Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 121 of 296 (635138)
09-27-2011 5:57 AM
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
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.
There are not only the IDsts making fuss about...There are also the believers of Nature's "intelligence", which random believers so unintelligently fight against, just becouse it is a different belief, that makes them to feel unconfortable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Percy, posted 09-23-2011 2:19 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 122 of 296 (635141)
09-27-2011 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Taq
09-22-2011 11:28 AM


Re: beneficial mutations
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 have only shown(? ) that mutations are random in relation to fitness.Nature's intelligence is not simply a metaphor (what does it is supposed to mean?); it is an undeniable fact. Man's intelligence is a proof. Or do you think intelligence stops below human level?
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Taq, posted 09-22-2011 11:28 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Taq, posted 09-27-2011 3:06 PM zi ko has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 123 of 296 (635143)
09-27-2011 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Wounded King
09-27-2011 5:42 AM


Re: Nitpicks and an interesting reference
Wounded King writes:
It is also worth bearing in mind that it is Wright who claims that her research is overturning 'current neo-Darwinian dogma'.
From the Wright paper that Taz cited, Hypermutation in derepressed operons of Escherichia coli K12:
Wright writes:
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.
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:
Wrignt writes:
However, in an evolutionary context, random has a very specific meaning: Neo-Darwinism holds that the spectrum of background mutations and the frequency with which they occur are random (undirected) with respect to selective conditions of the environment.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Wounded King, posted 09-27-2011 5:42 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by shadow71, posted 09-28-2011 1:31 PM Percy has replied
 Message 143 by Wounded King, posted 09-29-2011 4:35 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 124 of 296 (635144)
09-27-2011 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by zi ko
09-27-2011 5:20 AM


zi ko writes:
I suppose mutations inlelation to fitness are random, but are they random in relation to life perservance?
Fitness and your own term, "life perseverance," are synonyms.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by zi ko, posted 09-27-2011 5:20 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by zi ko, posted 09-29-2011 9:46 AM Percy has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 125 of 296 (635160)
09-27-2011 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Taq
09-26-2011 7:53 PM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
Taq writes:
Wright didn't show that in this paper, and it was never stated outright in the section you quoted.
Even more importantly, the data does not support non-random mutations. Wright's opinion does not trump the data.
You miss my point. I am not arguing that Wright is correct, she may be, but I am stating that there are in fact competent, qualified scientists arguing that mutations are not, or may not be, random for fitness or adapation.
Whenever I give this interpretation from a papers such as Shapiro's and Wright's you, Percy and others tell me I am a wackjob, creationists who only interprets papers as to what I want them to say.
I, as Shapiro as stated about me on this board, understand his findings and opinions.
Therefore I am correct in most cases where I state an author is favoring the position that mutations may not be or are not random for fitness.
It is becoming more and more clear that this school of thought is asserting itself in the scientific community.
That's why I am of the opinion that the Darwinian theory includilng neo-Darwinism, and the modern synthesis are in need or revision and change, maybe radical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Taq, posted 09-26-2011 7:53 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Taq, posted 09-27-2011 3:00 PM shadow71 has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 126 of 296 (635167)
09-27-2011 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Percy
09-26-2011 9:09 PM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
Percy writes:
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.
The question I was asking had to do with the interpretion of the Wright paper. No one wanted to answer because it was obvious the question went to the heart of mutations, are they random or non-random for fitness.
Now Wounded King has produced a paper citing Wright, Shapiro and others as propounding the interpretation I gave to Wright's paper and you all laughed at.
Now you are so pendantic as to call out Merlin's interpretion of Wright's paper as wrongheaded and then you procede to give your statement that case is closed, and Wright never claims directed mutations.
Well you should read Wrights paper that Wounded King cited and I have cited before on this board;
"A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution".
Read the paper and tell me that Wright never claims directed mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 09-26-2011 9:09 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 09-27-2011 3:04 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 130 by Percy, posted 09-27-2011 6:53 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 127 of 296 (635178)
09-27-2011 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by shadow71
09-27-2011 12:47 PM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
I am not arguing that Wright is correct, she may be, but I am stating that there are in fact competent, qualified scientists arguing that mutations are not, or may not be, random for fitness or adapation.
Opinions do not trump data. Please support your arguments with data, not opinions.
Whenever I give this interpretation from a papers such as Shapiro's and Wright's you, Percy and others tell me I am a wackjob, creationists who only interprets papers as to what I want them to say.
Actually, I think the term was "daft" which is an apt description. We keep telling you that your opinion of another's opinion does not trump the data. Instead of focusing on the data, you restate your opinion of another's opinion in almost the same words. What more are we supposed to say before you actually focus on the data?
I, as Shapiro as stated about me on this board, understand his findings and opinions.
You don't understand his findings, as you have stated before. You have never delved into Shapiro's data in any of his papers, and you refuse to delve into data produced by Wright in this thread.
Therefore I am correct in most cases where I state an author is favoring the position that mutations may not be or are not random for fitness.
Opinions do not trump data.
It is becoming more and more clear that this school of thought is asserting itself in the scientific community.
Yes, the school of thought where opinions do not trump data.
That's why I am of the opinion that the Darwinian theory includilng neo-Darwinism, and the modern synthesis are in need or revision and change, maybe radical.
Based on what data?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by shadow71, posted 09-27-2011 12:47 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by shadow71, posted 09-28-2011 1:35 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 128 of 296 (635179)
09-27-2011 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by shadow71
09-27-2011 1:32 PM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
The question I was asking had to do with the interpretion of the Wright paper.
Then it is off topic. In this thread we are interpretting the data in the Wright paper.
No one wanted to answer because it was obvious the question went to the heart of mutations, are they random or non-random for fitness.
Wright's opinion is irrelevant. What matters is the data that you refuse to deal with.
Well you should read Wrights paper that Wounded King cited and I have cited before on this board;
What is wrong with the paper in the OP?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by shadow71, posted 09-27-2011 1:32 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 129 of 296 (635180)
09-27-2011 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by zi ko
09-27-2011 6:15 AM


