Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation

Even after reading your excerpts from 'Philosophy and Theory in Biology', an online open-access philosophy journal, and after rereading key portions of the Wright paper, I couldn't see how this philosophy/biology paper arrives at the conclusion that Wright is endorsing directed evolution. Do you agree with this paper's interpretation? If so, can you help us out here?--Percy

You were called daft because you were parroting the exact same question in the face of repeated answers as if it were some kind of profound search for knowledge deserving of respect. It had nothing to do with your interpretation of the Wright paper, but you then continued your daft behavior by repeatedly quoting the same Wright passage and asking the same question.Merlin's interpretation of the Wright paper is as wrongheaded as your own. Wright never claims directed mutations, and that's a good thing, because her data doesn't support directed mutations.Maybe WK will make the case for how the Wright paper endorses directed mutations.--Percy

From the Wright paper that Taz cited, Hypermutation in derepressed operons of Escherichia coli K12: If we can assume that "accepted principles of molecular biology" are included in the modern synthesis (hopefully we don't end up splitting hairs and can consider neo-Darwinism a synonym for the modern synthesis), then it's hard to understand how Wright could also claim that she's overturning "current neo-Darwinian dogma".But she does seem to equivocate quite a bit, for example stating this questionable requirement of neo-Darwinism: She cites this as if it were a law of neo-Darwinism, but nowhere in biology, including here, can one state anything so unequivocally. As a general rule of course it applies, but no one familiar with biology finds it surprising that environmental factors influence the type, frequency and location of mutations. Responses to environmental factors are themselves subject to evolution, and as I commented to Taz last week, if we discover a process producing specific beneficial mutations it will fit within the modern synthesis while still providing no evidence for an intelligent designer.But the big problem in this thread is that the IDists have one definition of "directed" while biology has another. The IDists see what they interpret as claims of directed evolution (in the biological sense) and interpret this as supportive of an intelligent designer.--Percy

Fitness and your own term, "life perseverance," are synonyms.--Percy

Hi Shadow,I have to agree with Taq. There's a huge on-line world out there, and you'll always be able to find opinions on all sides of any issue. Opinions only matter when they can be supported by the data. This thread is focused on a specific Wright paper (Hypermutation in derepressed operons of Escherichia coli K12). We've provided data backing the interpretation that the environment does not direct mutations. You've provided other people's opinions. You need to support your position with data from the paper. Opinions are not data, and out-of-context sentences presented by themselves in isolation are not data.Now you're saying you'd like to discuss a different paper by Wright, and if Taq has no objection then neither do I, but before we switch papers I think we should reach some common ground about the paper that is this thread's topic. Can you point to anything in that paper that supports your view that mutations can be directed by the environment, or that Wright's intention is to overturn neo-Darwinian dogma? More specifically, can you answer Taq's question: How can an environmental change that causes only one beneficial mutation out of every 500 million time be considered to be directing anything? If something you did only yielded the desired result every 500 million times would you believe you were directing it? You wouldn't conclude that there's a huge random component? If not, why not?Now, there is a very relevant question that should be asked. If the beneficial mutation normally only occurs once out of every, say, 5 billion times, and an environmental change causes the beneficial mutation to increase in frequency to one in every 500 million times, can the environment be said to be directing that mutation?Here's a link to the other paper so people can read it: A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution. But I again suggest we only discuss it once we've concluded the discussion about the paper that is this thread's original topic.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Sounds fair to me.--Percy

Shadow, you're doing it again, get a grip. Stop taking surveys of what people believe and start discussing the topic.If you can support your position with data from the paper, this is the time and place to do it.--Percy

Great. Start interpreting.--Percy

In the last paragraph of the paper, Wright's interpretation of her findings are that they are "a reasonable extension of what is known." Her findings are that the environment can increase the probability of viable variants, with the probability around one in 500 million with nary a hint of direction. Taq and I agree with Wright's interpretation of her findings.It would be helpful if you could explain how you're interpreting the Wright paper to reach a different conclusion.--Percy

Hi Shadow,I know you would like to discuss the modern synthesis and whether Wright's findings conform to it, but that isn't the topic of this thread. This thread is about whether Wright's paper contains evidence of the environment directing mutations. If you want to discuss the modern synthesis then you should return to your Shapiro thread.--Percy

I think you're getting your terms mixed up. You originally said "perservance," which I assumed was just a misspelling of "perseverance". Now you're saying "perservation," which isn't a word and looks like a combination of "perseverance" and "preservation."Whatever word you mean, to me you appear to be talking about fitness, but you say you are not. Okay, but then when you ask if mutations are random in relation to "life <whatever-term-you-come-up>", you'll have to concisely define the term before we can answer. You say, "Life perservation [sic] through intelligent act or through a Designer's decision," but intelligence and designers are not part of any theory of mutation. Maybe you can provide an example of what you're thinking of?--Percy

Just to be clear, you're claiming that environmental change improving the rate of beneficial mutations is evidence of intelligence. Is this really a claim you wish to make? The mutations are still random with respect to adaptation. There's no particular adaptation being chosen. There's nothing being designed with purpose and intent.Since you're claiming that your designer put in place a mechanism that allows evolutionary processes to work better, let me ask if your designer designed evolution, too? If your designer is just designing mechanisms to improve the evolutionary odds then what happens to claims of the designer designing and constructing all life from bacteria to man?--Percy

Hi Shadow,This thread is about what the data in this paper shows: But in your Message 151 you said this: So by your own admission, you're unqualified to participate in this thread. You then go on to argue that Wright and Shapiro believe they've found evidence of non-random adaptation, but that's not the topic of this thread, Shapiro is definitely not the topic of this thread, and Wright does not express any such opinion in the paper that *is* the topic of this thread.If you want to discuss Wright's and Shapiro's opinions, propose a thread over at Proposed New Topics. This thread is for discussing actual data.--Percy

You're co-opting the vocabulary of intelligent design but redefining the terms to advocate for a rather mainstream evolutionary position. Confusion is the inevitable result.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Hmmm. All I can guess is that you thought I was saying something I wasn't saying. Let me try again.Your clarifications revealed that you have no significant disagreements with mainstream evolutionary views, you just prefer to use the terminology of intelligent design but with different definitions. In other words, you believe the same thing as evolutionists, you just prefer to express it using the words intelligent design advocates use, but only after changing their definitions. Your most significant redefinition of intelligent design's terminology was of the word intelligence: You redefined the "intelligent" part of intelligent design to be nature. Basically you said nature is responsible, and evolutionists agree with you.--Percy