Information's role in evolution.Should we put it more in the picture?

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. 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.

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. Why would you say this? The master plate is made up of a very rich medium that bacteria have no problem growing on. So what is it about the plates that predisposes the bacteria to mutations confering antibiotic resistance?

Hi Zi Ko,One thread is sufficient for discussing your ideas about information. This is your thread, it's about information, so your ideas about information should be discussed here. Please stop discussing them over in the Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement? thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Zi Ko,Here at EvC Forum we greatly prefer that participants present in their own words the material they believe supports their ideas, only using links as supporting references. Arguments from authority should be avoided. If you feel familiarity with some person's work is important to understanding your ideas then it is incumbent upon you to provide that familiarity by describing their work here in your own words. Please do not quote them at any length beyond a sentence or two. When you provide links, if it is longer than a single page then please be specific as to where the information appears.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This line of reasoning limits this board to contributions by scientists only. Why have a debate board limited to persons of one discpline.
The reason, I a layman, cite authority for my positions is that I do not have the scientific training to reply to many scientific points.However, I can read what other scientists say and use them as authority for my position.It is not armchair philosphy, it is opinions based upon the knowledge of experts in the field, cited to support our opinions.

You need this same training to put those citations in context with the rest of science. The other problem you seem to have is that you insert your own ideas into what the scientists are actually saying. That is why a knowledge of the data that underpins their conclusions is important. It removes this bias. You lack this knowledge.I would be more than willing to help share my knowledge in this arena. My suggestion is that we all dissect a paper by Barbara Wright (this one). Would you be willing to walk through this paper with me?

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.

Yes I would. I have down loaded the paper, I like to read, highlight, and digest before I comment.
What protocol do you suggest in walking through the paper?

The way I picture it, I could help clarify any questions you have as it relates to the methods and results sections. Before we can have any fruitful discussion you need to understand what each of the figures/tables are saying and how the authors got that data.After that, we can parse the authors' conclusions.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

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.

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?lEdited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

I would be willing to help with the methods section, also.

It's not them I take issue with, it's you.If you can't back up your theory with evidence or reasoned argument it is worse than useless, in scientific circles.That is my justification for calling you an armchair philosopher; you may as well debate how many angels can dance on a pin head.

Maybe an in-depth dissection of that paper deserves a thread of its own.TTFN,WK

I am not sure i undestand. Could you please be more detailed? Maybe the rich medium is the problem.Starvation enhances mutation rates.