|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,906 Year: 4,163/9,624 Month: 1,034/974 Week: 361/286 Day: 4/13 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
jar writes: shadow71 writes:
In a court of law I, as the attorney, present the Expert, in this case Shapiro via his papers that contain the data, and then with the evidence admitted into evidence, I interpret his testimony in my argument to the jury. That is what I am trying to do in this thread. Thank GOD then that science has nothing to do with a Court of Law and does NOT follow the procedures that work in such environments. In a court of law, attorney arguments and interpretation of data are not evidence, and the trier of fact is not to give anything the attorney says evidentiary weight. Also in a court of law, would not presenting an expert via his papers violate the Confrontation Clause? Edited by NoNukes, : Add Conf Clause
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
shadow71 writes: The last sentence in this quote from Wrights paper on p.7 seem to be saying that these mutations that are non-random would surely be beneficial and therefor selected. I read that as saying that the mutations would be SELECTED, mutations that are non-random and beneficial.Am I wrong? Yes, you are wrong. I'll repeat that last sentence with emphasis added by me.
quote: Wright says that the mechanism for generating non-random mutations is beneficial. In other words, the presence of mechanisms for non-random mutations is itself a product of mutation and selection (and most likely evolution of the neo-Darwinist type). She definitely does not say that the generated mutations would be surely beneficial. You are reading a paper describing natural processes. If something "seems to saying" otherwise, you need to dig harder to be sure. I'll admit to having understood the paragraph as you did the first time I read it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
shadow71 writes: The evidence would be presented by the Expert under direct examination by Plaintiff's counsel and then cross examination by defendants's counselThe data would be admitted by both the experts testimony and the admission of the papers into evidence.The jury, in some cases, may even take the actual papers with them to the jury consulation room where they reach their verdict. There is no hearsay problem under that procedure. That's right. But presenting the evidence without the expert, as you are doing here, would be improper in court. My question is, why are you trying to justify yourself by appealing to courtroom procedures when you aren't even following them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
shadow71 writes: Dr. Wright writes--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Regardless, a mechanism that limits an increase in mutation rates to genes that must mutate in order to overcome prevailing conditions of stress would surely be beneficial and therefore selected during evolution. shadow71 writes: I interpret that to mean that a mechanism is limiting the mutation rates to non-random mutations to certain genes under stress would be beneficial to those genes and selected for evolution. I know how you interpret it. But your interpretation is facially incorrect. Wright says, quite unambigously, that it is the mechanism for generating the non-random mutations that is clearly beneficial. She also says that most mutations are deleterious and does not disclaim that characterization for the mutations produced by her method. Wright's point is instead that the deleterious effect of mutations is limited to specific portions of the genome. This is also stated unambigously in the same paragraph.
shadow71 writes: That is not a process put forth by the Modern Synthesis and goes beyond the modern synthesis. So what? The point of the paper is to propose an alternate naturalistic process and Wright clearly does propose exactly that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Theodoric writes: praying for all on this board
Please do not insult me by performing your voodoo of praying for me. By doing that you imply there is something wrong with me that needs to be fixed. Nothing wrong, nothing needs to be fixed. I don't think shadow71 meant anything like that. He just means to wish us well until he returns.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
jar writes: So Shadow is once again just blowing smoke? Yes. He seems to believe that others understanding of court room procedures are on par with his own understanding of science. He isn't the only lawyer posting here. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Theodoric writes: Or if wished him a good life, but hope that when he dies, his body is put into a hole in the ground so it can rot and creatures in the soil can get to it(legal in Wisconsin). I see your point. On the other hand given knowledge of how you feel, I think I'd find your wish more amusing than offensive. But I suspect my wife would not be amused. In any event, given shadow71's follow up, I am no longer inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on this point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Wounded King writes: I heartily encourage every true born British man and woman on this site to do their patriotic duty and use the term Milliard to denote 109 And I charge all men and women, from sea to shining sea, be they Yank, or Johnny Reb, to join me in keeping the English language safe for America. Respond to each and every use of "milliard" with "what's that about a duck?". And for shizzle, be wizzle of spell checkers that accept that goofy "our" in "or" words. It's the least we can do really until the OP returns to the thankless task of misreading science papers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
shadow71 writes: So according to your intrepretation of Wright we have a mechanism generating non-random mutations that are clearly benefical No that is not what I said and it's not what Wright said. You are simply repeating your own bogus interpretation and attributing it to me. What Wright says is that a mechanism for generating non-random mutations, where said mutations may be beneficial, neutral, or deleterious, but where said mutations are confined to particularly parts of the genome, is a beneficial mechanism and will be selected. Wright says the same thing more than once in the paper.
