Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 308 of 760 (612281)
04-14-2011 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by shadow71
04-14-2011 12:28 PM


Re: LURIA & DELBRUCK random mutation experiment
I was pointing out there is authority for my assertions.
In science, it is the data that matters, not authority.
Do you reject Shapiro out of hand?
Do you accept Shapiro without understanding the data?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by shadow71, posted 04-14-2011 12:28 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by shadow71, posted 04-15-2011 5:04 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 318 of 760 (612443)
04-15-2011 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by shadow71
04-15-2011 5:04 PM


Re: LURIA & DELBRUCK random mutation experiment
I have told you many times that I do not know the data, or understand all of the data.
Then you will have a tough time understanding why you are wrong.
I assume you and Shapiro understand the data and I rely on Shapiro's statements in papers as to what the data means.
That is what I mean by authority.
The way in which Shapiro uses sleight of hand to replace "fitness" with "potential biological utility" should be a big hint. Like I have stated elsewhere, Shapiro is using salesmanship to sell his ideas. It takes knowledge of the data and field to understand this.
To use an analogy, would you cite a Mercedes salesperson as an expert on why Mercedes are the best cars? Would you reject any criticisms made by auto mechanics about a specific problems with Mercedes models, even though you have no expertise in auto mechanics? Would you tell us that the auto mechanic's criticisms are off base because you have opinions from an authority on Mercedes cars, namely the Mercedes salesperson?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by shadow71, posted 04-15-2011 5:04 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by shadow71, posted 04-15-2011 7:58 PM Taq has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 525 of 760 (620002)
06-13-2011 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 512 by Mazzy
06-13-2011 3:43 PM


I have previously provided research that suggests epigentics plays a bigger role than thought and is a major player in inheritance.
Why are humans and chimps different? Because of epigenetics or because of a difference in DNA sequence?
I have provided research that speaks to HGT being a confounding factor in phylogenic trees. From the look of what your researchers had to invent to address HGT it looks like a meltdown to me.
No researcher I am aware of is stunned by the revelation that transfer of DNA across lineages will confound a phylogenetic tree. Why is this a problem again?
It is as solid as saying chimp-human variation is 1% then altering to 6% MtDNA SNPs....what they choose to count, don't count, miss and misrepresent is as clear as mud...
So you agree that it is the DNA differences that are important, not epigenetics?
Like any desperately needed item that has no alternative, other than creation, TOE will be patched, fixed and modified for eternity rather than letting it die a graceful death, as I and other creationists would recommend.
So if creationists were in charge they would not allow the theory to change, causing it to always be wrong? Why would they do that?
A theory in continual evolution itself with little if any predictive ability, that is also unfalsifiable, will continue to reinvent itself without any assistance from creationists.
Find me a bat with feathers and you will have falsified the theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by Mazzy, posted 06-13-2011 3:43 PM Mazzy has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 526 of 760 (620004)
06-13-2011 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 500 by shadow71
06-12-2011 4:59 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
Shapiro and Pigliucci and finding that evolution is much more complicated then the MS describes it.
However, none of this complication requires directed mutations or throwing natural selection out the window.
Creationism does not require a radical change. If in fact the information systems are more complicated than the MS and micro and macroevolution are driven by two different programs then it may well be that in the future it will be recognized that all things were planned to great specificty.
So you want to replace a well supported theory with your prognistications? Really?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 500 by shadow71, posted 06-12-2011 4:59 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by shadow71, posted 06-16-2011 1:03 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 602 of 760 (621104)
06-23-2011 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 560 by shadow71
06-16-2011 1:03 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
Here are 2 quotes from Shapiro's recently released book,
Please use your own words. Why does the theory of evolution require directed mutations and the absence of natural selection?
Shapiro does and it makes sense
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 560 by shadow71, posted 06-16-2011 1:03 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 604 by zi ko, posted 06-24-2011 4:59 AM Taq has replied
 Message 615 by shadow71, posted 06-25-2011 4:17 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 605 of 760 (621188)
06-24-2011 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 604 by zi ko
06-24-2011 4:59 AM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
Shapiro states that engineering mechanisms systems is geared on by environmental factors.
The product of these "engineering mechanisms systems" is random mutations that are then passed through natural selection. Shapiro points to the SOS mechanism in E. coli as one example. One of the most popular examples is lac revertants where mutations in a broken beta-galactosidase produces a functional enzyme capable of metabolizing lactose. These mutations are not stimulated by the presence of lactose. Rather, the E. coli increase their mutation rate in response to starvation, or DNA damage to be specific. Nowhere in the process does the E. coli sense the presence of lactose and then mutate the specific gene in a specific manner. The mutations are random with respect to fitness just as the Modern Synthesis states.
Shapiro dances around these facts by stating that genetic engineering systems produce more mutations that have a higher probability of changing function. However, these mutations are still random. It is equivalent to buying more lottery tickets to increase your chance of winning. The fact that you buy more lottery tickets does not suddenly make the lottery non-random.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 604 by zi ko, posted 06-24-2011 4:59 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 607 by zi ko, posted 06-25-2011 11:03 AM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 606 of 760 (621189)
06-24-2011 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 588 by shadow71
06-18-2011 3:03 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 588 by shadow71, posted 06-18-2011 3:03 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 635 by shadow71, posted 06-28-2011 7:59 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 628 of 760 (621633)
06-27-2011 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 603 by zi ko
06-24-2011 4:29 AM


