Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 585 of 760 (620616)
06-18-2011 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 566 by jar
06-16-2011 3:54 PM


Re: More misrepresentation.
jar writes:
The Christian position is to reject creationism and affirm the theory of evolution.
Are you saying that Christians do not beleive in God as the creator?
Do you label Theistic evolutionists such as Collins as "Creationists"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 566 by jar, posted 06-16-2011 3:54 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 586 by Percy, posted 06-18-2011 1:59 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 587 by jar, posted 06-18-2011 2:17 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 588 of 760 (620619)
06-18-2011 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 574 by Percy
06-17-2011 9:17 AM


Re: Changing to another undefined term doesn't really help
Percy writes:
The modern synthesis is the combination of evolution and genetics. As we discover new genetic processes, why do you think they shouldn't be part of the modern synthesis?
Naturally Shapiro should be asked the same question.
I have never said they should not be part of the modern synthesis, I am of the opinon they go beyond the MS and change the nature of evolultion from only random mutation and natural selection.
Shapiro in his new book "EVOLUTION
A view from the 21st Century
states that novelity in evolution arises not by selection but by INNOVATION. He says without variation and novelty selection has nothing to act upon.
Shapiro writes:
The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable. Our current ideas about evolution have to incorporate this basic fact of life."p.2
So in his opinion, based upon his research and his study of the research there has to be a new paradigm for the theory of evolution.
I agree with him that the MS is in fact in need of replacement based upon the new developments since the MS and Shapiro's natural genetic engineering concept.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 574 by Percy, posted 06-17-2011 9:17 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 591 by Percy, posted 06-18-2011 4:34 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 593 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2011 7:29 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 606 by Taq, posted 06-24-2011 11:24 AM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 589 of 760 (620620)
06-18-2011 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 582 by molbiogirl
06-17-2011 2:54 PM


Re: Pigliucci said what?
molbiogirl writes:
(In answering a creotard who denies micro leads to macro) Finally, again, incomplete explanations don't invalidate the general picture. 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.
Is he saying that we don't know how to reconcile micro with macro evolution?
That's how I read the quote when he states we don't know how to reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity...
So in other words we are not sure micro leads to macro, and we know for certain in some cases it does not, but so what, the Theory does not need a new paradigm.
He is pretty straight forward isn't he?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 582 by molbiogirl, posted 06-17-2011 2:54 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 592 by molbiogirl, posted 06-18-2011 6:34 PM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


(1)
Message 590 of 760 (620621)
06-18-2011 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 586 by Percy
06-18-2011 1:59 PM


Re: More misrepresentation.
Percy writes:
No, of course not. He is saying that most Christians reject creationism (which is just bad science), not God. Most Christians have no problem with the modern findings of science.
I guess I have a serious misunderstanding of what is meant by "Creationists" on this board.
I believe that God created the Universe and all within it. So I am called a "Creationist" on this board.
I have often written on this board that I have no problem with evolution, just that I believe it is planned, created, by God.
The letter that Jar cited signed by the 13,000 clergy refered to God our Creator.
So can one believe in God as our Creator, and still not be a "Creationist?"
Percy writes:
So do the explanations of what Pigliucci was saying make sense to you?
I don't agree with all of the explanations. I can't agree that the MS that Pigliucci says does not need replacement by a new more complete theory, cannot explain how micro leads to macro in some cases and not others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 586 by Percy, posted 06-18-2011 1:59 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 594 by Percy, posted 06-18-2011 9:14 PM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 610 of 760 (621379)
06-25-2011 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 591 by Percy
06-18-2011 4:34 PM


Re: Changing to another undefined term doesn't really help
Shapiro writes:
The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable. Our current ideas about evolution have to incorporate this basic fact of life."p.2
Percy writes:
Few would disagree with this, either, but most people here believe this "basic fact of life" has already been incorporated into our ideas.
I cannot accept that these functions are randomly performed. I interpret Shapiro accepting that these functions are not random, and that his natural genetic engineering functions cannot be random.
When he says;
"Our current ideas about evolution have to incorporate this basic fact of life."
What else could he mean than the ability of living organisms to alter their own heredity is beyond the Modern theory ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 591 by Percy, posted 06-18-2011 4:34 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 611 by Percy, posted 06-25-2011 3:01 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 618 by JonF, posted 06-25-2011 6:00 PM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 612 of 760 (621387)
06-25-2011 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 592 by molbiogirl
06-18-2011 6:34 PM


