|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement? | |||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
There is no science in the paper. It's a review.
First you trot out a woomeister. Then you co-opt a guy who says the exact opposite of what you're claiming. And now you're citing some fish guy from Venuzuela? And I should care about the opinion of a South American aquaculturist why exactly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
sahdow71 writes: Do you disagree with the findings that the CRISPR System discussed in the paper is dedicated, nonrandom and beneficial? You must have this posted permanently on your clipboard for quick pasting into messages. There are parrots and broken records less annoying. WK and I (okay, okay, mostly WK) posted some fairly technical information and some interpretation, maybe we could, oh, I don't know, discuss it? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
There is now more research in the area, so perhaps new discoveries will be forthcoming. So you admit that there is no known mechanism for directed mutations outside of CRISPR domains?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Shadow71 writes:
Do you disagree with the findings that the CRISPR System discussed in the paper is dedicated, nonrandom and beneficial If someone would ANSWER the question I would not have to repeat it.There seems to be on this board scientists who refuse to acknowledge scientific findings that go against the grain of evolutionary dogma of today. Let me rephrase. Does the modern evolutionary theory accept findings of "mutations that are dedicated, nonrandom and beneficial?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Look. Shadow. This is just some sorry little schmuck who publishes papers that nobody reads in some raggedyass backwater "journal" with zero impact and zero influence in order to keep his gig at the Oceanographic Institute of Venezuela.
If that's your idea of an "expert" then I tell you what. Cite some of Perez’ original research that supports your contention. Then we’ll talk. And his original research is all free so you don't have any excuse for not reading it. Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Taq writes:
So you admit that there is no known mechanism for directed mutations outside of CRISPR domains? NO I was discussing possible new discoveries in the CRISPR System. Shapiro has already discussed, even on this board, his findings in his 2010 paper (biasing retrovirus insertion upstream of coding regions) that are non-random with respect to their potential biological utility.CRISPR seem to be a continuation of these discovries. Also Barbara Wright's paper that both I and Ziko cited discusses directed, non-random mutations for fitness. So this area of evolutionary mechanisms is opening quite nicely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Like Percy said, if you want to discuss whether the system qualifies as "dedicated, nonrandom and beneficial" then you should join the conversation Percy and I were having.
I think I have made a reasonable case that the choice of sequences incorporated is not non-random in any meaningful sense, beyond perhaps a variable specificity for certain common motifs occurring hundreds of times even in the small genomes of bacteriophages. I think there is a good argument to be made that the site of incorporation seems to be directed by whatever the incorporation mechanism is. But this is no more non-random than many already widely accepted mechanisms such as VDJ recombination. There is a slight distinction given that any derived benefit is heritable in this case, but then as I have already said many times, there is a good case to be made that the majority of bacterial evolution is Lamarckian in terms of being the inheritance of acquired characteristics. I think there is also considerable reason to doubt that every incorporation into the CRISPR loci is necessarily beneficial on the basis of post-hoc surveys of incorporations in populations under selective pressure. What would be required is to remove the selective pressure using some sort of bacteriophage that was non-lytic and didn't put a significant strain on the host cell, or alternatively to co-infect with such a strain if stress from infection was required to trigger the system. The population could then be assayed for incorporation of sequences at CRISPR loci which came from the non-selective strain. As to dedicated, this seems somewhat subjective. Certainly the CRISPR system does function as a defence mechanism against bacteriophage but whether this is its whole functionality is unclear. There are a number of CRISPR loci which lack the associated CAS and Cascade proteins. So if you want to actually discuss the CRISPR system nothing is stopping you, but you seem once again simply to tell us what other people have said and rely on that to carry your argument. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
I have been meditating on my OP and I really need a good definition of evolution. As many have pointed out on this board, my referals to the MS, Darwin's theory, the modern theory have been not as explicit as they should be.
So as I read the posts and papers etc. it appears that evolution as defined today contains many aspects that were not usually cited when I began my reading on evolution. Here is a definition I came across on the web. Would like your thoughts on this so it can be determined if in fact the OP can be correctely addressed. Here is the definition of Laurence Moran. Taking these ideas into account I propose the following definition; Biological evolution is the process of change in the geneticmakeup of a population. This definition is necessary and sufficient (IMHO). Laurence A. Moran (Larry)Dept. of Biochemistry University of Toronto
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Biological evolution is the process of change in the genetic makeup of a population. That seems reasonable. To which one might add: the theory of evolution is the set of known mechanisms by which evolution takes place. Darwinism might then be defined as the theory of evolution plus the principle of common descent. It would be nicer to have a better word than "Darwinism", but it'll have to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Shadow71,
WK just said this in the message prior to yours:
WK writes: So if you want to actually discuss the CRISPR system nothing is stopping you, but you seem once again simply to tell us what other people have said and rely on that to carry your argument. It's ironic that the very next message is you once again quoting someone. Instead of you polling us over and over again about whether we agree with this quote or that quote, perhaps you could present evidence and argument supporting the quote and then discuss the answers. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
That seems reasonable. To which one might add: the theory of evolution is the set of known mechanisms by which evolution takes place. Darwinism might then be defined as the theory of evolution plus the principle of common descent. It would be nicer to have a better word than "Darwinism", but it'll have to do. Thanks Dr A.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Percy writes:
It's ironic that the very next message is you once again quoting someone. Instead of you polling us over and over again about whether we agree with this quote or that quote, perhaps you could present evidence and argument supporting the quote and then discuss the answers. Don't get so bent out of shape Percy. Just wanted to clarify something for myself.Dr. Adequate helped me with his reply. So now I am rereading papers on CRISPR System and will reply to WK and your responses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I'd be pretty happy with Moran's definition by and large. It still won't cover everything that might be considered an evolutionary event though.
For instance it wouldn't cover the intial events in an endosymbiosis such as that which led to the mitochondria, it would only pertain when the genomes began interacting to enforce the symbiotic relationship, i.e. through genomic reduction of the endosymbiont or through the incorporation of the endosymbiont's genetic material into the host genome. TTFN, WK
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024