|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2498 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
jar writes: And we were discussing cellular and genetic changes. No brain there. Yes, we were. And your sentence expanded the discussion to "biological, chemical and physics processes". Here it is again. It is wrong.
jar writes: Using a term like "sentient" to describe biological, chemical and physics processes is simply a perversion of the English language. Here's a correction: Using a term like "sentient" to describe biological, chemical and physics processes is simply not a perversion of the English language.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
bluegenes writes: jar writes: And we were discussing cellular and genetic changes. No brain there. Yes, we were. And your sentence expanded the discussion to "biological, chemical and physics processes". Here it is again. It is wrong.
jar writes: Using a term like "sentient" to describe biological, chemical and physics processes is simply a perversion of the English language. Here's a correction: Using a term like "sentient" to describe biological, chemical and physics processes is simply not a perversion of the English language. Utter nonsense. Sorry but that is simply silly. Go play with Straggler. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2498 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
jar writes: Utter nonsense. Sorry but that is simply silly. Go play with Straggler. Was that meant to be an adult argument in defense of this sentence?
jar writes: Using a term like "sentient" to describe biological, chemical and physics processes is simply a perversion of the English language. Do you know of a source of sentience other than "biological, chemical and physical processes"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
taq writes;
This is a perfect example of the mistake you consistently have made in these discussions. Those alterations are random with respect to fitness. The fact that the rate of random mutation is increased by environmental stimuli does not make them non-random as it is described in the Modern Synthesis. Here is the question I asked Shapiro and his answer. Shadow asked:
Do you have an opinion whether mutations are random with respect to fitness per the modern Darwinian Theory? Shapiro answered:
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. Do you read Shapiro as saying that mutations are non-random in re fitness?I don't want to know if you agree with him only if he is saying that mutations are non-random with regard to fitness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Do you read Shapiro as saying that mutations are non-random in re fitness?
I see Shapiro trying to spin the question. He rephrased the question in terms of "with respect to their potential biological utility". That is not fitness. I think this is best seen in how some transposons tend to target areas of the genome with high activity. That is, some transposons tend to insert closer to genes and can affect how they are regulated. These changes can be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental so this is once again random with respect to fitness. I would agree with Shapiro in that transposon mutagenesis has a much better chance of producing a change in phenotype (i.e. "biological utility") compared to point mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Granny Magda hysterically writes;
Shadow, please don't lie to us and, more importantly, please don't lie to yourself To my post below;
of this to me leads to the conclusion that evolution is not random mutations for fitness, and "Natural Selection", but rather a planned process.
Again Manny magda:
To me that leads to God. shit. That is not how your thought process went and you know it. I don't believe for a second that you were lead to your belief in God as creator by Shapiro's waffle. No-one is going to believe that, since it is transparently false. Here is what I suspect you actually did; Granny I never said that I was led to God by Shapiro's writings, use your head and think before you write. I stated when I 1st started posting that I was a practicing Roman catholic.That when I closed my law practice I began reading about evolution. I read Darwinists, Neo-Darwinists, Intellingence Design, Theistic Evolutionists, Creationists etc. After 2 years of reading everything I could I came to the opinion that random mutation and natural selection were not the cause or evolutionm as per the Darwinian theory. There had to be some better explanation. Shapiro's work and the work of others in that school convinced me that that was correct.I always believed God planned evolution, and these studies solidified by belief. So relax and think before you go half-cocked and call someone a liar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Granny I never said that I was led to God by Shapiro's writings, use your head and think before you write. No, you very strongly implied that Shapiro had led you to the conclusion that God had been involved in creation. Which just so happened, by an astonishing co-incidence, to be what you already believed. How convenient.
I stated when I 1st started posting that I was a practicing Roman catholic. That when I closed my law practice I began reading about evolution. I read Darwinists, Neo-Darwinists, Intellingence Design, Theistic Evolutionists, Creationists etc. After 2 years of reading everything I could I came to the opinion that random mutation and natural selection were not the cause or evolutionm as per the Darwinian theory. Exactly as I described above. You spent two years looking for ways to prop up your pre-existing belief in Catholic dogma. In fact your desire to find ways to pick holes in the ToE has been your primary pre-occupation during your time here. You dig out these little holes and then you inject your little god into them.It's plainly rationalisation. I suspect that you do this because you know perfectly well that Catholic theology is extremely shaky on the subject of evolution and you are looking for a way to make that problem go away. Well this isn't it my friend. You are wasting your energy.