Re: Pigliucci said what?
molbiogirl writes:
ABE: Over the weekend, I thought of another metaphor. Neuroscientists are currently unable to fully explain the mind in terms of the brain. Would you therefore contend that brain and mind are two entirely separate phenomena? Would you then contend that the brain does not "lead to" the mind?
there is a theory that addresses your point.
Descartes theory of dualism, this quote is from wilkipedia
"A generally well-known version of dualism is attributed to Ren Descartes (1641), which holds that the mind is a nonphysical substance. Descartes was the first to clearly identify the mind with consciousness and self-awareness and to distinguish this from the brain, which was the seat of intelligence. Hence, he was the first to formulate the mind-body problem in the form in which it exists today.[4] "
mibiogirl writes:
Are you arguing that since we can't, in Pigliucci's words, "get a physicist to give you a full account of what goes on in your living room -- at the quantum level", the GUT is invalid? Are you arguing that QM doesn't "lead to" GR? That they are fundamentally two different things? Cause that ain't what Pigliucci says. And I guarantee you, a buncha physicists would have your head onna stick.
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..
That they arise separately, and as of now it is not fully known what drives them.
Are they the result of natural genetic engineering?
Are they random mutation for fitness and natural selection?
Are they planned?
Science cannot answer these questions today.
So today we cannot reconcile them. Thats what I am saying.
miobiogirl writes:
You are just another creo/IDiot who "either [misunderstands] the issue or ... [is] deliberately distorting it to serve [his] inane agenda."
By Percy's definition, I don't think I am a "Creationists" as defined on this board. Not sure about the "idiot" issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 592 by molbiogirl, posted 06-18-2011 6:34 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 617 by molbiogirl, posted 06-25-2011 5:34 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 627 by molbiogirl, posted 06-27-2011 2:24 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 613 of 760 (621389)
06-25-2011 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 593 by Dr Adequate
06-18-2011 7:29 PM


Re: Changing to another undefined term doesn't really help
Shapiro writes:
The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable. Our current ideas about evolution have to incorporate this basic fact of life."
Dr Adequate writes:
They do.
For the n+1th time, our ideas do not require modification in the light of things that we already know, because the things we know are in fact our ideas.
This, too, is bleedin' obvious, yet you are having a singularly hard time grasping it.
Our knowledge of genetics requires modification to incorporate the facts about genetics that we haven't found out yet. It already incorporates the things that we have found out.
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 593 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2011 7:29 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 614 of 760 (621393)
06-25-2011 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 594 by Percy
06-18-2011 9:14 PM


Re: More misrepresentation.
Percy writes:
Very generally, a creationist lets his religious beliefs guide his thinking in areas having nothing to do with faith. In science this means which theories he chooses to accept is guided by faith and revelation instead of evidence.
If the modern synthesis is replaced it will be because the evidence indicates it is no longer an accurate model. Semantic arguments can perhaps fuel long bulletin board discussions, but they're far too insubstantial to invalidate theory. The modern synthesis combines genetics with evolution, and none of the discoveries you've mentioned fall outside either genetics or evolution. We've learned a great deal about both in the past century or so, but nothing that isn't either genetics or evolution. Even if we discover that DNA is capable of planning and forethought and carefully designs each and every mutation, it's still genetics.
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.
Shapiro is talking about a natural genetic engineering system, that by definition I believe is not random.
As I understand it "epigenetics" is not caused by random mutation, since genetics is not involved, but it is still a cause of a type of evolution.
So the modern theory as we know it today, does not have all the answers, and in fact theories such as Shapiro's, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Barbara Wright and many others are talking about "planned", "directed" mutations et. al.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by Percy, posted 06-18-2011 9:14 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 621 by Percy, posted 06-26-2011 8:38 AM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 615 of 760 (621394)
06-25-2011 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 602 by Taq
06-23-2011 6:35 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
Taq writes:
As I have shown multiple times, the mutations that Shapiro talks about are random, not directed. Also, Shapiro directly states that these mutations are subject to selection.
Shapiro does not talk about random mutations. Here is a quote from his book p. 6
Shapiro writes:
"Because genome evolution is multilevel, amplifying, and combinatorial in nature, the end results are complex hierarchical structues with characteristic system architectures. Genomes are sophisticated data storage organelles integrated into the cellular and multicellular life cycles of each distinct organism. Thinking about genomes from an informatic perspective, it is apparent that systems engineering is a better metaphor for the evolutionary process than the conventional view of evolution as a selection-biased random walk through the limitless space of possible DNA configurations"
Can you really say Shapiro is talking about "mutations" that are random?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 602 by Taq, posted 06-23-2011 6:35 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 630 by Taq, posted 06-27-2011 4:35 PM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 616 of 760 (621395)
06-25-2011 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 611 by Percy
06-25-2011 3:01 PM


Re: Changing to another undefined term doesn't really help
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 611 by Percy, posted 06-25-2011 3:01 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 619 by AZPaul3, posted 06-25-2011 10:15 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 622 by Percy, posted 06-26-2011 9:09 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 629 by Taq, posted 06-27-2011 4:32 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 634 of 760 (621762)
06-28-2011 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 603 by zi ko
06-24-2011 4:29 AM


