Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 706 of 760 (622946)
07-07-2011 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 704 by molbiogirl
07-07-2011 11:40 AM


Re: You're really reaching now
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 704 by molbiogirl, posted 07-07-2011 11:40 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 707 by molbiogirl, posted 07-07-2011 2:17 PM shadow71 has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 707 of 760 (622953)
07-07-2011 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 706 by shadow71
07-07-2011 1:31 PM


Re: You're really reaching now
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 706 by shadow71, posted 07-07-2011 1:31 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 710 by shadow71, posted 07-08-2011 3:55 PM molbiogirl has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 708 of 760 (622956)
07-07-2011 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 705 by shadow71
07-07-2011 1:28 PM


Re: Natural Engineering
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 705 by shadow71, posted 07-07-2011 1:28 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 711 by shadow71, posted 07-08-2011 4:03 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 709 of 760 (623057)
07-08-2011 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 705 by shadow71
07-07-2011 1:28 PM


Re: Natural Engineering
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 705 by shadow71, posted 07-07-2011 1:28 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 713 by shadow71, posted 07-08-2011 4:09 PM Taq has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 710 of 760 (623211)
07-08-2011 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 707 by molbiogirl
07-07-2011 2:17 PM


Re: You're really reaching now
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 707 by molbiogirl, posted 07-07-2011 2:17 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 712 by molbiogirl, posted 07-08-2011 4:07 PM shadow71 has not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 711 of 760 (623212)
07-08-2011 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 708 by Percy
07-07-2011 2:29 PM


Re: Natural Engineering
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 708 by Percy, posted 07-07-2011 2:29 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 714 by Wounded King, posted 07-08-2011 5:12 PM shadow71 has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 712 of 760 (623213)
07-08-2011 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 710 by shadow71
07-08-2011 3:55 PM


Re: You're really reaching now
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 710 by shadow71, posted 07-08-2011 3:55 PM shadow71 has not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 713 of 760 (623214)
07-08-2011 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 709 by Taq
07-08-2011 12:05 AM


Re: Natural Engineering
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 709 by Taq, posted 07-08-2011 12:05 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 729 by Taq, posted 07-11-2011 12:28 AM shadow71 has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 714 of 760 (623219)
07-08-2011 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 711 by shadow71
07-08-2011 4:03 PM


Re: Natural Engineering
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 711 by shadow71, posted 07-08-2011 4:03 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 735 by shadow71, posted 07-21-2011 1:22 PM Wounded King has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 715 of 760 (623304)
07-09-2011 8:59 AM


Definition of Evolution
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 genetic
makeup of a population.
This definition is necessary and sufficient (IMHO).
Laurence A. Moran (Larry)
Dept. of Biochemistry
University of Toronto

Replies to this message:
 Message 716 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2011 9:41 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 717 by Percy, posted 07-09-2011 9:43 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 720 by Wounded King, posted 07-09-2011 5:59 PM shadow71 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 716 of 760 (623306)
07-09-2011 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 715 by shadow71
07-09-2011 8:59 AM


Re: Definition of Evolution
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 715 by shadow71, posted 07-09-2011 8:59 AM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 718 by shadow71, posted 07-09-2011 9:48 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 717 of 760 (623307)
07-09-2011 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 715 by shadow71
07-09-2011 8:59 AM


Re: Definition of Evolution
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 715 by shadow71, posted 07-09-2011 8:59 AM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 719 by shadow71, posted 07-09-2011 9:51 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 718 of 760 (623308)
07-09-2011 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 716 by Dr Adequate
07-09-2011 9:41 AM


Re: Definition of Evolution
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 716 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2011 9:41 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 719 of 760 (623309)
07-09-2011 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 717 by Percy
07-09-2011 9:43 AM


Re: Definition of Evolution
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 717 by Percy, posted 07-09-2011 9:43 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 720 of 760 (623365)
07-09-2011 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 715 by shadow71
07-09-2011 8:59 AM


Re: Definition of Evolution
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 715 by shadow71, posted 07-09-2011 8:59 AM shadow71 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 721 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2011 9:52 PM Wounded King has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024