Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9046 total)
579 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, Parasomnium, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), PurpleYouko, Tangle (7 members, 572 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,286 Year: 4,932/14,102 Month: 530/707 Week: 85/176 Day: 14/34 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 91 of 296 (634522)
09-22-2011 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by zi ko
09-21-2011 9:51 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
Guiding had been completed by all preceded paving work.

Why does this paving work only work 1 time out of every 500 million divisions?

The only difference between me and you is that I accept nature's intelligence, which i see all over around, while you accept randomness as the cause of mystery of life and evolution as well without any evidence. We are both just believers.

No belief is necessary. I have shown through objective evidence that mutations are random. "Nature's intelligence" is nothing more than a metaphor you use. It is not an objective measure of anything as your posts have shown.

You are right . Mutations are random, but only to fitness, not to life perseverance.

Please show us how you determined this with reference to the results in the Wright et al. paper.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by zi ko, posted 09-21-2011 9:51 PM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by zi ko, posted 09-27-2011 6:15 AM Taq has responded

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1925 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 92 of 296 (634546)
09-22-2011 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Wounded King
09-19-2011 8:51 AM


Re: beneficial mutations
Wounded King writes:

I'm not sure why you want to specifically argue against evolutionary theory as it stood more than 50 years ago, but then Wright seems to want to argue against evolutionary theory from the end of the 19th century (She identifies the neo-Darwinism that her results call into question as that of Weismann, citing a reference from 1893), so at least your target is a bit more relevant. Ernst Mayr would disagree with you and Wright that what you are discussing is neo-Darwinism as he drew a clear distinction between Weismann's theory and the modern synthesis as formulated in the 30s and 40s.

I really don't see why you picked the late 60s, that is well after the formulation of the modern synthesis. Is there any reason why you don't want to discuss actual modern evolutionary theory?

Lets discuss Darwin's theory, and the modern synthesis up to the late 60's, when molecular genetics became more prevelant. Are you of the opinion that "directionality favoring more actively transcribed genomic regions where more revelant genes may be more likely transcribed " concur with the theory of evolution as expressed to this period?

Wounded King writes:


If you could specify a particular theorist or group it might help, it isn't as if evolutionary theory in the late 60's was a monolithic block with everyone marching in lock step any more than it is today. There were a number of heterodox theories at the time many of which have since fallen out of view as they were not supported by the evidence but some of which, as with Kimura's neutral theory, have become widely accepted.

I am thinking of the cytogenetic observations, molecular genetic findings and Shaprio's "natrural genetic engineering" system, and the rapid changes such as symbiosis, interspecific hybridization and whole genome doubling, that I think the theories up to and including the modern synthesis do not account for. I don't think evolution by slow gradual, random changes is an acceptable theory. It may be for micro changes after rapid changes, but does not account for the rapid changes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Wounded King, posted 09-19-2011 8:51 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Percy, posted 09-22-2011 2:08 PM shadow71 has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20254
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 93 of 296 (634548)
09-22-2011 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by shadow71
09-22-2011 1:52 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
shadow71 writes:

Lets discuss Darwin's theory, and the modern synthesis up to the late 60's, when molecular genetics became more prevelant.

Given this and your other recent posts, I'm not sure that what you want to discuss belongs in this thread. This is from the opening post:

Taq writes:

In this thread I would like to explore a specific paper written by Wright et al.

...

With respect to the paper, I will attempt to demonstrate that the same mechanisms that produce reversions in leuB- organisms will also cause deleterious mutations in very important and vital genes as well as mutations which do not change the fitness of offspring.

Do your recent posts relate to the topic? If so, can you make clear how they relate to the topic for the benefit of those of us trying to follow along?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by shadow71, posted 09-22-2011 1:52 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by shadow71, posted 09-22-2011 4:19 PM Percy has responded

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1925 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 94 of 296 (634556)
09-22-2011 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Percy
09-22-2011 2:08 PM


Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with Neo-Darwinism as it was expressed up until the 1960s?

This was part of my message 72

This is part of my message 78

taq writes:

No, I do not. These findings fit quite well with the random mutations described by the Lederberg's, Luria, and Delbruck. These mutations are random with respect to fitness. As I discussed, this mechanism also produces neutral and detrimental mutations through the same mechanism. In fact, this elevated mutation rate is occuring in housekeeping genes even in the presence of leucine when the bacteria does not need any mutations whatsoever.

Shadow answers

My question is does directionality favoring more actively transcribed genomic regions where more revelant genes may be more likely transcribed concur with the Neo-Darwinism of the late 1960s?

Percy writes:


Do your recent posts relate to the topic? If so, can you make clear how they relate to the topic for the benefit of those of us trying to follow along?