Re: Puzzled
ziko writes:
I agree. All recent fidings in evolution biology tent to support this view.but this does not mean that we have to accept inevitably Supernatural interfearence. It can be other evolutional mechanisms than could "make the decisions",as e.g Neural System, (http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com) in metazoa with neural tissue, or engineering systems and maybe other systems yet unkown ,in bacteria.
I agree with your statement that nonrandom mutation does not necessarily mean Creation by a Supernatural being. My point is that to state absoutely that all mutations are random for fitness is dogmatic and not provable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 603 by zi ko, posted 06-24-2011 4:29 AM zi ko has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 637 by Taq, posted 06-28-2011 8:16 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 635 of 760 (621763)
06-28-2011 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 606 by Taq
06-24-2011 11:24 AM


Re: Changing to another undefined term doesn't really help
Taq writes:
The mutations that Shapiro talks about are random with respect to fitness as I have pointed out time after time. On top of that, these random mutations are subject to selection. How could they not be? Can you point to any paper written by Shapiro where detrimental mutations are passed on at the same rate as beneficial mutations?
Here is a quote from Shapiro's book "Evolution, A View from the 21st Century"
James A. Shapiro writes:
A Major assertion of many traditional thinkers about evolution and mutation is that living cells cannot make specific, adaptive use of their natural genetic engineering capacities. They make this assertion to protect their view of evolution as the product of random, undirected genome changes. But their position is philosophical, not scientific, nor is it based on empirical observations."
He goes on to give examples of cells that can integrate processes of genome restructuring to serve adaptive needs in normal life cycles. He states there is no scientific basis on which to argue cells cannot use functional capacities to produce evolutionary novelties.
This is clearly a statement that mutations are non-random with respect to fitness.
Do you agree that mutations can be nonrandom with regard to fitness?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 606 by Taq, posted 06-24-2011 11:24 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 636 by Taq, posted 06-28-2011 8:13 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 638 of 760 (621902)
06-29-2011 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 630 by Taq
06-27-2011 4:35 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
Shapiro's Book writes:
Because genome evolution is multilevel, amplifying, and combinatorial in nature, the end results are complex hierarchical structues with characteristic system architectures. Genomes are sophisticated data storage organelles integrated into the cellular and multicellular life cycles of each distinct organism. Thinking about genomes from an informatic perspective, it is apparent that systems engineering is a better metaphor for the evolutionary process than the conventional view of evolution as a selection-biased random walk through the limitless space of possible DNA configurations"
Taq writes:
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.
Would you agree that Shapiro in the above quote from his book is proposing that mutations for fitness may be other than random?
If so I will cite you to his examples of non-random mutations for fitness.
If not we should agree to disagree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 630 by Taq, posted 06-27-2011 4:35 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 639 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2011 2:35 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 640 by Taq, posted 06-29-2011 4:24 PM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 643 of 760 (622104)
06-30-2011 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 640 by Taq
06-29-2011 4:24 PM


CRISPR/Cas, the Immune System of Bacteria and Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
Taq writes:
Please do. I have asked for this multiple times. Please reference the data as it is found in the peer reviewed papers.
Shapiro cites the paper below as an example of dedicated, nonrandom, beneficial change .
Another paper in re CRISPR is found at The CRISPR system: small RNA-guided defense in bacteria and archaea - PMC which specifically says the changes are nonrandom.
CRISPR/Cas, the Immune System of Bacteria and Archaea
Philippe Horvath1,* and Rodolphe Barrangou2,*
+ Author Affiliations
1Danisco France SAS, BP10, F-86220 Dang-Saint-Romain, France.
2Danisco USA, Inc., 3329 Agriculture Drive, Madison, WI 53716, USA.
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: philippe.horvath@danisco.com (P.H.), rodolphe.barrangou@danisco.com (R.B.)
Abstract
Microbes rely on diverse defense mechanisms that allow them to withstand viral predation and exposure to invading nucleic acid. In many Bacteria and most Archaea, clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) form peculiar genetic loci, which provide acquired immunity against viruses and plasmids by targeting nucleic acid in a sequence-specific manner. These hypervariable loci take up genetic material from invasive elements and build up inheritable DNA-encoded immunity over time. Conversely, viruses have devised mutational escape strategies that allow them to circumvent the CRISPR/Cas system, albeit at a cost. CRISPR features may be exploited for typing purposes, epidemiological studies, host-virus ecological surveys, building specific immunity against undesirable genetic elements, and enhancing viral resistance in domesticated microbes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 640 by Taq, posted 06-29-2011 4:24 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 644 by Taq, posted 06-30-2011 5:02 PM shadow71 has not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 645 of 760 (622109)
06-30-2011 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 639 by New Cat's Eye
06-29-2011 2:35 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Yes, but it doesn't require modification or replacement of the current Theory of Evolution because it is still random with respect to fitness.
Cite away!
There are 2 cites in my message 643 in reply to Taq.
If in fact mutations are nonrandom with respect to fitness, would you consider that the theory as we know it today needs modification?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 639 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2011 2:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 646 by Taq, posted 06-30-2011 5:09 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 647 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-30-2011 5:19 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024