Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 61 of 760 (609458)
03-20-2011 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by NoNukes
03-18-2011 12:13 PM


Re: Modification or replacement
NoNukes posted;
In message 19 you said the following:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In message 40, in response to a request to explain a link between Shapiro's ideas and Special Creation, you say the following:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The latter statement is considerably weaker and less interesting than your former statement. I was hoping to hear a defense of some of the connections between the ideas in Shapiro's paper and Special Creation that you have made elsewhere and in message 19. Am I expecting too much
I beleive the connections to Special Creation are the discoveries and papers of Shapiro et. al. that show that there is more to evolution than random mutations for fitness and blind undirected selection.
By the question that will never be answered issue, I am merely stating that I don't beleve there will be a factual proving of the existence of God, unless God desires it.
So I really don't think I am backing away from my position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by NoNukes, posted 03-18-2011 12:13 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Wounded King, posted 03-20-2011 2:41 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 64 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2011 3:02 PM shadow71 has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 62 of 760 (609461)
03-20-2011 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by shadow71
03-20-2011 1:52 PM


What I am saying is that the information, communciation, sentience research is different from the modern synthesis in that there is direction rather then random mutation
Well how about instead of just saying it you actually cite some research showing the mechanism that produces non-random beneficial mutations? Rather than simply mechanisms that slightly affect mutation rates, or that insert in specific but highly frequent sites in the genome, or that insert very common transposable elements. Show us some evidence in fact that these things are 'directed' in any meaningful way rather than simply being environmentally induced stress responses that may turn up a few beneficial variants but are just as likely to produce deleterious ones.
If that is so, how can one define that type of selection as anything but directed or purpose caused?
Because all deleterious means is that the mutations impair the organisms survival/reproductive success. So you might make a case that the tendency of natural selection is directed by the organisms environment, but that is just standard Darwinism. If you want to argue against Darwinism because selection isn't random then you have misunderstood things badly.
Variation is produced by a 'random', in the subjective rather than the frequency interpretation of random, spectrum of mutations. These mutations are then 'selected' by the organisms environment with those promoting survival and reproductive success tending to increase in frequency and those detrimental tending to decrease.
Talking about selection says absolutely nothing about the nature of the mutation that gave rise to the trait or the frequency distribution of beneficial and deleterious mutations arising.
The evidence I am providing is the work of experts in the field.
But it isn't, it is quotes from people you consider the appropriate experts. You aren't citing their work, just parroting their soundbites. We discussed the basis of the mutations Shapiro considers 'non-random' and told you why most evolutionary biologists/ molecular geneticists would not agree with that description. So you simply saying, yet again, 'well Shapiro says they are non-random' adds nothing to the discussion.
So the quotes from Mary, Mattick and Shaprio are indeed very strong evidence, that I have provided.
The fact that you think that just emphasises the fact that you are approaching this as a lawyer rather than a scientist. Actual scientific evidence showing a bias towards beneficial mutations, especially specific ones, in experimental populations would be evidence, what you are providing is simply opinion.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by shadow71, posted 03-20-2011 1:52 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by shadow71, posted 03-20-2011 5:23 PM Wounded King has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 63 of 760 (609462)
03-20-2011 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by shadow71
03-20-2011 2:18 PM


Re: Modification or replacement
blind undirected selection.
Thanks for clearing that point up, you do have no idea what you are talking about.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by shadow71, posted 03-20-2011 2:18 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by shadow71, posted 03-20-2011 7:17 PM Wounded King has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 760 (609464)
03-20-2011 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by shadow71
03-20-2011 2:18 PM


Re: Modification or replacement
shadow71 writes:
I beleive the connections to Special Creation are the discoveries and papers of Shapiro et. al. that show that there is more to evolution than random mutations for fitness and blind undirected selection.
As I see things, Shapiro merely suggests a stimulus generated effect on mutations. How does that make Special Creation more likely? I am not asking you for proof. I just want to understand your reasoning.
Edited by NoNukes, : Fix quote tags

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by shadow71, posted 03-20-2011 2:18 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by shadow71, posted 03-21-2011 12:36 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 65 of 760 (609480)
03-20-2011 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Wounded King
03-20-2011 2:38 PM