Re: beneficial mutations
Nature's intelligence is not simply a metaphor (what does it is supposed to mean?); it is an undeniable fact.
Then show that it exists with reference to the data in the paper. Show how a 1 in 500 million success rate evidences a type of intelligence. Show how a mechanism that produces deleterious and neutral mutations is an intelligent way to produce a beneficial mutation in 1 out of every 500 million individuals.
Man's intelligence is a proof.
Proof of what? That everything else is intelligent too just because man is? That has to be the worst argument you have used yet.
Or do you think intelligence stops below human level?
It is certainly absent from the mechanism of mutation described in Wright's paper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by zi ko, posted 09-27-2011 6:15 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by zi ko, posted 10-08-2011 2:37 PM Taq has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 130 of 296 (635197)
09-27-2011 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by shadow71
09-27-2011 1:32 PM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
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.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by shadow71, posted 09-27-2011 1:32 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Taq, posted 09-28-2011 11:25 AM Percy has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 131 of 296 (635261)
09-28-2011 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Percy
09-27-2011 6:53 PM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
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.
Actually, I do have an objection. The suggested paper is a review paper where no data is presented. I would agree to a new paper as long as:
1. It is an original research paper where the data and methods are presented, not a review paper. The suggested paper has many references to Wright's own original research papers. Shadow should choose one of those papers for further discussion.
2. Shadow agrees that there is no evidence for directed mutations in the paper currently under discussion. If Shadow does think that there is evidence for directed mutations in the data presented in the current paper then there is no reason to move on.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Percy, posted 09-27-2011 6:53 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Percy, posted 09-28-2011 12:20 PM Taq has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 132 of 296 (635273)
09-28-2011 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Taq
09-28-2011 11:25 AM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
Sounds fair to me.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Taq, posted 09-28-2011 11:25 AM Taq has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 133 of 296 (635295)
09-28-2011 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Percy
09-27-2011 7:13 AM


Re: Nitpicks and an interesting reference
Percy writes:
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.
Do you believe the majority of scientists on this board agree with this statement?
",,,If we discover a process producing specific beneficial mutations it will fit within the modern synthesis..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Percy, posted 09-27-2011 7:13 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Percy, posted 09-28-2011 1:54 PM shadow71 has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 134 of 296 (635297)
09-28-2011 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Taq
09-27-2011 3:00 PM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
Taq writes:
Opinions do not trump data. Please support your arguments with data, not opinions.
All data is subject to an opinion. One scientist may assert the data shows this conclusion, while anothr scientist asserts the data shows a different conclusion.
Data does not speak for itself, it must be interpreted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Taq, posted 09-27-2011 3:00 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Percy, posted 09-28-2011 1:56 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 138 by Taq, posted 09-28-2011 7:15 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 135 of 296 (635300)
09-28-2011 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by shadow71
09-28-2011 1:31 PM


Re: Nitpicks and an interesting reference
shadow71 writes:
Do you believe the majority of scientists on this board agree with this statement?
",,,If we discover a process producing specific beneficial mutations it will fit within the modern synthesis..."
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by shadow71, posted 09-28-2011 1:31 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by shadow71, posted 09-28-2011 7:16 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024