|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2933 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Sorry . I didn't intent to.
As i have said in other thread i can accept mutation randomness in respect to fitness. 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. Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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 I subscribe your deductions. But I would like to make some comments on the last note. In Barbara Wright's mini review I read : "The existence of such mechanisms has been predicted by mathematicians (6) who argue that, if every mutation were really random can accelerate the process of evolution in specific directions. and had to be tested against the environment for selection or rejection, there would not have been enough time to evolve the extremely complex biochemical networks and regulatory mechanisms found in organisms today. Dobzhansky (21) expressed similar views by stating "The most serious objection to the modern theory of evolution is that since mutations occur by `chance' and are undirected, it is difficult to see how mutation and selection can add up to the formation of such beautifully balanced organs as, for example, the human eye." Also: "...In fact, Darwin shared some of these same views, and even Weismann (106), 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 " These of of course are not proofs that there is directed evolution driven by information,not only by random mutations and natural selection.But i think they pose seriously the relative question. What is your opinion ? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Re: Natural Engineering
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Zi Ko, I would be glad to provide my opinion but instead find that my attention is fully taken up by your odd juxtaposition of quotes. Why on Earth did you quote Wright in such a way as to make it seem she was stating that Darwin shared Dobzhansky's views about eye evolution, when what she actually said was that Darwin shared some of Lamarck's views about the inheritance of acquired characteristics? AbE: For reference for anyone reading this, here's the paper Zi Ko is quoting from: A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution --Percy Sorry. What i wanted was to stress the fact even Darwin didn't exlude the possibility and therefore the mechanism,, in some cases, where environmental or inernal information plays a role in evolution. I don't mean 'environment role'what it comes from natural selection, as Lamarck didn't know anything about natural selection. so anything Darwin was sharing with Lamarck was out of natural selection. I hope i cleared up the misunderstandjng. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
But if by directed evolution you mean mechanisms that evolve to facilitate more rapid adaptation, that possibility was recognized long before examples were ever identified. --Percy Thank you for the answer. now i would like to make a most crucial question: What science seems to accept as most propable:Are these mechanisms that evolve to facilitate more rapid adaptation in bacteria the result of a) random mutations and natural selection only. b) innate orders put by Supernatural being in order life to be preserved. c) innate orders passed to bacteria from the Information system which rules over Substance in life's substance-information dipole. In my opinion b) is the less scientific approach, although Supernatural becomes a logical proposition when we face the question how life has started and how universe was created.a) faces serious difficulties in accomomodating all new findings in genetic biology. c) seems to me the most propable of all. To make things clearer Iquote from my work: (http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com) " Matter. If we make a bold jump of thought, we can say the four interactive forces, by which the simplest particles in the universe interact with one another, eg gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces are all, in other words, expression of communication between them. So communication, eg information transfer is taking place even between non living matter staff and is essential to universe development. Of course this must happen on a more wide and complicated scale on living organisms and especially as regards to life development and evolution. It seems there is in nature, and it is logical to be, a continuum relating communication from simple matter to higher living beings, as I have mentioned in previous chapters. So, material and information, existence’s basic dipole, are the cornerstones of universe, life and consequently of evolution. Both are equally important. Information, it seems, has the potency of a universal law." I should add that information as being perpetual is self perpetuating life. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
The mechanism appears to be specific to specific classes of pathogens and thus can be called dedicated. The evolved processes have been developed and put in place by random trial and error over many millions of years and are thus now non-randomly invoked by the presence of the specific pathogens Where are the data of this trial and error procedure? Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes: What changes do you think your references would require of the Modern Synthesis? zi ko writes:Where are the data of this trial and error procedure? You answer my question first and I'll answer yours in kind. This question is not adressed to me. So what answer can i give?I am still asking. What are the data for this random trial and error procedure? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
zi ko writes:
Are there ny data that exclude any information participation in procedure of evolution?What are the data for this random trial and error procedure? This is a reference to evolution. Evolution by means of descent with modification and natural selection is a trial and error process. Trials are performed on random modifications, selection weeds out the "errors". --Percy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
jar writes:
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mentions "dedicated, nonrandom, beneficial change"? But he says that... CRISPR is inherited to progeny.....and seems to fit with Lamarckian paradigm...not relying on random mutations... but on genetic information from environment sources.Do you agree with these? Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
... it would only pertain when the genomes began interacting to enforce the symbiotic relationship ... Ithink this interacting means information flow from parasite to the host. Doesn't it lead to my theory based om information? Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Percy writes:
zi ko writes: Ithink this interacting means information flow from parasite to the host. Doesn't it lead to my information theory? You have an idea in your head that you think is information theory, but you do not yourself have an information theory, and you haven't yet acquainted yourself with the information theory used by people in that field, the one initiated by Claude Shannon.
You are right. I didn't know about Shannon and his theory. I think it is entirely different thing. Idont call my theory information theory , but theory of evolution based on information. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
I think you should coherently define information for us or just stop posting here. At the moment you are in three different threads promoting exactly the same nonsense. You can find more about information in my provisional work: (http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
I can't understand what Shannon says. To me information is what the senses bring in from outside or inside word. Knowledge is the understanding of meaning of what senses bring in.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024