|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
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? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Percy writes:
Back in the 1920's the modern synthesis combined evolution and genetics. Is there anything Shapiro is proposing to add that isn't either evolution or genetics? What I am saying is that how evolution takes place is not fully known. I am saying that Shapiro and others are questioning the validity of random mutation for fitness and natural selection as the complete answer to the theory of evolution. Shapiro's natural genetic engineering is based upon a process that cannot be completely random. Would you agree, that if in fact there is a planned natural genetic engineering process, the TOE as we know it today would have to be modified?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined:
|
shadow writes: Descartes theory of dualism, this quote is from wilkipedia I figured you'd go the ghost-in-the-machine route. No neuroscientist worth his spit buys that crap. And neither does Pigluicci. Here's Pigluicci on Descartes and dualism:
Indeed, if you are a dualist (as in mind-body) you actually have a hard time explaining exactly how is it possible that the mind and the body are thus connected (a much bigger mind, Rene Descartes, tried and miserably failed). But if you are an old-fashioned materialist scientist you actually expect a connection between mind and body because they are both the results of biological functions. Dualism is hopelessly flawed... I am most certainly not invoking mysticism or dualism here, I think that intelligence (and consciousness) are the result of the activity of a physical brain substrate. Everything we think and do must be rooted in our brain at some level, unless one wishes to invoke a form of spooky dualism about mental states. And you side stepped the physics question. Does QM lead to Newtonian physics?
shadow writes: I am arguing that both Shapiro, Pigliucci and others are saying that the theories of microevolution and macroevolution are not able to be reconciled at this point. I am not talking about Shapiro. I am talking about Pigliucci. And Pigliucci said:
...incomplete explanations don't invalidate the general picture. And Pigliucci said:
We don't know how to reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity, but no physicist thinks that we therefore ought to conclude that either (or both) theories are wrong. That is crystal clear. Unambiguous. Pigluicci is saying the exact opposite of this:
shadow writes: That they arise separately, and as of now it is not fully known what drives them. And, finally, from his blog, here's Pigliucci on Shapiro:
I am somewhat familiar with Shapiro's work. He is an excellent microbiologist, but has always had a rebellious streak with a penchant for making unnecessarily provocative statements. Bacteria have nothing like cognition in any meaningful sense of the term, and to use that word in that context is a willful misunderstanding of its meaning. Shapiro is not an evolutionary biologist. I do not doubt for a moment that we have much to learn from the way in which natural selection shaped bacteria, but to talk about cognition, intelligence and so forth is unhelpful and misleading. I don't dismiss Shapiro's work, only his unhelpful use of terms like "cognition" and "intelligence" where they clearly don't belong. These terms are normally used in a certain way, which even an undergraduate in biology can tell you is not appropriate for bacteria.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
I cannot accept that these functions are randomly performed Reality is not affected by what you can or cannot accept. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Shapiro's natural genetic engineering is based upon a process that cannot be completely random. Shapiro's natural genetic engineering is based upon a process that relies on escalating random mutation at the genome based upon a biochemical cascade from an outside stimulus to a specific locus in the genome developed over billions of years of intra-cellular trial-and-error (read mutation and selection). Shapiro's natural genetic engineering is based upon a process that you seem hell-bent to misrepresent. If Shapiro and Wright and Pigliucci are right then these unplanned natural mechanisms will become additional vectors of hereditary change within the Theory of Evolution. Descent with modification, random mutation and natural selection, will not have been overturned. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
while "macro" in a non Darwinian sense determines the evolution of organisms for major changes and those changes are not random and natural selection, but mostly enviromentally driven. Then you mis-understand their positions and the mechanisms they propose. Try again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Hi Shadow71,
I think you're misdefining the modern synthesis when you say this:
What I am saying is that, even though the modern synthesis combines genetics with evolution, it still is not able to explain everything by random mutation for fitness and natural selection. The modern synthesis does not stipulate inclusion of "random mutation for fitness and natural selection." The modern synthesis combines what were formerly two independent fields: genetics and evolution. Genetics includes random mutation, but it is not limited to random mutation. Anything else we find out about genetics, such as epigenetic mechanisms that affect gene expression, is still genetics and therefore part of the modern synthesis. In the same way, evolution includes natural selection, and anything additional we find out about evolution, such as drift, is still evolution and therefore part of the modern synthesis. The modern synthesis does not itself say anything specific about genetics or evolution. It is merely a recognition that the changes we see expressed in organisms over time are intimately tied to genetic mechanisms within the cell.
So the modern theory as we know it today, does not have all the answers... The modern synthesis never had all the answers. Probably no theory has all the answers. You don't want to make "doesn't have all the answers" your criteria for discarding a theory because then you'd have no theories left.