Re: Puzzled
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.

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

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 629 of 760 (621635)
06-27-2011 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 616 by shadow71
06-25-2011 4:21 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 616 by shadow71, posted 06-25-2011 4:21 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 630 of 760 (621638)
06-27-2011 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 615 by shadow71
06-25-2011 4:17 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 615 by shadow71, posted 06-25-2011 4:17 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 638 by shadow71, posted 06-29-2011 2:18 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 631 of 760 (621639)
06-27-2011 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 607 by zi ko
06-25-2011 11:03 AM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
Shapiro treats the matter very serioucly and scientifically.He does'nt give any Teleology meaning in his nonrandomness.
They way you treat Shapiro's work is not serious and seriously unscientific. I even spent an hour or so reading through a Wright paper that you suggested, and then you refused to discuss the particlulars with me. In that paper I demonstrated that the mutations cited by Wright are in fact random with respect to fitness.
Also, you need to define what is nonrandom. Cite a specific mechanism that Shapiro discusses, and then show how it is nonrandom with respect to fitness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 607 by zi ko, posted 06-25-2011 11:03 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 632 by zi ko, posted 06-28-2011 12:54 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 633 of 760 (621746)
06-28-2011 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 632 by zi ko
06-28-2011 12:54 PM


As i have said in other thread i can accept mutation randomness in respect to fitness.
Since the Modern Synthesis proposes that mutations are random with respect to fitness would you also agree that the theory does not need modification or replacement?
But as other mechanisms previous in time to mutation lead to somehow in directed by environment random mutations, or propably to other type of genome altering(engineering systems, HGT ) then the result can be what we say as function driven evolution.
Where in the Modern Synthesis does it state that all cellular mechanisms must be undirected?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 632 by zi ko, posted 06-28-2011 12:54 PM zi ko has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 636 of 760 (621764)
06-28-2011 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 635 by shadow71
06-28-2011 7:59 PM


Re: Changing to another undefined term doesn't really help
Here is a quote from Shapiro's book "Evolution, A View from the 21st Century"
I am more interested in data found in peer reviewed scientific journals that backs what you are claiming.
He goes on to give examples of cells that can integrate processes of genome restructuring to serve adaptive needs in normal life cycles.
How is this restructuring inherited by the next generation? How is this restructuring specific to an environmental stimuli? Do bacteria produce specific mutations in specific genes in response to antibiotics, and only those mutations?
He states there is no scientific basis on which to argue cells cannot use functional capacities to produce evolutionary novelties.
You are talking past us. We agree that these "functional capacities" produce evolutionary novelties. What you seem to miss is that these functional capacities do not produce specific mutations in response to specific stimuli, and only those mutations. Rather, these functional capacities produce mutations throughout the genome and are random with respect to fitness.
Do you agree that mutations can be nonrandom with regard to fitness?
No I don't, and I have the data from peer reviewed papers to back it up. Do you?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 635 by shadow71, posted 06-28-2011 7:59 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 637 of 760 (621765)
06-28-2011 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 634 by shadow71
06-28-2011 7:47 PM


Re: Puzzled
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.
All of the data I have seen demonstrates that the mutations observed in the study were random with respect to fitness. I will gladly accept data showing otherwise. When are you going to present this data?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 634 by shadow71, posted 06-28-2011 7:47 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 648 by zi ko, posted 07-01-2011 4:11 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 640 of 760 (621929)
06-29-2011 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 638 by shadow71
06-29-2011 2:18 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
If so I will cite you to his examples of non-random mutations for fitness.
Please do. I have asked for this multiple times. Please reference the data as it is found in the peer reviewed papers.
Added by edit at a much later time point:
You might want to use "Letting Escherichia coli Teach Me About Genome Engineering" written by Shapiro. In this essay he actually references peer reviewed papers that supposedly support his claims. Those referenced peer reviewed papers will contain the data you need.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 638 by shadow71, posted 06-29-2011 2:18 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 643 by shadow71, posted 06-30-2011 4:42 PM Taq has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024