|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 2/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2956 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
If in fact mutations are nonrandom with respect to fitness, would you consider that the theory as we know it today needs modification? If which mutations are nonrandom? If 99.999% of mutations are random with a few examples of specialized systems that insert viral DNA into palindromic sequences would the entire theory need to be rewritten, or would a footnote do?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If in fact mutations are nonrandom with respect to fitness, would you consider that the theory as we know it today needs modification? Kind of, but not really. If we found that in a very specific situation that one species of bacteria had a mutation dictated by the enivronment, then that mechanism should be added to the theory. I suppose that would technically be a "modification", but it wouldn't change the fact that everything else is still evolving via mutation that are random with respect to fitness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3642 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
"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? You keep asking for data and mechanisms any time some body expresses ideas diferring from your own. Many times you reject so easily works by serious scientists. In other cases you ask mechanisms for theories, hypothesises or ideas that are new and so are not yet known. Iam not saying this is bad . But everything has its time. To be in a hurry to verdict against , shows biased predetermined unscientific viewing.If a hypothesis or heory is not accompanied by substantial evidence , it will remain just a theory to be forgotten.Iam courious why do you avoy to anwser my question by me in other thread , which i repeat again: ,Lamarckism is known. Darwin shared some of these same views, and Weismann , the father of neo-Darwinism, decided late in his career that directed variation must be invoked to understand some phenomena, as random variation and selection alone are not a sufficient explanation .Lamarckism is based on in formation. So it seems does Darwin and Weismann on at least some occasions. You and nobody else before did "ask" them to bring their data or the relative mechanisms for this special matter. Maybe they could it. But you are so rigid for any body proposing same views. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
You keep asking for data and mechanisms any time some body expresses ideas diferring from your own. Isn't that what a scientist should do?
Many times you reject so easily works by serious scientists. No serious scientist would claim that empathy guides mutations.
In other cases you ask mechanisms for theories, hypothesises or ideas that are new and so are not yet known. So you admit that you have no mechanism, not testable hypotheses, and no theory. Why should we take you seriously?
Lamarckism is known. Darwin shared some of these same views, and Weismann , the father of neo-Darwinism, decided late in his career that directed variation must be invoked to understand some phenomena, as random variation and selection alone are not a sufficient explanation . Weismann died in 1914. Work since then has shown that he was wrong. If you want to argue against the theory of evolution as it existed at the turn of the 20th century then you are more delusional than I thought. Please join us in the present.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3642 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
"Many times you reject so easily works by serious scientists. " No serious scientist would claim that empathy guides mutations. "I didn't mean myself . Imeant Shapiro, B. Wright, Yablonnka,Dobjansky,Darwin, Weisman ect when they bring ideas and often facts that difer fron your ideas.
You keep asking for data and mechanisms any time some body expresses ideas diferring from your own. " Isn't that what a scientist should do? I said everything has its time. Do you thing it is clever to change the meaning of my answers?
"In other cases you ask mechanisms for theories, hypothesises or ideas that are new and so are not yet known." So you admit that you have no mechanism, not testable hypotheses, and no theory. Why should we take you seriously? Isaid that the mechanisms are the same that are accepted byDarwin and Weismann. My hypothesis is testable. Your blind untestable belief in the singularity of randomness in evolution is the problem. Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8536 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
My hypothesis is testable. How? What would be the protocol? Have you put together experiment plan? Will you share it with us?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2956 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Shadow71 writes:
I cannot accept that these functions are randomly performed JonF writes:
Reality is not affected by what you can or cannot accept. Please read my message 643 where I present proof of dedicated, nonrandom, beneficial change and tell me if that is reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2956 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
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. In message 643 I present evidence of dedicated, nonrandom, beneficial change. Do acknowledge that the papers show that?What if any effect does this proof have on the modification of the MS? Finally, am I misrepresenting Shapiro in message 643?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2956 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Percy writes:
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. In message 643 I presented papers showing dedicated, nonrandom, beneficial change. Do you consider these findings consistent within the Modern Synthesis? If so would you agree that the MS does not rule out a planned process?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
shadow71 writes: In message 643 I present evidence of dedicated, nonrandom, beneficial change. Do acknowledge that the papers show that? Your Message 643 quotes an abstract. There is nothing in the abstract about "dedicated, nonrandom, beneficial change." Going to the paper at The CRISPR system: small RNA-guided defense in bacteria and archaea, the words "beneficial" and "nonrandom" do not appear in the article. And a quick perusal doesn't seem to reveal any mention of such possibilities. Could you read the article and quote those portions you think are describing "dedicated, nonrandom, beneficial change"? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2956 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Percy writes:
Could you read the article and quote those portions you think are describing "dedicated, nonrandom, beneficial change"? In message 643 I stated that Shapiro in his book cited these 2 papers as evidence of "dedicated, nonrandom, beneficial change." The following is a quote from the paper I linked to online.I cannot gain access to the full paper of the Abstract Shapiro cited, but I accept his judgment as to what it means. The CRISPR system is an elegant, effective, and fluid mechanism of defense against foreign genetic elements (Fig. 4). It is rightly described as an adaptive immune system, which evolved long before its famed namesake. Interestingly, CRISPR's ability to acquire a resistance phenotype and pass it to progeny could be construed an example of a soft, or Lamarckian, mode of inheritance. One could also view this from a conventional Darwinian perspective, where pressure exerted by the environment simply selects the fittest. However, armed with knowledge of the molecular basis of this response, CRISPR-cas does seem to fit more firmly with a Lamarckian paradigm, in essence because increases in fitness do not rely on random mutations but on a much more specific acquisition of genetic information from environmental sources.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Please point out where your quote:
quote: mentions "dedicated, nonrandom, beneficial change"? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2956 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
jar writes:
Please point out where your quotementions "dedicated, nonrandom, beneficial change"? "..., CRISPR-cas does seem to fit more firmly with a Lamarckian paradigm, in essence because increases in fitness do not rely on random mutations but on a much more specific acquisition of genetic information from environmental sources." Dedicated =specific acquistion of genetic information.nonrandom=do not rely on random mutations. beneficial= inceases in fitness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Does the term "dedicated, nonrandom, beneficial change" appear in your quote.
