|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Take a look at Table 1. We are talking about 0.2 to 2.5 beneficial mutations PER BILLION BACTERIA (1 per 10(9) for our misguided British friends who use the wrong definition for billion ). NB: We don't. I've never seen any British person use the supposedly British system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: NB: We don't. I've never seen any British person use the supposedly British system. The Long Scale is commonly used on the continent. It was official here in my childhood, although I vaguely remember being taught about both. Then our politicians really showed their class. They joined us to the E.E.C. in 1973, and in 1974 switched from the scale best understood by the other Europeans to the Short Scale!*
*I know it's off topic, Moose, but I kept it brief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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. It serves both to emphasise our fraternal links with continental Europe and our independence from the insidious and creeping Americanisation of the English language, which even now tries to insert Zs into the word Americanisation as I type.
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4216 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
To avoid confusion why not just use for US billion, Continental Milliard, the scientific 1.0E+09.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2560 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
Not "genetics": genetics already refers to a broad field, most of which is only tangentially related to evolution. And many who study evolution are not geneticists.
How about: "The theory of evolution"? Or just: "Genetics", which is a one-word summary of the theory.
And I suggest "Darwinism" for genetics + common descent. It's still what Darwin thought of, just with more details drawn in.
"Darwinism" refers specifically to evolution as it involves natural selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
That's what we call a kick-donkey comment, mate. Tell colonial traitor Ken Ham:
Milliards of years* Actually, we can blame the French for all the confusion. And the short scale use in America was started by Brits (early eighteenth century) long before Uncle Sam was born.
chelle longue / chelle courte *A search for "millions of years" gives over 5,000 results on AiG. Talk about obsession!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
We (or future generations) just tell them to bugger off and look up "current" in their dictionaries. See modern
If they say "evolution needs to be replaced" they would be asking for a fact to be replaced, not a theory. But I know what you mean. Some of them just think its "incomplete"... And I think this is what the OP is getting at. That there's some, uh... "freaky" mechanism in this natural genetic engineering that the current, heh, or modern, evolutionary theory is not accounting for. Oh, and that's where God probably is
The full technical title of the Current Theory is "The Evolving and Ever Current Theory of Biological Evolution". It is self-replacing. Obviously a beautiful example of Intelligent Design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: Some of them just think its "incomplete"... And I think this is what the OP is getting at. That there's some, uh... "freaky" mechanism in this natural genetic engineering that the current, heh, or modern, evolutionary theory is not accounting for. Oh, and that's where God probably is... Well, exactly. We've had several threads like this with different I.D. types getting excited about possible reactions in the genome to the environment. The irony is that what's being described is actually a natural facilitator of adaption and evolution. Increasingly, we're getting people who are "detecting" designed evolution. Further up the thread, I asked the O.P. why he didn't see phenotypic plasticity as a sign of his God. They take that for granted, because it's so common and easily observed, but they could just as well see magic in those reactions to external stimuli. Why aren't our cells being intelligent when they tan to protect their DNA? It's "clever" and advantageous, therefore God. Actually later, he did bring up "root brains", which is plant plasticity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1281 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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. It serves both to emphasise our fraternal links with continental Europe and our independence from the insidious and creeping Americanisation of the English language, which even now tries to insert Zs into the word Americanisation as I type. Get over it. We won, you lost. There are more of us than there are of you. And you drink warm beer. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
There are more of us than there are of you. Then I hope you have been brushing up on your pinyin.
And you drink warm beer. Personally I do not drink ... beer. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Wounded King writes: There are more of us than there are of you. Then I hope you have been brushing up on your pinyin.
And you drink warm beer. Personally I do not drink ... beer. TTFN, WK 1.3 billion Chinese can't be wrong ... or is that 1.3 Milliard .... Doh!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
shadow71 writes: I propose that we are now entering into a new era of the theory of Evolution. This may be called the Information driven theory, the Bio-Communicative theory, the Cell Intelligence theory of Evolution, or whatever appropriate name fits the theory. The History of evolution began with Darwin and his theory of descent with modification, the origins of hereditary variation or random mutations, and natural selection. Darwin’s theory was based upon gradual change and positive natural selection. Next came the Neo-Darwinism or the Modern Synthesis in the 20th century which basically combined Darwinian gradualism with genetics. Again the theory was basically random mutation and natural selection. Both of these theories rely on mechanical forces, Physical and Chemical, and reductionism. In a post in the Forum Biological Evolution I introduced James A. Shapiro’s 21 st Century Natural Genetic Engineering writings in the potential falsifications of the theory of evolutionthread.. Shapiro’s work is based upon discoveries from genome sequencing such as genome alterations in key places in evolutionary history, horizontal transfers of DNA segments, Whole Genome Doublings etc. He states that the cellular information in the genome is a Read-Write memory system, which is different from the modern synthesis view of the genome as a Read only memory system subject only to accidental change. Shapiro is of the opinion that Mobile DNA movements rather than replication errors serve as the primary engines of protein evolution.
He writes at page 8 of the above cited paper; One of the traditional objections to Darwinian gradualism has been that it is too slow and indeterminate a process to account for natural adaptations, even allowing for long periods of random mutation and selection. A successful random walk through the virtually infinite dimensions of possible genome configurations simply has too low a probability of success [155] . Is there a more efficient way for cells to search 'genome space' and increase their probability of hitting upon useful new DNA structures? There is, and the underlying molecular mechanisms utilize the demonstrated capabilities of mobile DNA and other natural genetic engineering systems At page 9 he writes; The second major aspect of evolutionary change by natural genetic engineering is that it generally takes place after an activating event which produces what McClintock called a 'genome shock' [160] . Activating events include loss of food [18] , infection and interspecific hybridization (Tables 3 and 4) - just the events that we can infer from the geological and genomic records have happened repeatedly. Episodic activation of natural genetic engineering functions means that alterations to the genome occur in bursts rather than as independent events. Thus, novel adaptations that require changes at multiple locations in the genome can arise within a single generation and can produce progeny expressing all the changes at once. There is no requirement, as in conventional theory, that each individual change be beneficial by itself. The episodic occurrence of natural genetic engineering bursts also makes it very easy to understand the punctuated pattern of the geological record [161] . Moreover, the nature of activating challenges provides a comprehensible link to periodic disruptions in earth history. Geological upheavals that perturb an existing ecology are likely to lead to starvation, alteration of host-parasite relationships and unusual mating events between individuals from depleted populations. Shapiro is not alone in advocating a change in evolutionary theory from the modern synthesis as now expressed, to one of Natural Genetic Engineering. 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. I have now (finally) read through this thread and my answer to your question is 'No.'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes: 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 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? I know you do not like my conclusions from the evidence, but that is up to each reader to contemplate and reach their verdict. There is no hearsay problem under that procedure.
NoNukes writes: 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? I am following courtroom procedures. I present the Expert testimony, their views and opinions, and then my opinions. That's how life works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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. NoNukes writes: 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. So according to your intrepretation of Wright we have a mechanism generating non-random mutations that are clearly benefical, that are then subject to selection, "purifying selection" which is defined as the selective removal of alleles that are deleterious.This then is a procedure that does not conform to the modern synthesis. So Wright is proposing a theory that is not in conformity with the modern synthesis.This thread is whether the Darwinian theory requires modification or replacement. Wright clearly says at the minimun modification, and most probably replacement.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024