Wounded King writes;
Well how about instead of just saying it you actually cite some research showing the mechanism that produces non-random beneficial mutations? Rather than simply mechanisms that slightly affect mutation rates, or that insert in specific but highly frequent sites in the genome, or that insert very common transposable elements. Show us some evidence in fact that these things are 'directed' in any meaningful way rather than simply being environmentally induced stress responses that may turn up a few beneficial variants but are just as likely to produce deleterious ones.
Here is a paper by Barbara Wright
A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution
Barbara E. Wright*
Division of Biological Sciences, The University of Montana, Missoula, Montana
INTRODUCTION
Top
Introduction
Conclusion
References
As this minireview is concerned with the importance of the environment in directing evolution, it is appropriate to remember that Lamarck was the first to clearly articulate a consistent theory of gradual evolution from the simplest of species to the most complex, culminating in the origin of mankind (71). He published his remarkable and courageous theory in 1809, the year of Darwin's birth. Unfortunately, Lamarck's major contributions have been overshadowed by his views on the inheritance of acquired characters. In fact, Darwin shared some of these same views, and even Weismann (106), the father of neo-Darwinism, decided late in his career that directed variation must be invoked to understand some phenomena, as random variation and selection alone are not a sufficient explanation (71). This minireview will describe mechanisms of mutation that are not random and can accelerate the process of evolution in specific directions. The existence of such mechanisms has been predicted by mathematicians (6) who argue that, if every mutation were really random and had to be tested against the environment for selection or rejection, there would not have been enough time to evolve the extremely complex biochemical networks and regulatory mechanisms found in organisms today. Dobzhansky (21) expressed similar views by stating "The most serious objection to the modern theory of evolution is that since mutations occur by `chance' and are undirected, it is difficult to see how mutation and selection can add up to the formation of such beautifully balanced organs as, for example, the human eye."
The full paper can be accessed at;
Just a moment...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Wounded King, posted 03-20-2011 2:38 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Wounded King, posted 03-20-2011 8:37 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 74 by Taq, posted 03-21-2011 11:06 AM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 80 by NoNukes, posted 03-21-2011 1:11 PM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 66 of 760 (609485)
03-20-2011 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Wounded King
03-20-2011 2:41 PM


Re: Modification or replacement
Wounded King writes;
blind undirected selection.
Thanks for clearing that point up, you do have no idea what you are talking about.
I assumed that the Darwinan theory of evolution included natural selection that was not detrministic. If I am wrong and selection is in fact determnistic, then the theory is not secular naturalism, but allows for the fact that there is in fact detrminism and planning in the theory.
If that is true then I am not really at odds with the theory as set forth today.
Of course we have to get Dawklns and his school on board wilth this thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Wounded King, posted 03-20-2011 2:41 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-20-2011 8:00 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 69 by bluegenes, posted 03-20-2011 10:39 PM shadow71 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 67 of 760 (609490)
03-20-2011 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by shadow71
03-20-2011 7:17 PM


Re: Modification or replacement
Determinism is not a synonym for planning.
(Your mistake is presumably the natural counterpart to the standard creationist blunder of confusing "unplanned" with "random".)
As to whether NS is deterministic, that depends how you look at it. You could say that NS was merely stochastic; or you could say that NS as such is deterministic and that any random element is genetic drift.
As with Shapiro's blather, your choice of description would do nothing whatsoever to change the underlying reality.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by shadow71, posted 03-20-2011 7:17 PM shadow71 has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 68 of 760 (609492)
03-20-2011 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by shadow71
03-20-2011 5:23 PM


I already addressed that paper in the previous thread Message 958. I'll copy my reply here.
Having looked through the paper, A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution, there is no suggestion that the mutations are non-random with respect to fitness.
What Wright describes is simply that certain genes have their expression upregulated by particular forms of stress. Coupled with this it is a recognised phenomenon that genes that are being expressed are more susceptible to mutation due to their open chromatin state and transient single strandedness during transription.
Therefore while a cell is responding to a certain stress by upregulating response genes those genes are more susceptible to mutation.
Therefore the exact transcriptional landscape of a cell under stress may shift the balance of probabilities such that mutations in the specific stress response become more likely due to their increased transcription.
Wright suggests that this targetting is likely to produce more beneficial mutations than a genome wide increase in mutation rates because they are targetted to metabolic genes relevant to the particular stress the cell is being exposed to. There is no suggestion that the ratios of beneficial/neutral/deleterious are in any way affected as they occur in those genes.
If this is your directed mutation then it is the weakest of weak sauce.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by shadow71, posted 03-20-2011 5:23 PM shadow71 has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 69 of 760 (609501)
03-20-2011 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by shadow71
03-20-2011 7:17 PM


