|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Information's role in evolution.Should we put it more in the picture? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Larmi writes:
Empathy acting over long time periods on same genomic place can have a permanent effect . The problem you have is that you have no supporting evidence for empathy having any direct effect on evolution. You may as well say 'love' has a direct effect on evolution. Once somebody accepts the evidence(?) by epigenetics that interraction with environment (not by natural selection) means information flow, then accepting empathy's role is not difficult. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
What about organisms that do not have the neural architecture to experience empathy? What we would expect to see is organisms that can experience empathy having an accelerated rate of adaption to the environment. Do you have any evidence of this? Organisms with no neural system have chemicals ,engineering systems, slicing and HGT mechanisms, mutations, paramutations natural selection. Empathy acts as direct information does, but it can have a more permanent effect on genome, as it it acts repeatedly on the same genome area over long time, maybe thousands of years and has about the same emotional content. No evidence unfortunately. Only speculation at present.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
You could be right when you say that empathy drives evolution but at this point it is only speculation. It's fine to speculate but people here will give you a hard time when you extrapolate beyond the evidence. What is the evidence that mutations are strictly random and not information or function driven? Isn't speculation? You don't seem to worry about it. Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
No evidence unfortunately. Only speculation at present. Just as long as we both understand that it is speculation that is fine. There are many theories in science today that started as speculations. In order to get to the theory stage you need to do more than speculate. You need to figure out some sort of experiment, and then figure out what results would either confirm or falsify your theory/hypothesis. Science is one part inspiration and one part hard work. The hard part is designing experiments that will tell you if your speculation is right or wrong. Thank you! Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
AZPaul mentioned the Lederberg experiment which is one of the classic experiments which demonstrate how mutations are random with respect to fitness. In that example, the Lederbergs discovered that mutations conferring antibiotic resistance occur in the absence of antibiotics, not in response to the presence of antibiotics. It is knoun that fungi produce antibiotics in nature. How the authorshad excluded that some bacteria had met these fungi? Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Becuase if the bacteria already had a latent antibiotic resistance it would have given them a completely different result to the one they observed. They would not have observed the resistance trait arising in line with the established mutation rate. The original Lederberg paper can be read here. So the experiment prooves that there are randon mutations. It does not prove that they are the only ones.According to my "speculative theory"(http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com): 1. random and directed mutations can coexist. 2.In onecell organisms randomness is seen more often. 3.The experiment conditions energise random mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
The bacterial populations were grown from a single bacterium. If that single bacterium was resistant to antibiotics then nearly the entire population would have been resistant. That was not the case. Instead, only 1 out of billions of bacteria were resistant, and this resistance came about due to a mutation that occured prior to the bacteria being exposed to antibiotic. The mutation was not a reaction to the presence of the antibiotic. This experiment has been done time after time after time. The mutations observed in this experiment, and others like it, are random with respect to fitness. I can cite specific biochemical pathways that further demonstrate how mutations are random, if you like. My answer is the same as message 123 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
What is the evidence that mutations are strictly random and not information or function driven? Isn't speculation? You don't seem to worry about it. This is where your mode of thought clashes with the scientific methodology. You ask here why we don't concider empathy as a driver for evolution: the reason that no one conciders empathy as a driver for evolution is because there is no reason to. What you (again!) seem to be saying is that you have a suspision that empthay drives evolution. I'm fine with that but you need to suport your idea with some evidence for anybody in the scientific world to take you seriously. You could be correct, but you have to show us that you correct. You can't appeal to other people to prove you right and expect that to fly in a science forum. I am not a biologist or something alike. 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 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Also, we have shown experiments which demonstrate random mutagenesis. Where are your experiments which demonstrate guided and directed mutations which would make a significant impact on evolution? the question of environment guiding eolution towards specific adaptations, together with natural selection and random mutationsis i think, solved ( see epigenetics, J Shapiro wright, Pigliucci ect). The era of simple answers and simple exlanations has gone.The element and concept of complexitveness in both questioning and answeing is now prevaling. This is a fact.This is the base we have all to agree. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
In one cell organisms randomness is seen more often This is totally contrary to the evidence, in fact the only evidence at all of anything that might constitute a directed mechanism, such as those examples put forward by Wright and Shapiro, are in single celled organisms. Shapiro and Wright had been studying bacteria only. But they say that macroevolution in multi cell organisms is mainly information driven.
The experiment conditions energise random mutations.
What does this even mean? There are some experiments that can induce elevated rates of mutation but the replica plate experiment set up we were discussing isn't one of them.
The replica plate had its own characteristics that they may didn't enhance mutation rates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
You either don't seem to know the work of Shapiro, Wright, Pigliucci, Yablonca, studies in epigenetics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Shapiro and Wright had been studying bacteria only. But they say that macroevolution in multi cell organisms is mainly information driven. We have been saying the same thing, that species evolve through information that moves from the environment to the population through the filter of natural selection. They say information comes directly from outer or inner invironment WITHOUT THE FILTERING BY NATURAL SELECTION( capitalization is mine). What you are saying is entirely different.
The replica plate had its own characteristics that they may didn't enhance mutation rates. This doesn't explain why the clones on the replica plate came from the same spot on the master plate. The only explanation for this is that the mutation occurred on the master plate before the bacteria were exposed to antibiotics on the replica plates.\ I could say the same about the conditions of master plate. Mind you i don't exlude random mutations. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. 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 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
It is not armchair philosphy, it is opinions based upon the knowledge of experts in the field, cited to support our opinions. But zi ko does not know what the research he keeps citing actually says; as this entire thread has shown for all to see. It's like arguing with someone from the dark ages(or the bible belt in modern day USA) where people would believe anything if it sounds reasonable. I clearly had said that my idea of empathy affecting genome and neural system participation in evolution is entirely theoretical with no supporting evidence , based only on logical argumentation. I started from where Shapiro, Wright ect had stopped. That is why i mention them. If you don t like their sayings and scientific findings you can disprove them, or state that they are talking nonsense.Black age and cetera are only in your fantasy. Maybe you would like to be like this, in your effort to support your self esteem . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Put space after the ":" in subtitle to get rid of smilie.Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
What protocol do you suggest in walking through the paper? Maby it would be useful if there is first a definition about your argumentation will be just a debate between a creationist and a naturalist.In this case it will be i think once more useless. IF you stick only to scientific data, i would like it very much. It is also useful to define what is "random". Light for examble when passing through a crystal changes to a specific direction. Is that change random?l Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. 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 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
It is only the information that is passed on to each generation that is important in the process of macroevolution. In this case, natural selection is the filter. I am not sure i undestand. Could you please be more detailed?
The master plate is made up of a very rich medium that bacteria have no problem growing on. Maybe the rich medium is the problem.Starvation enhances mutation rates.Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024