If DNA is capable of planning and forethought and careful design of mutations, would you agree that the TOE as known today would have to be modified? Again: modifications to evolution and/or genetics would not have any impact on the modern synthesis. The modern synthesis combines the two fields and evolution and genetics, and so it automatically includes all new developments in those fields. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Fix bad grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
shadow71 writes: What I am saying is that how evolution takes place is not fully known. I am saying that Shapiro and others are questioning the validity of random mutation for fitness and natural selection as the complete answer to the theory of evolution. And this affects the modern synthesis how?
Would you agree, that if in fact there is a planned natural genetic engineering process, the TOE as we know it today would have to be modified? Yes, of course it would have to be modified. What has that to do with the modern synthesis? I think you've got a definitional problem. Many times in your posts when you actually mean the "modern synthesis" you're instead saying "evolution" or "theory of evolution" or "TOE". They are not synonyms. The modern synthesis encompasses all of evolutionary theory, including all new developments and findings. It also encompasses all genetics, including new developments and findings. The definition of the modern synthesis is a simple combining of two fields that were discovered to be closely interdependent. Only the discovery that we were seriously mistaken, that in reality there is no intimate link between genetics and evolution, could cause the modern synthesis to be discarded or replaced. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Notice that my complaint is a that your side of the debate is a lack of definition for the word "information".
Definition of information:Data that (1) has been verified to be accurate and timely, (2) is specific and organized for a purpose, (3) is presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance, and (4) that can lead to an increase in understanding and decrease in uncertainty. The value of information lies solely in its ability to affect a behavior, decision, or outcome. A piece of information is considered valueless if, after receiving it, things remain unchanged. For a technical definition of information see information theory. Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
zi co writes: For a technical definition of information see information theory. I've been staying out of the discussion about information because there is so little agreement in this thread about the nature of information, and some are even confusing it with knowledge. For discussion of information to be productive it needs to be placed in a formal context. This is the first mention of information theory in this thread, and I think moving the discussion in that direction would be a good idea. Information theory has a formal definition of information where it can actually be quantified. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Definition of information: Data that (1) has been verified to be accurate and timely, (2) is specific and organized for a purpose, (3) is presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance, and (4) that can lead to an increase in understanding and decrease in uncertainty. The value of information lies solely in its ability to affect a behavior, decision, or outcome. A piece of information is considered valueless if, after receiving it, things remain unchanged. For a technical definition of information see information theory. Fantastic. Now pick one of the four definitions, put it in context of information theory and explain how exactly that applies to Jewish Wizard Magic and we're off to the races.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3649 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Fantastic. Now pick one of the four definitions, put it in context of information theory and explain how exactly that applies to Jewish Wizard Magic and we're off to the races. In any case information is not God. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Pigliucci and others are saying that the theories of microevolution and macroevolution are not able to be reconciled at this point.. You didn't bother to listen to the Hovind Pigliucci debate, did you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj0m6GrFR3A At 20:39, Hovind specifically addresses micro v. macro, using his banana/dog schtick. Pigliucci’s response at 27:45:
Continents move by accumulation of small movements over a long period of time. Now in talking about continental drift instead of evolution, you would be asking me, How silly! You really think that South America and Africa were one, joined in the same continent? That’s silly. Look at them today. You can’t observe that happening." But we have very good indirect evidence that that’s exactly what happened. And that happened by small, incremental changes over a long periods of time. The same exact way that bananas and dogs come from a common ancestor. By small changes over a very long period of time. Is that clear? Micro leads to macro. Period. End of sentence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
shadow71 wrote: So I am of the opinion that he is proposing a system of decision making in the cells that go beyond nonrandom mutation. zi ko writes: I agree. All recent fidings in evolution biology tent to support this view. This decision making does not include deciding which mutation to create. The mutations seen in subsequent generations are random with respect to fitness. Therefore, this does not go "beyond nonrandom mutations" where it concerns evolution of populations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
What I am saying is that how evolution takes place is not fully known. Baloney. You are saying just the opposite. You are saying that you DO KNOW how evolution occurs, and it occurs through mechanisms that are not a part of the modern synthesis.
I am saying that Shapiro and others are questioning the validity of random mutation for fitness and natural selection as the complete answer to the theory of evolution.
And yet you could not get Shapiro to state outright that mutations are not random with respect to fitness. He danced around it at every turn.
Shapiro's natural genetic engineering is based upon a process that cannot be completely random. But they are random with respect to fitness even if they are not random with respect to time or genomic structure.
Would you agree, that if in fact there is a planned natural genetic engineering process, the TOE as we know it today would have to be modified? The planned genetic engineering processes increase the random mutation rate during times of stress. No need for a rewrite of the modern synthesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Shapiro does not talk about random mutations. Then why is Shapiro suddenly an expert on random mutations?
Can you really say Shapiro is talking about "mutations" that are random? Can you? You are the one who keeps citing Shapiro when you claim that mutations are nonrandom. You tell us, and be specific where it concerns the supporting data. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024