quote: Get it now? The genetic engineering mechanism is a beneficial mechanism even if it generates mutations that are beneficial, neutral, or deleterious. Natural selection then cleans up. Wright is pretty clear about what non-random means. And it does not mean planned.
quote: So non-random would mean any mutation occurring at a rate directed by the environment or a mutation at some limited portion of the genome and having at least some relation to a metabolic feature of a gene. But the mutation themselves may still be deleterious, beneficial, or neutral with respect to fitness. Even if you disagree with my interpretation of Wright, surely you can see that I don't agree with your self-serving misrepresentation of my words. Please let me know if my meaning is still unclear, or if there is some doubt about my reading of Wright.
This thread is whether the Darwinian theory requires modification or replacement. Not exactly. It's about whether it should be modified or replaced with the nonsense you propose. I doubt most of us would bother with this discussion if the question was merely whether Dr. Wright or Dr. Shapiro disagreed with other scientists. From the OP with my emphasis added.
shadow71 writes: My purpose in this post is to discuss whether the Modern synthesis as it is know today should be modified? Replaced? With A theory based upon adaptations that are directed, modified, regulated and controlled by information exchanges in the cell rather than by mechanical physical, chemical driven adapations driven by random mutations and natural selection. Finally, you have yet to show how this mechanism might work in higher animals. How does starvation result in mutations that make cheetahs run faster or give hawks more acute vision? Until we deal with that, then even the mechanisms you believe exist in bacteria are merely additions to current theory and not a replacement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
shadow71 writes: I guess I don't understand your statement that I am presenting the evidence w/o the Expert. I presented the papers of the Experts, and then, based upon that evidence gave my interpretation of that evidence. What else could I do? It's simple. Barbara Wright and Shapiro are not their papers. Assuming that we are confined to court room procedures, you cannot present lab test results identifying the white powder found on the defendant as cocaine without presenting the testing scientist for cross examination. You cannot substitute an affidavit for the testing scientist. You have to produce the scientist, and we get to ask him what he meant. Similarly, courtroom procedures will not allow you to present Wright's paper without putting Wright on the stand. That procedure, as you've acknowledged, violates the Confrontation Clause. We want to check your interpretation against what Wright actually says, but when we ask what you Wright means, we just get your interpretation. That's pretty unsatisfying partly because you are not a scientist and because you make pretty obvious mistakes in interpretation, always in your own favor. When we ask you to show us how Wright's data matches your interpretation which appears to differ from Wrights (or Shapiro's), you pretend to be using courtroom procedures and are that you are merely offering your closing statement which again is just your misinterpretation of Wright and/or Shapiro. But you admit that your closing statement is not evidence. So where is the evidence? The answer to the question "what else could I do" is show us data that indicates that the mechanisms Wright and/or Shapiro describes produce mutations that are not random with respect to fitness. I don't believe you can do that using the data in those papers, because neither author makes that claim. The attempt might be enough to force even you to notice your mistake. Of course the real problem is that you probably cannot even attempt what's been requested of you. You cannot even respond to Taq's showing that the mutations are random with respect to fitness because you don't understand the data. And that's how life works outside of the court room. Court room procedures are not necessary here. They are just a poor fit for a debate. So don't pretend you are using them when you are not even doing so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
shadow71 writes: I know Cairns and others have challenged the Luria & Delbuck experiment, but it this scientist is correct, we may have no proof of random mutations. I could not find a free copy of the paper you cited, but my impression from reading another of Zheng's papers is that Zheng is skeptical of the evidence presented for directed mutations. Here is an excerpt from his paper "Mathematical Issues Arising From the Directed Mutation Controversy" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...s/PMC1462533/pdf/12750347.pdf
quote: As AZPaul3 has pointed out, null hypothesis does not mean what you appear to think it means. I highly doubt that you have actually read anything more than the summary of the Zheng's paper, and you've misinterpreted even that.