There had to be some better explanation. Oh please do tell! I would sincerely love to hear your scenario. What exactly do you imagine is going on? Does Yaweh meddle in every mutation? Just a few? What exactly is his involvement? How does God fill the alleged gaps in the ToE?
I always believed God planned evolution, and these studies solidified by belief. Yes, exactly as I said. You go looking to prop up your belief. You find the work of someone like Shapiro and, no matter how much that work is criticised, no matter how fringe it is, no matter how much it is derided by other scientists, you cling onto that germ of hope. I have seen it many times before. Every single one of your posts here has reeked of rationalisation, of the pursuit of a God of the Gaps argument. That is why I say that you are lying to yourself. My advice is to try and break that bad habit and stop lying to yourself, but you are free to take that as you will.
I always believed God planned evolution, and these studies solidified by belief. They just papered over a crack. I don't think you'll find it to be load-bearing in the long run.
So relax and think before you go half-cocked and call someone a liar. I'm not sure that it's chemically possible for me to be more relaxed right now, but for you, I'll give it a damn good try. Mutate and Survive On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2498 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
shadow71 writes: After 2 years of reading everything I could I came to the opinion that random mutation and natural selection were not the cause or evolutionm as per the Darwinian theory. There had to be some better explanation. There are plenty of people who think that there's more to evolution "random mutation and natural selection" alone. There's one thing that I'd like to ask. You seem to see ways that genomes themselves can react to environmental stimuli as in some way indicative of teleology. What I was wondering was whether you see the same thing in phenotypic plasticity, which you must have known about before you found out that genomes can be directly effected by environmental factors. Do you see teleology behind phenotypic plasticity, or do you think that it can be produced by variation and natural selection? I ask because you might see it as organisms engineering themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes;
So what does directed mean in Dr. Wright's paper. Is it something mysterious that might mean directed by our Creator? Wright paper states; This minireview suggests that sensitive, directed feedback mechanisms initiated by different kinds of stress might facilitate and accelerate the adaptation of organisms to new environments. It says that the feedback is sensitive and directed, and that it might facilitate and accelerate the ADAPATION OF ORGANISMS TO NEW ENVIROMENTS. (emphasis mine) That means that the mutations are sensitive and directed for non-random fitness. It is mysterious in that nature per the theory is not non-random and directed for fitness. So your probably correct, it is most likely directed or planned by our Creator. NoNukes posts;
As this minireview is concerned with the importance of the environment in directing evolution -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nope. It means directed by the environment. Hmm. And non-random means what exactly? And pray tell how does the enviroment direct in a random world? Non-random means directed or planned. Which of course secular naturalism cannot do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Granny Magda writes;
Exactly as I described above. You spent two years looking for ways to prop up your pre-existing belief in Catholic dogma. In fact your desire to find ways to pick holes in the ToE has been your primary pre-occupation during your time here. You dig out these little holes and then you inject your little god into them.It's plainly rationalisation. Oh what a horrible thing to do. How can anyone challenge our precious modern systhesis beliefs which we accept as dogma? Granny Magda continues:
I suspect that you do this because you know perfectly well that Catholic theology is extremely shaky on the subject of evolution and you are looking for a way to make that problem go away. Well this isn't it my friend. You are wasting your energy. I think Catholic theology can stand on it merits. More than I can say for an entity that still stands on the merits of Monarchy. Again from Granny Magda;
Oh please do tell! I would sincerely love to hear your scenario. What exactly do you imagine is going on? Does Yaweh meddle in every mutation? Just a few? What exactly is his involvement? How does God fill the alleged gaps in the ToE? Obviously I cannot speak for God, but if you know what Divine Providence is you can take it from there. There is a plan and it is being carried out. Granny Magda continues;
