|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 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 2934 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 2934 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
jar writes:
Does the term "dedicated, nonrandom, beneficial change" appear in your quote.A simple yes or no should suffice. Do you disagree that the CRISPR System they discuss in the paper, are in the authors opinion dedicated, nonrandom, and beneficial?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Percy writes:
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." I read the other paper I linked in my message. I understand what they are saying about the highly adaptive resistance mechanisms that recognize and destroy the invader. I understand they are saying they are nonrandom and beneficial.So I assumed Shapiro would not misrepresent the other paper he cited. Do you disagree with the findings that the CRISPR System they discuss is a dedicated, nonrandom and beneficial system? I have read all or most of Shapiro's papers and his new book. I understand his biological findings, even though if I were to look at them microscopically I would not know what I was looking at. I am not a biologist, but I can read and understand what the authors are saying about their findings. I read many papers and books about the theory of evolution by all the major supporters of their particular interpretation. After all my reading I concluded that evolution could not be an accidental, random process guided by natural selection as per Dawkins, Coyne et. al. I read the IDs papers and didn't accept the fact that it was a Science that should be taught in the schools, but their philosphy made sense to me. I then read Shapiro and, by the way, he is not an Idealogue, not an ID proponent. He sets out his findings, explains what they mean w/o resorting to teleology. I am of the opinion that Shaprio is a very qualifed expert in this field and his findings make sense to me. So from his papers and book it is my opinion that Evolution is a planned created process, just as an atheist such as Dawkins finds it is a accidental process which happens to agree with his Atheism.Could Dawkins ever find or believe that evolultion was planned? So he doing what you say I am doing. Intrepreting his findngs to agree with his belief. Percy writes:
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. I do understand his findings as he told me in the e-mail answers I posted.Many people on this board will never accept the findings of the CRISPR papers and other findings that lead to dedicated, nonrandom, beneficial changes. That does not conform to their belief. Percy writes:
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." This was also my intrepretation after I read Shapiro's book, read the Karginov and Hannon paper and looked at the Abstract I linked. That the process developed over time through descent, modification and selection I have no problem with. After accepting these findings I believe we should think about how this could happen.Is it totally accidental and random? Is it planned? Does it operate like an Engineered system as Shapiro states? Which is more logical?I go with planned, am I wrong ,and if so ,what is the basis for the opinion I am wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
JonF writes:
The information in the paper you linked to appears to me to be reality. It is not anything that challenges the modern synthesis, or that is evidence of directed mutation or directed evolution. Karginov & Hannon," The CRISPR system: small RNA-guided defense in bacteria and archaea" writes:
Perhaps the most important difference is that CRISPR seems dedicated to protection against exogenous invaders, whereas the piRNA pathway is tasked to recognize endogenous parasites. The authors believe it is directed mutation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Taq writes:
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? I take it you agree that the papers Shapiro referred to in his book and I cited on this board re CRISPR System is a process of nonrandom mutations for fitness. If so does this process fit into the theory of evolution as it is known today?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Percy writes:
Descent, modification and selection are natural processes. Planned and implemented by some entity is not a natural process. You seem to be trying to have it both ways. What I am saying is that the whole process of evolution may in fact be planned.Obviously I cannot prove that, nor can you disprove it. But if in fact the process of evolution is planned then it still can be a natural process, planned by a Supernatural being.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
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. Not trying to be a jerk, but can you show by data that the processes have been developed and put in place by RANDOM TRIAL AND ERROR over many millions of years and are thus now nonrandomly invoked by the presence of the specific pathogens? Or is this merely the assumption that that is how evolution works?It seems to me to be a contradiction that the presence of specific pathogens would suddenly lead to a nonrandom process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
We have discussed Pigluicci's ES paper and he concludes that the theory of evolution does not need a new paradigm. Here is a paper entitled:
"Towards a New Evolutionary Theory" by Julio E Perez, Carmen Alfonsi & Carlos Muflioz who come to a different conclusion from Pigluicci while discussing mostly the same processes not addressed in the MS. here is the link: Interciencia – Revista Interciencia Here is the conclusion that I throw out for discussion.
Perez et. al. writes: Though widely accepted as the official scientific explanation for evolution, exerting great influence on both our interpretation of biodiversity and our understanding of the world, modern synthesis lacks some major elements, to wit: endosymbiosis, reticulate evolution, the modern synthesis of embryonic development and evolution (evo-devo), epigenesis, phenotypic plasticity, evolvability; which involve several evolutionary mechanisms such as: fusion of genomes and gene fragments, methylation of DNA, tool kits, regulatiory cis-elements, hybridization and polyploidy. It is also necessary to include different sources of genetic variation, not only mutations. All this knowledge underscores the necessity to develop a new evolutionary theory, a coherent alternative to modern synthesis. Evolution can occur incrementally through small changes (genetic drift and natural selection) or abruptly through hybridization, endosymbiosis, and changes in gene regulation. The environment plays an important role in the evolution of organisms, through epigenesis. Current knowledge allows for the rejection of the central dogma of biology. Although it seems that the study of macroevolution is not an extrapolation and magnification of the events that occur within populations and species, these events cannot be decoupled, since the population in which macroevolution occurs is the same population that evolves at the microevolutionary level. Evolutionary innovations do not seem to arise at random; on the contrary, they seem to have originated from non-random processes based on the epigenetic system. As a consequence of these developments, especially that of epigenetic inheritance, a new and wider definition of evolution seems necessary, one that would be the result of several mechanisms that change both the genetic and epigenetic compositions of populations. The integration of evo-devo with the synthetic theory seems difficult or impossible. The synthetic theory is based mainly on population dynamics, on the correlation of phenotypic variation with statistical gene frequencies in populations, whereas evo-devo explains phenotypic change through alterations in developmental mechanisms, whether they are adaptive or not. As a final conclusion, we think that a new evolutionary theory is needed. Any opinions on whether these scientists are correct or Pigluicci is correct. Does the MS include the issues mentioned here as part of what Percy says is Darwin + genetics? Or does the theory of evolution need a modficaton, a new paradigm, that includes and explains:Endosymbiosis Reticulate evolution Embryonic devopment and evo-devo epigenesis Phenotypic plasticity Evolvability etc.? Edited by Admin, : Fix formatting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Taq writes:
Do you disagree that the CRISPR system only produces mutations within the CRISPR DNA? Do you also agree that eukaryotes like ourselves lack CRISPR regions? I have no basis to disagree with those statements. But I understand the CRISPR Systems were not discovered until apporx 1987.There is now more research in the area, so perhaps new discoveries will be forthcoming. Do you disagree with the findings that the CRISPR System discussed in the paper is dedicated, nonrandom and beneficial? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
molbiogirl writes:
And a paper that hasn't been cited? At all? Ever? By an author whose paper The Risks of Tilapia Culture in Venuzeula got more cites than the paper you quoted? By an author who, in nearly 30 years of publishing, manages, at best, 2 cites for one of his papers on aquaculture? Way to pick em, dude. Do you have any criticisms of the science in the paper?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
molbiogirl writes:
There is no science in the paper. It's a review. Do you have any criticisms of his interpretation and review of the biology he discuses?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024