Blind design and engineering.
shadow71 writes:
blind undirected selection....
In our language, nature can design, direct, guide, determine, select, choose, create, favour, engineer, abhor, and do many other things all of them blindly. Mutations modify individual organisms, and environments select them, as well as directing/guiding the evolutionary paths of groups of organisms. Together, they re-design groups, creating/engineering new species. None of the verbs imply teleology.
If an individual genome has the characteristic of reacting to stress in a way that appears to be well designed to increase the chances of a positive adaptive mutation, that advantageous characteristic would have been selected for in the past. Variation in the places, types and rates of mutation are themselves subject to selection, and that is why it is not surprising to see modern organisms that are well designed to adapt. They are the descendants of good adaptors in an ever changing world which has selected for evolvability and adaptability themselves.
To confuse things further on randomness, the fact that mutations happen in all species and are passed on is in itself not random. If a genome managed to repair all mutations, that would be the genome of a species headed for extinction as the world changes and it has no way of adapting. So, the tendency to mutate is itself determined by nature and has been favoured by her. Blindly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by shadow71, posted 03-20-2011 7:17 PM shadow71 has not replied

techristian
Member (Idle past 4102 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-03-2002


Message 70 of 760 (609509)
03-21-2011 12:42 AM


quote:
Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?
Yes. Soon this era between Darwin and the present will be labelled the "dark age of modern science". So much true science is being covered up to protect the sacred cow of Darwinism. There are nearly as many scientists on both sides of the argument and recent finds in RNA and DNA disprove Darwinism.
Dan

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-21-2011 1:59 AM techristian has not replied
 Message 72 by bluescat48, posted 03-21-2011 4:07 AM techristian has not replied
 Message 75 by Taq, posted 03-21-2011 11:08 AM techristian has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 71 of 760 (609513)
03-21-2011 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by techristian
03-21-2011 12:42 AM


Yes. Soon this era between Darwin and the present will be labelled the "dark age of modern science".
"Soon" ... The Longest Running Falsehood In Creationism.
The belief that you guys will triumph any day now has literally been handed down from generation to generation. This is most amusing.
Ah, paranoia.
There are nearly as many scientists on both sides of the argument ...
I'm afraid that someone has been telling you silly lies.
... and recent finds in RNA and DNA disprove Darwinism.
Though apparently this fact is known only to you (who have never made any discovery concerning DNA and RNA) rather than to scientists, who have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by techristian, posted 03-21-2011 12:42 AM techristian has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


(1)
Message 72 of 760 (609519)
03-21-2011 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by techristian
03-21-2011 12:42 AM


Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?
Yes, as with all theories. No theory is perfect, all require modification when newer and better evidence is found. This may alter of overturn a theory. As with the overturning of Phlogiston with Oxidation-reduction or the modification of the Periodic Law with the discovery of the proton. All theories are falsifiable, Evolution has been modified many times since it's inception, but there is no indication that there is any competing evidence that would overturn it.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by techristian, posted 03-21-2011 12:42 AM techristian has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 73 of 760 (609534)
03-21-2011 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by shadow71
03-20-2011 2:08 PM


Re: Puzzled
Not speculation, but inferences from what the expert states and clearly admissible.
Objection your honor: hearsay.
If the prosecution has the evidence the court begs them to present it instead of this unending barrage of second hand testimony.
Remember Shapiro said I understood him pretty well, and he is the one who can comment on that w/o rebuttal.
It is time to present the evidence instead of your interpertation of another man's opinion.
But that process does not state what caused the mutations and cannot rule out randomness w/respect to fitness.
The mutations were observed to be random with respect to fitness. Mutations conferring antibiotic resistance occurred in the absence of antibiotics, as one example. Mutations which produced lac+ colonies were not induced to produce these mutations by the presence of lactose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by shadow71, posted 03-20-2011 2:08 PM shadow71 has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 74 of 760 (609537)
03-21-2011 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by shadow71
03-20-2011 5:23 PM


Here is a paper by Barbara Wright
That is a review paper. It does not contain original research. We want to see the real experiments and real results from the primary source.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by shadow71, posted 03-20-2011 5:23 PM shadow71 has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 75 of 760 (609539)
03-21-2011 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by techristian
03-21-2011 12:42 AM


So much true science is being covered up to protect the sacred cow of Darwinism.
You would think that such accusations would be followed by actual science that has been ignored that ties into this thread somehow. It seems that you are big on claims and short on evidence.
There are nearly as many scientists on both sides of the argument and recent finds in RNA and DNA disprove Darwinism.
I look forward to you starting a thread and demonstrating this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by techristian, posted 03-21-2011 12:42 AM techristian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 03-21-2011 12:19 PM Taq has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024