|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Dr. Adequate writes: A scientist investigating genetic mechanisms for evolution is participating in the modern synthesis. That's what it's all about. I agree, and I believe I am presenting scientific papers that if correct would require modification or perhaps replacement of the modern synthesis. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Theodoric writes: I tell you I find your wanting to pray for me offensive and then you compound it. What an asshole. shadow71 writes: I am glad that your are perfect, but, I guess I will pray that perhaps your attitude will change and you become a little more tolerant and forgiving of those who do not agree with you. Theodoric writes: Amazing how you turned around what I said to fit your purposes.Maybe you should take your own advice and be more tolerant. It seems you are the one with toleration issues. I agree. I apologize, and I will try to be more tolerant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Dr. Adequate writes: Thank you so much. In return, I shall spend much of the week dedicating your soul unto Ba'al-Hamon, Lord of the Multitude, in the goetic rite of the Threefold Sacrifice. I go now to purify myself. thanks Dr. Adequate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Truplayer writes:
Under this hypothesis intelligence would be required to establish the mechanical and chemical forces that drive 'Natural Genetic Engineering'.Is the intelligence that determined these forces from (1) an external source (God), (2) part of life itself (i.e. life itself has inherent intelligence) or (3) randomly exists along with all the other "ordering" forces in the universe (like gravity, thermodynamics, mathematics, physics, chemistry, psychology, etc.)? That to me is the ultilmate question. I have my beliefs as do others, but the subject of this thread is whether the modern synthesis does in fact require modification or replacement.My thoughts are, based on the information findings and the biocommunciation hyphothesis and theories ,replacement for Macro evolution, and modification for micro evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I agree, and I believe I am presenting scientific papers that if correct would require modification or perhaps replacement of the modern synthesis. If by the "modern synthesis" you mean our current state of knowledge, then since the mechanisms we're talking about have been known about for the past four decades or more, the "modern synthesis" does not require modification in the light of these well-known facts. It would require modification in the light of new discoveries, not discoveries older than I am.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
bluegenes writes: 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. The full technical title of the Current Theory is "The Evolving and Ever Current Theory of Biological Evolution". It is self-replacing. I agree evolution is a fact, but the theory is not a fact. By that I mean evolution occurs, but how is the theory, and I don't agree wtih the theory as stated in the modern synthesis up to now. That is an interesting name for the theory. If that is the correct definition then I guess it can never be proven incorrect. If for example, the Biocommunciation findings show that random mutations for fitness is not correct, is the theory wrong or is it just modified to acknowledge random mutations for fitness is no longer a component of the theory? The technical name no longer contains the name Darwin, is that acceptable to the scientific community? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
shadow71 writes: I agree evolution is a fact, but the theory is not a fact. By definition.
s71 writes: By that I mean evolution occurs, but how is the theory, and I don't agree with the theory as stated in the modern synthesis up to now. Go for a brief description of Darwin's theory like this: "The origin of species is due to descent with modification from one or several original life forms, a process driven primarily by natural selection." That holds out well now, 152 years after Darwin published OoS, and the papers you're discussing fit it easily. Other processes recognised today like genetic drift create variation, and are encompassed by the word "modification".
s71 writes: That is an interesting name for the theory. If that is the correct definition then I guess it can never be proven incorrect.If for example, the Biocommunciation findings show that random mutations for fitness is not correct, is the theory wrong or is it just modified to acknowledge random mutations for fitness is no longer a component of the theory? You can work out for yourself that mutations are largely random, because there are always far more that are detrimental to the organisms than are advantageous. Speeding up mutation in reaction to the environment just means the possibility of getting a random "hit" positive mutation more quickly. It's an initially random tendency in itself that would be selected for if it's advantageous.
s71 writes: The technical name no longer contains the name Darwin, is that acceptable to the scientific community? My name was a joke, but yes it's certainly acceptable to leave out Darwin's name. Scientists names aren't at all important in descriptions of theories. Incidentally, "gene" is a twentieth century word, and mutations on genes is nothing to do with Darwin. Have you decided whether phenotypic plasticity is an indication of magic yet? It's very common, and your link about "root brains" is a good example. When our skin cells react positively to radiation by tanning to protect their DNA, is that an indicator of intelligent design or sapient cells to you? Organisms making positive changes in direct reaction to their environments is something that was observed long before Darwin's time, so it's rather puzzling that you see anything special about the cell reactions described by Shapiro and Wright.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Shadow71,
Please reply to message 205.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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.