shadow71 writes: This is an exciting event. What event might that be?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
shadow71 writes: It's interesting that Darwin's theory was random mutation period. Now we have studies about directed mutation, adapatilve mutation, intelligence in the cells etc. and all you regulars keep saying all's well with the theory. Of course your summary of Darwin's theory is completely wrong. Darwin's theory is descent with modification. Darwin does not identify a source of modification in Origin of Species. In fact, Darwin knew nothing at all about genetics. I don't think Dawin would have taken much issue with a neo-Lamarkian approach to variation. Perhaps you'd have been a bit closer to the mark if you said "modern synthesis" instead. But even modern synthesis is not the current state of the theory of the evolution.
I will keep reading papers and learn, while you rest in your complacency. More accurately, you'll continue to misread scientific papers looking for a places to insert your personal theology. In the future, I expect you'll do it without correction from others. Your pretended reading of Zheng's work was pathetic.
And sometimes blind men can be more sensual of the facts of nature, than one who can see, but does not. So now you are Einstein, toiling away in the patent office? Your ignorance of the topic of biology is a handicap and not strength. Don't you think it would have been a good idea to become familiar with the current state of evolutionary theory before beginning to insist that it was all wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
shadow71 writes:
By this definition would you agree that the hypothesis of random mutation is neither true or false. ie. not proven.I didn't spend $45 for the paper. I have in my trial career met and worked with many experts in all fields of medicine, so I have access to many papers. No one should agree that the hypothesis of random mutation is neither true or false based on this paper or its summary. What you actually said about Zheng earlier is that if Zheng is correct there may be no evidence for random mutations. Your statement was wrong, and in fact nearly backwards. Can you even acknowledge that before you shift the goal posts to demand proof rather than evidence? And apparently you still don't understand what a null hypothesis is. The null hypothesis is a test hypothesis used to show (to some degree of confidence) that your actual hypothesis (in this case directed mutation) is meaningfully demonstrated by the data. The task for the scientist is to either refute the null hypothesis (H0) or to give up on the alternative hypothesis. An accurate statement would be that if Zheng is correct, there may be little if any evidence for directed mutation. Of course to state what Zheng actually found in detail would require reading the paper, and I haven't done that. Your response regarding Qi Zheng's paper seems a bit coy. Have you read anything other than the summary of Zheng's paper? I can find the summary for free on the web. Edited by NoNukes, : remove bad subscript tags
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
shadow71 writes: That random mutation for fitness is not a proven hypothesis. That directed and adapative mutations do occur.That this is admitted is exciting to me. But as I demonstrated, Zheng admitted no such thing. You simply are unable to accurately read scientific papers. Even the directed mutations that we've discussed so far are random with respect to fitness. Edited by NoNukes, : soften a bit
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
shadow71 writes: Shadow 71 writes:
I know Cairns and others have challenged the Luria & Delbuck experiment, but it this scientist is correct, we may have no proof of random mutations. Dr Adequate writes: Please quote him saying so. Read his paper "The Origin of mutants" Nice slight of hand. But your "this scientist" reference was to Zheng and his paper and not to Cairns and "Origin of Mutants".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024