Just trying to establish if Wright's paper does in fact comply with the Darwinian theory up to the modern synthesis, or if in fact Wright is of the opinion that her findings in the paper are not compatable with Darwinian theory up to the modern synthesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Percy, posted 09-22-2011 2:08 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 09-22-2011 5:17 PM shadow71 has not yet responded
 Message 96 by Taq, posted 09-23-2011 12:05 PM shadow71 has not yet responded
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2011 12:57 PM shadow71 has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20254
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 95 of 296 (634562)
09-22-2011 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by shadow71
09-22-2011 4:19 PM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
shadow71 writes:

Just trying to establish if Wright's paper does in fact comply with the Darwinian theory up to the modern synthesis, or if in fact Wright is of the opinion that her findings in the paper are not compatable with Darwinian theory up to the modern synthesis.

This is not related to the topic, but yes, Wright's paper is completely compatible with the modern synthesis. The modern synthesis between the sciences of evolution and genetics developed in the 1930's out of studies that proved they were not only compatible but reinforced each other.

But the modern synthesis is not a combination of the state of evolution and genetics in the 1930's, nor their state in the 1960's, nor in any other time period. Science is not static. Everything we've learned about evolution and genetics since the 1930's only reinforces our confidence that these two sciences are mutually interdependent. Both are necessary to a proper understanding of the history of life on earth and of modern biology.

But that's all beside the point. In this thread Taq is using the Wright paper to show that the mechanisms that drive faster adaptation also produce neutral and deleterious mutations, demonstrating that specific beneficial mutations are not produced.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by shadow71, posted 09-22-2011 4:19 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 96 of 296 (634689)
09-23-2011 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by shadow71
09-22-2011 4:19 PM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
Just trying to establish if Wright's paper does in fact comply with the Darwinian theory up to the modern synthesis,

IMHO, I have established that the findings in the paper are random with respect to fitness. Therefore, it is consistent with the Modern Synthesis. The authors found that there is no specificity for beneficial mutations in leuB, nor is there specificity for the leuB gene in general. Even more, the rate at which the leuB- reversions occur (1 in every 500 million divisions) rules out a deterministic process that produces specific mutations in leuB.

If you disagree with this assessment then I would be more than happy to further discuss the results found in the paper.

or if in fact Wright is of the opinion that her findings in the paper are not compatable with Darwinian theory up to the modern synthesis.

The problem here is that Wright et al. cite work done by Weismann in 1893, well before the Modern Synthesis was complete. The author's opinion of what the Modern Synthesis is or isn't seems to differ from the general opinion of most scientists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by shadow71, posted 09-22-2011 4:19 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Percy, posted 09-23-2011 2:19 PM Taq has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 97 of 296 (634703)
09-23-2011 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by shadow71
09-22-2011 4:19 PM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with Neo-Darwinism as it was expressed up until the 1960s?

If you mean to say that we didn't know in the 1960s about something that we only discovered after the 1960s, then this is perfectly correct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by shadow71, posted 09-22-2011 4:19 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by shadow71, posted 09-23-2011 4:26 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20254
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 98 of 296 (634718)
09-23-2011 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Taq
09-23-2011 12:05 PM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
Taq writes:

The problem here is that Wright et al. cite work done by Weismann in 1893, well before the Modern Synthesis was complete. The author's opinion of what the Modern Synthesis is or isn't seems to differ from the general opinion of most scientists.

You're referring to Wright's concluding paragraph:

Wright et al writes:

The current paradigm of neo-Darwinism as formulated by Weisman (59) rejects any influence of the environment on the direction of variation. However, prolonged nutritional stress results in a general increase in mutation rates; the introduction of environmental effects on specific mutation rates is a reasonable extension of what is known, especially because mechanisms by which starvation can immediately and specifically affect rates of transcription and mutation are consistent with accepted principles of molecular biology. The proposed mechanism of derepression-induced hypermutation provides the critical link between mutations and the metabolic activities evoked by specific conditions of environmental stress, increasing the availability of variants most likely to evolve in that environment.

She begins this paragraph, with, "The current paradigm of neo-Darwinism as formulated by Weisman (59)..." I would never have followed the reference to discover that it's from 1893, so thanks for the information. Does Wright really believe that the "current paradigm of neo-Darwinism" had not changed in the intervening 106 years before she wrote her paper? How, uh, interesting.

She nonetheless continues to describe her findings as "a reasonable extension," thus confirming that she doesn't view her findings as indicating environmentally influenced direction. The Wikipedia article on Neo-Darwinism says that Weisman rejected any form of Lamarckism because "he could see no obvious means of communication between" environment and "germ plasm." But now we know that such communication channels do exist.

I honestly don't understand the fuss from IDists about environment influencing the direction of evolution. It's an ability that could evolve, and someday we may discover it already has, and that would still say nothing pro or con about a designer.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Taq, posted 09-23-2011 12:05 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Taq, posted 09-23-2011 4:36 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 121 by zi ko, posted 09-27-2011 5:57 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1925 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 99 of 296 (634742)
09-23-2011 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Dr Adequate
09-23-2011 12:57 PM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
shadow71 writes:

Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with Neo-Darwinism as it was expressed up until the 1960s?

