|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2954 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 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Is it your position that both Wright and Shapiro are unqualified scientists who do not understand the "Current neo-Darwinian Dogma" and the scientists on this board are all well qualified and infallible? No, of course not, don't be so silly. The way that you can tell that that isn't my position is that I never said nor implied any such thing. If you want to know what my actual position is, you would do well to read my actual posts and see what I actually wrote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What most on this board are doing is stating WHAT is happening in the cell, i.e. the mechanics . You do not address the WHY and HOW it happens, you just assume it is a Natural process. It is very hard for me to conceive of the mental state that could lead someone to produce those two sentences. However, given that you have done so, might I tactfully suggest that participation on these forums might be too difficult for you, and advise you to take up some hobby that is less intellectually taxing? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Shaprio 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. If it was observed that: 1. a large proportion of that generation all had the same rearrangements from independent events, 2. the shared rearrangement were beneficial, 3. the shared rearrangement only happened in response to a specific stimuli, then I would say that neo-Darwinism needs to be modified. However, this is not what we see, nor has this been observed by Wright or Shapiro. Instead, we find that beneficial re-arrangements are rare, and of the arrangments that are beneficial they are often different rearrangements. We also see that these rearrangements are in response to very general stimuli, such as starvation. We do not see specific reactions to specific stimuli, such as the specific mutation to produce spectinomycin resistance in response to the presence of spectinomycin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2954 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Dr. Adequate post;
shadow 71 writes: What most on this board are doing is stating WHAT is happening in the cell, i.e. the mechanics . You do not address the WHY and HOW it happens, you just assume it is a Natural process. Dr.Adequate writes: It is very hard for me to conceive of the mental state that could lead someone to produce those two sentences. However, given that you have done so, might I tactfully suggest that participation on these forums might be too difficult for you, and advise you to take up some hobby that is less intellectually taxing? Would you also suggest that the following quote from a scientist suggests that he should take up a hobby that is less intellectually taxing? This is what I was suggesting in my statement above.
Corrections to chance fluctuations: quantum mind in biological evolution?
Damiani G. Istituto di Genetica Molecolare / Evolutionary Genetics, CNR, Via Abbiategrasso 207, 27100 Pavia (Italy). damiani@igm.cnr.it AbstractAccording to neo-Darwinian theory, biological evolution is produced by natural selection of random hereditary variations. This assumption stems from the idea of a mechanical and deterministic world based on the laws of classic physics. However, the increased knowledge of relationships between metabolism, epigenetic systems, and editing of nucleic acids suggests the existence of self-organized processes of adaptive evolution in response to environmental stresses. Living organisms are open thermodynamic systems which use entropic decay of external source of electromagnetic energy to increase their internal dynamic order and to generate new genetic and epigenetic information with a high degree of coherency and teleonomic creativity. Sensing, information processing, and decision making of biological systems might be mainly quantum phenomena. Amplification of microscopic quantum events using the long-range correlation of fractal structures, at the borderline between deterministic order and unpredictable chaos, may be used to direct a reproducible transition of the biological systems towards a defined macroscopic state. The discoveries of many natural genetic engineering systems, the ability to choose the most effective solutions, and the emergence of complex forms of consciousness at different levels confirm the importance of mind-action directed processes in biological evolution, as suggested by Alfred Russel Wallace. Although the main Darwinian principles will remain a crucial component of our understanding of evolution, a radical rethinking of the conceptual structure of the neo-Darwinian theory is needed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Would you also suggest that the following quote from a scientist suggests that he should take up a hobby that is less intellectually taxing? No. If he is, as you say, a scientist, I'd suggest that he take up a whole different profession, such as chicken-farming.
This is what I was suggesting in my statement above. No. Just because you're talking nonsense and so is he doesn't mean that you were talking the same nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2954 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Dr.Adequate writes:
No. If he is, as you say, a scientist, I'd suggest that he take up a whole different profession, such as chicken-farming. Here is his cv and access to revelant papers. curriculum - binary theory of everything
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2954 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
"It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the tip of the radicle thus endowed with sensitivity and having the power of directing the movements of the adjoining parts, acts like the brain of one of the lower animals; the brain being seated within the anterior end of the body, receiving impressions from the sense-organs, and directing the several movements.
Do you agree that plants have sensitivity, the power of directing the movements of their adjoinging parts, and that the brain receives impressions from the sense organs and directs their movements is consistent with the current theory?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Do you agree that plants have sensitivity, the power of directing the movements of their adjoinging parts, and that the brain receives impressions from the sense organs and directs their movements is consistent with the current theory? Yes, of course. That is why I have said so very emphatically. The question is, do you deny it? If not, then you must agree that these obvious facts, well known to Darwin himself as well as to all "neo-Darwinists", do not constitute a challenge to orthodoxy but a wholehearted agreement with it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Here is his cv and access to revelant papers. Error
404
(Not Found)!!1 I hope he's good with chickens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2954 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
I have just been reading some papers on "directed mutations" and one very qualified researcher QI Zheng states as follows:
"On a logical difficulty in the directed mutation debate" QI ZHENG Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Rural Public Health, Texas A&M Health Science Center, College Station, TX 77843, USA Summary This paper calls attention to an overlooked logical difficulty that has impeded the directed mutation debate for over half a century. It further suggests that the random mutation hypothesis be regarded at present as a null hypothesis in evolutionary biology. 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. That is an exciting event.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
it this scientist is correct, we may have no proof of random mutations. shadow, do you know what a "null hypothesis" is in science? BTW, did you spend the $45 to actually read the paper? I didn't have to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
shadow71 writes:
When will you fundies ever learn to cite your sources???!! I have just been reading some papers on "directed mutations" and one very qualified researcher QI Zheng states as follows:
"On a logical difficulty in the directed mutation debate" QI ZHENG Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Rural Public Health, Texas A&M Health Science Center, College Station, TX 77843, USA Summary This paper calls attention to an overlooked logical difficulty that has impeded the directed mutation debate for over half a century. It further suggests that the random mutation hypothesis be regarded at present as a null hypothesis in evolutionary biology. 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. That is an exciting event. Given the lack of a source I googled the "Research Interests" of this author. They are as follows:
Where in all of this do you see support for creationism or ID? I suspect the author would be aghast at the uses to which creationists are putting his research.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Just to clarify the point several people have made.
Wikipedia writes: The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position. In other words Zheng is saying, far from our having no 'proof' of random mutations, that random mutation should be considered the default assumption. He is at pains to emphasise however that the fact that we observed results consistent with random mutation in a particular experiment or set of experiments does not preclude the existence of 'directed' mutation in some cases. His conclusion is that the fluctuation test may be an insufficient method either to prove that, in the case of the Luria-Delbruck experiment, "All phage-resistant bacteria in nature resulted from mutations that occurred independently of stimulation of the phage." or that "Some of the observed mutants were due to mutations caused by stimulation of the phage." TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. Please quote him saying so.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024