What we have is an increase in the random mutation rate in genes that are actively transcribed. In Wright's model, only 1-4 in every billion bacteria get the beneficial mutation using this mechanism. Also, the increase in random mutations is not directly tied to whether or not mutations in that gene would be beneficial as shown by the increase in mutants in lueB revertants under control of the IPTG inducible T7 promoter. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
taq writes: Swing and a miss. The data is the data. Shapiro's opinions are separate from the data. For example, the results from DNA sequencing is the data. Whether or not this indicates a valid DNA match is the opinion of the expert. You need both. So far you have only presented opinion, not the data. We have a misunderstanding about data and my opinions. I cannot summarize or interpret the data, I am not a scientist.I read for example Shapiro's papers where he presents his findings. i.e. his data to his scientifically trained readers. He then especially in his summary papers presents his interpretation of and opinions formed from his data. I form my opinions on his opinions presented in the papers, based upon his interpretation of the data. Does this make any sense to you? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Reply to Taq message 205.
I can't argue the data or the interpretation with you as Wright would be able to do. I read the papers and when I see a Biologist such as Wright stating in the paper:
Wright writes: Although the mutations per se are random, as described abovefor background mutations, the mechanisms that target operons for increased rates of transcription are highly specific. This specificity is not compatible with current neo-Darwinian dogma. From that I know she feels her research findings are not compatible with the current evolutionary theory. I have read many papers about the new findings about "intelligence" in cells, and I have come to the opininon that this tremedous communciations systems in the cells is not the result of random mutations for fitness and natural selection. That there has to be more to it that that. I am also reading papers about communciation processes within and among cells being agent driven and not compatable with the neo-Darwinian theory. I am also reading papers on talking about self organized processes of adapative evolution also claimed to be inconsistent with the neo-Darwinian theory. So in re your interpretation of Wright's data I cannot intelligently give you an answer. I will provide sources of the above mentioned papers when I feel comfortable with them and we can proceed from there. Hope this makes some sense to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I read the papers and when I see a Biologist such as Wright stating in the paper:
Wright writes: Although the mutations per se are random, as described abovefor background mutations, the mechanisms that target operons for increased rates of transcription are highly specific. This specificity is not compatible with current neo-Darwinian dogma. From that I know she feels her research findings are not compatible with the current evolutionary theory. And yet she's talking about an idea which is older than I am and which so far as I know no-one disputes. So I think she's blowing smoke. In order to show that she's not, it's no use quoting her trying to make her work sound exciting and controversial --- what you need to do is find at least one proponent of "current neo-Darwinian dogma" who says that the mechanisms she's discussing do not exist. Good luck with that. Otherwise, her "current neo-Darwinian dogma" is a straw man --- a "current dogma" which is actually currently held by no-one whatsoever. You've certainly not found anything of the sort on this thread. Instead you're surrounded by advocates of "the current neo-Darwinian dogma" who rather than disputing the existence of these processes and mechanisms on the grounds that it's "not compatible" with our "dogma", instead say: "Yes, we've known about that for the past forty or fifty years, please tell us something we don't know." Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Dr. Adequate writes:
If by the "modern synthesis" you mean our current state of knowledge, then since the mechanisms we're talking about have been known about for the past four decades or more, the "modern synthesis" does not require modification in the light of these well-known facts. It would require modification in the light of new discoveries, not discoveries older than I am. Shapiro writes:
Cell mergers and WGDs are the kinds of events that activate mobile DNA and genome restructuring. In order to fully integrate the genomic findings with our knowledge of mobile DNA, we have to make use of information about the molecular regulation of mobile DNA activities as well as McClintock's view that cells respond to signs of danger, frequently restructuring their genomes as part of the response [1]. This regulatory/cognitive view of genome restructuring helps us to formulate reasonable hypotheses about two unresolved questions in evolutionary theory: (i) the connections between evolutionary change and ecological disruption; and (ii) the origins of complex adaptive novelties at moments of macroevolutionary change. What Shapiro is doing is taking all of the discoveries of the last 40 years plus and formulating hypothesis to explain those findings. He at least has the courage to acknowledge that Darwin and the Neo-Darwinists did not have all the correct answers and he is attempting to provide them, not just saying, Our theory is correct and anyone who disagrees is an idiot. Do you disagree that there are two unresolved questions in the theory as he states?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024