Dr Adequate writes:

If you mean to say that we didn't know in the 1960s about something that we only discovered after the 1960s, then this is perfectly correct.

No, what I am asking is, is this specificity compatable with the Modern synthesis?

Is this specificity random mutation and natual selection?
Doesn't this specificity lead to the conclusion that it cannot be completely random and does lead to beneficial changes in the bacteria?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2011 12:57 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Taq, posted 09-23-2011 4:39 PM shadow71 has not yet responded
 Message 102 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2011 5:31 PM shadow71 has responded
 Message 103 by Percy, posted 09-23-2011 8:47 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 100 of 296 (634743)
09-23-2011 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Percy
09-23-2011 2:19 PM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
She begins this paragraph, with, "The current paradigm of neo-Darwinism as formulated by Weisman (59)..." I would never have followed the reference to discover that it's from 1893, so thanks for the information. Does Wright really believe that the "current paradigm of neo-Darwinism" had not changed in the intervening 106 years before she wrote her paper? How, uh, interesting.

If I was a referee on that paper I would have never allowed them to publish that statement. A citation from at least the 1950's should have been used, at least somewhere after the discovery of DNA.

I honestly don't understand the fuss from IDists about environment influencing the direction of evolution. It's an ability that could evolve, and someday we may discover it already has, and that would still say nothing pro or con about a designer.

I agree. I think it fits more into false dichotomy where anything that counts against evolution is automatically evidence for ID.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Percy, posted 09-23-2011 2:19 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 101 of 296 (634744)
09-23-2011 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by shadow71
09-23-2011 4:26 PM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
No, what I am asking is, is this specificity compatable with the Modern synthesis?

Yes. The only specificity here is to ssDNA.

If it was found that a specific base, and only that base, was mutated in response to the presence of leucine and the lack of a functional leuB gene then that would be incompatible with the Modern Synthesis. However, this is not what we see here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by shadow71, posted 09-23-2011 4:26 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 102 of 296 (634747)
09-23-2011 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by shadow71
09-23-2011 4:26 PM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
No, what I am asking is, is this specificity compatable with the Modern synthesis?

But what the fuck do you mean by that?

According to what some people mean by "the Modern Synthesis", possibly yes. According to what some other people mean by "the Modern Synthesis", possibly no. And this is before we even get in to what you mean by "compatible".

In effect, you aren't really asking questions about biology, you're asking questions about the terminology used to describe developments in the history of biology. It's like asking: "Is the top quark part of the Standard Model?"

Who the fuck cares?

Doesn't this specificity lead to the conclusion that it cannot be completely random and does lead to beneficial changes in the bacteria?

If, by "completely random" you mean you mean "equiprobable" then no, mutation isn't "completely random" and biologists have been explaining that fact to you and everyone else in the world over and over and over again for decade after decade after decade since before I was born.

If by "completely random" you mean something else, then please stop committing the fucking fallacy of equivocation because it is getting rather boring after the thousandth time you do it.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by shadow71, posted 09-23-2011 4:26 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by shadow71, posted 09-24-2011 8:34 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20254
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 103 of 296 (634764)
09-23-2011 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by shadow71
09-23-2011 4:26 PM


Back to the Topic
Despite receiving the same answer, you continue repeating the same off-topic question. It is a good question and well deserving of spending a few posts on, but the question has been answered several times and as it is not the topic I think most would welcome it if you could move on to issues related to the topic.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by shadow71, posted 09-23-2011 4:26 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1925 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 104 of 296 (634921)
09-24-2011 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Dr Adequate
09-23-2011 5:31 PM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
DrAdequate writes:


But what the fuck do you mean by that?

Thank you for you patience and understanding. I know it must be hard to know it all and deal with these other idiots, especially when they challenge your absoutely unassailable beliefs.

There is life beyond "biology." Like what the hell does it all mean, and how did it come about.

You should read Shapiro, Koonin, Caporale, and others and find out how outmoded your belieft in "random" is today.

If you don't see a reason to inquire as to whether "random mutations and natural selection" is questionalble, then live in your safe little world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2011 5:31 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Percy, posted 09-24-2011 8:43 PM shadow71 has responded
 Message 108 by Taq, posted 09-26-2011 11:50 AM shadow71 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20254
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 105 of 296 (634922)
09-24-2011 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by shadow71
09-24-2011 8:34 PM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
shadow71 writes:

Thank you for you patience and understanding. I know it must be hard to know it all and deal with these other idiots, especially when they challenge your absoutely unassailable beliefs.

Are you daft? Do you somehow think parroting the exact same question in the face of repeated answers is some kind of profound search for knowledge deserving of respect? Maybe you could return to your other thread where you were already ignoring answers about Shapiro and the modern synthesis.

Back to the topic. This thread is about the Wright paper's demonstration that environmental factors do not direct evolution in specific directions.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by shadow71, posted 09-24-2011 8:34 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by shadow71, posted 09-25-2011 3:04 PM Percy has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021