I pointed out previously in our discussion of Mattick's work functional roles for non-coding RNAs have been put forward since the 80's and actively researched since the 90's. In fact it seems to me quite remarkable that within 30 years of those earliest sequencing technologies having been developed, when sequencing 24 base pairs was an achievement, we had the publication of the first draft Human Genome sequences in 2001. TTFN, WK
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024