|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3646 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3646 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Sounds fair to me.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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..."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024