Yes, exactly as I said. You go looking to prop up your belief. You find the work of someone like Shapiro and, no matter how much that work is criticised, no matter how fringe it is, no matter how much it is derided by other scientists, you cling onto that germ of hope. I have seen it many times before. Every single one of your posts here has reeked of rationalisation, of the pursuit of a God of the Gaps argument. That is why I say that you are lying to yourself. My advice is to try and break that bad habit and stop lying to yourself, but you are free to take that as you will. I admit that I accept the work of Shapiro, a world renown molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, who happens to be outfront of the old dogma defenders of a theory that is being devasted by molecular biology discoveries. And you sir stand on your immutable belief that there cannot be a God, because if there is, your life is shattered. God save the Queen and Atheism. Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
shadow71 writes:
I admit that I accept the work of Shapiro, a world renown molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, who happens to be outfront of the old dogma defenders of a theory that is being devasted by molecular biology discoveries. And you sir stand on your immutable belief that there cannot be a God, because if there is, your life is shattered. God save the Queen and Atheism. What utter crap you post. First, as has been pointed out to you several times, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion or atheism and certainly nothing to do with Christianity. Stop trying to play that stupid, stupid card. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
bluegenes writes;
There's one thing that I'd like to ask. You seem to see ways that genomes themselves can react to environmental stimuli as in some way indicative of teleology. What I was wondering was whether you see the same thing in phenotypic plasticity, which you must have known about before you found out that genomes can be directly effected by environmental factors. Do you see teleology behind phenotypic plasticity, or do you think that it can be produced by variation and natural selection? I really can't answer that question. I am not a scientist. I read the papers of scientists, and draw conclusions from them. I have no idea what phenotypic plasticity is and would need cites to some papers so I could read them and then give you an answer. My opinions on genomes are taken from experts in the field of molecular biology. I see in their findings that there is a vast information based system in the cells that do not rely on random mutation and natural selection for their evolution. That there is decision making in the cells and that leads me to the conclusion that evolution is planned. It is carried out by natural means, but not directed by natural means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
jar writes;
What utter crap you post. First, as has been pointed out to you several times, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion or atheism and certainly nothing to do with Christianity Have you missed the many posts that ridicule "creationists"? There are many on this board that hold the belief that anyone who opposes the modern synthesis, do so on religious beliefs, and therefore must be ridiculed and dismissed as believers and therefore not intelligent assayers of the theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
shadow71 writes: And pray tell how does the enviroment direct in a random world? Non-random means directed or planned. Which of course secular naturalism cannot do. Complete and utter nonsense. I don't see how you can reach that result from what's included in Wright's paper. Dr. Wright uses directed in the sense that the mutation is responsive to a stressing change in the environment and not in a sense that evolution follows a pre-programmed path. If the environment remained stable, then no Lamarkian mutations would take place at all. As Dr. Wright makes clear, she would replace neo-Darwinism evolution with a neo-Larmarkian explanation of evolution that is based on completely naturalistic processes. The controversy is in her Lamarkian approach and not in the use of non-naturalistic explanations. There's nothing the least bit mystical in her paper.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2498 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
shadow71 writes: I really can't answer that question. I am not a scientist. I read the papers of scientists, and draw conclusions from them. I have no idea what phenotypic plasticity is and would need cites to some papers so I could read them and then give you an answer. Phenotypic plasticity is the ability of organisms to change their phenotypes (the physical way they are) without changes on the genome. For example, there are snails which, when attacked by crabs, will develop thicker shells due to the attack. There are aphids which, if the plant that they are on starts to get too crowded, will sprout wings in reaction to the situation so as to move to different plants. Amongst plants it is common. The same plants with the same genomes will grow in different ways according to their environments. Our own most striking example is the ability to tan if exposed to the sun, which provides protection. Other animals will put on thick fur coats in reaction to the cold, and moult in the summer. So, do you see what I'm getting at? These ways that organisms can adjust themselves to external stimuli could be seen as "self-engineering", just like what we've been discussing in relation to genotypes. That was why I was wondering why you wouldn't latch on to these as indications of teleology in biological systems. What do you think?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024