A simple yes or no should suffice. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
shadow71 writes: The following is a quote from the paper I linked to online.I cannot gain access to the full paper of the Abstract Shapiro cited, but I accept his judgment as to what it means. If you merely accept what Shapiro tells you the paper means instead of understanding what it actually says then you can't really discuss it, can you. All you can do is go off and find more Shapiro to quote at us. Your whole approach in this thread isn't that you've examined Shapiro's references and concluded that he's correct. Your approach is merely, "Shapiro's claims agree with what I already believe, so I'll just assume he's correct without trying to understand the evidence he cites." But if you don't understand Shapiro's references, how are you going to discuss them? Seriously, this is a big problem for you. How are you going to convince other people that Shapiro is right about something you don't understand? This isn't due to any shortcomings on your part. How would anybody anywhere ever convince other people of things they don't themselves understand? All they can do is hope the people they are talking to can become convinced without understanding what it is they are being convinced of. But the people you're discussing with here aren't willing to accept things they don't understand. If you want to convince anyone here then you're going to have to understand Shapiro first. That means understanding not just his claims, which you have a fair grasp of, but also the evidence and rationale behind his claims. Here the link to that paper again: The CRISPR system: small RNA-guided defense in bacteria and archaea. Let's see if we can find where Shapiro might think it supports his claim of "dedicated, nonrandom, beneficial change." The word "nonrandom" or "non-random" or even "non random" never appears in the paper. But search for "random" and we can find two occurrences, so let's try to get a handle on why Shapiro thinks the paper supports his position. First we need to understand what CRISPR's are. Looking up CRISPR at Wikipedia (I recommend reading at least the introductory paragraph and giving the diagram a good, long look) we see that it stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats. CRISPR's are specific gene locations in DNA "containing multiple short direct repeats...CRISPR functions as a prokaryotic immune system..." Okay, enough of that excerpt, it's pretty technical. But I've looked up the terms and boiled it down, and in lay terms I can tell you that CRISPR's are one type of a bacteria's defense mechanism against infection by viruses. So let's quote a small portion of the article that includes the first appearance of the word "random":
Thus, during the acquisition of a defensive repertoire, the CRISPR machinery appears to select sequences from the phage genome and incorporate these as novel spacers (Fig. 2B). The selection is not random. This says that the sequences that are inserted as spacers are not selected at random, so let's see if we can figure out how the selection is not random. This article itself is pretty tough for me to follow, we need WK's help, but I think I can figure out some of this. The article uses the term "proto-spacer" to refer to a DNA sequence in the virus genome of the virus that is attempting to infect the bacteria (they use the term phages in the article, instead of viruses). The authors think their evidence suggests that the spacers inserted at a CRISPR location are selected by a process driven by proteins that can recognize the specific sequences in viruses that confer immunity. Is this a "dedicated, nonrandom beneficial change" to the bacteria's genome? I would answer, "Yes." Is it a genetic mechanism that evolved over time through a process of descent with modification and natural selection (in particular, the recognition proteins)? I would again answer, "Yes." We've known for a very long time about viruses' ability to insert genetic material into cells that adds to or replaces DNA in the cell's nucleus to take over the cell's machinery, usually to produce more copies of the virus. This detailed understanding we're developing of the CRISPR mechanisms that allow bacteria to develop resistance to viral infection is new, but it seems to fit perfectly within both modern genetics and evolutionary theory. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024