Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 136 of 296 (635301)
09-28-2011 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by shadow71
09-28-2011 1:35 PM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
shadow71 writes:
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.
Great. Start interpreting.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by shadow71, posted 09-28-2011 1:35 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by shadow71, posted 09-28-2011 7:10 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 137 of 296 (635343)
09-28-2011 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Percy
09-28-2011 1:56 PM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
Percy writes:
Great. Start interpreting.
I have been citing Wright, who is interpreting her findings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Percy, posted 09-28-2011 1:56 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Taq, posted 09-28-2011 7:24 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 09-28-2011 8:01 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 138 of 296 (635344)
09-28-2011 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by shadow71
09-28-2011 1:35 PM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
Data does not speak for itself, it must be interpreted.
I fully agree. Like Percy says, start interpreting. That is what I have been asking you to do from the very start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by shadow71, posted 09-28-2011 1:35 PM shadow71 has not replied

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


Message 139 of 296 (635345)
09-28-2011 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Percy
09-28-2011 1:54 PM


Re: Nitpicks and an interesting reference
Percy writes:
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, you make that statement that is off the wall as far as modern synthesis thought goes and then you don't want to answer for it's validity.
This is a debate forum. You can't make statements like that w/o being accountable.
My position is that if your statment is true, then there is no question that there has to be a plan to evolution, it cannot be random.
Here is the statement I am taking about. Taq, Wounded King what do you think about this statement?
Percyy writes:
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.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Percy, posted 09-28-2011 1:54 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Percy, posted 09-28-2011 8:05 PM shadow71 has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 140 of 296 (635348)
09-28-2011 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by shadow71
09-28-2011 7:10 PM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
I have been citing Wright, who is interpreting her findings.
If Wright has interpreted the leuB- reversion findings as evidence of directed mutations then Wright has misinterpreted the findings. That is the whole point of this thread. Let's even agree, for the sake of argument, that Wright does think that these findings indicate directed mutations. With that out of the way, it is now time for you to address my arguments as to why these findings do not indicate directed mutations.
1. These are not directed mutations because the beneficial reversion only occurs once in every 500 million divisions. If this was a directed process then at least 1-10% of the population should have the needed mutation.
2. Wright's own findings show that the mechanism responsible for the directed mutations in the leuB- gene would also produce neutral and deleterious mutations in all genes that are upregulated in a given environment, including vital housekeeping genes.
3. Wright also demonstrated that changing the leuB- promoter and promoter alone changed the rate of hypermutation. This indicates that hypermutation is not specific to the function of the gene, but rather it's physical state as single stranded DNA.
If this does not disprove Wright's conclusion* of directed mutations, then what would?
*this conclusion is only being linked to Wright for this discussion only. This does not indicate that Wright holds this conclusion in real life, but only for the purposes of this discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by shadow71, posted 09-28-2011 7:10 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 141 of 296 (635353)
09-28-2011 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by shadow71
09-28-2011 7:10 PM


Re: Do you agree that this specificity is not compatable with NeoRe: beneficial mutations
shadow71 writes:
Percy writes:
Great. Start interpreting.
I have been citing Wright, who is interpreting her findings.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by shadow71, posted 09-28-2011 7:10 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 142 of 296 (635354)
09-28-2011 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by shadow71
09-28-2011 7:16 PM


Re: Nitpicks and an interesting reference
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by shadow71, posted 09-28-2011 7:16 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by shadow71, posted 09-29-2011 12:31 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 143 of 296 (635406)
09-29-2011 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Percy
09-27-2011 7:13 AM


Re: Nitpicks and an interesting reference
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.
To be fair to the IDists, Wright and Shapiro do frame their research as part of a narrative of overturning or radically altering the current evolutionary paradigm, so it isn't exactly hard to see how people already prone to false dichotomies see that automatically as supportive of their preferred 'theory'.
I think both Wright and Shapiro could do with the T-shirt carrying this slogan ...

The best alt text in the world for the best image in the world.

Come to think of it, I'd like that T-shirt too, in case any of you were wondering what to get me for Christmas.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Percy, posted 09-27-2011 7:13 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by shadow71, posted 10-01-2011 7:20 PM Wounded King has replied

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


Message 144 of 296 (635448)
09-29-2011 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Percy
09-27-2011 7:15 AM


Fitness and your own term, "life perseverance," are synonyms.
Life perservation is a term wider than fitness. Fitness can be included in "life perservation" concept, as others as well; e.g life perservation through intelligent act or through a Designer's decision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 09-27-2011 7:15 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Percy, posted 09-29-2011 10:19 AM zi ko has replied
 Message 147 by Taq, posted 09-29-2011 3:23 PM zi ko has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 145 of 296 (635452)
09-29-2011 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by zi ko
09-29-2011 9:46 AM


zi ko writes:
Life perservation is a term wider than fitness. Fitness can be included in "life perservation" concept, as others as well; e.g life perservation through intelligent act or through a Designer's decision.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by zi ko, posted 09-29-2011 9:46 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by zi ko, posted 10-08-2011 3:02 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 146 of 296 (635475)
09-29-2011 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Percy
09-28-2011 8:05 PM


Re: Nitpicks and an interesting reference
Percy writes:
If you want to discuss the modern synthesis then you should return to your Shapiro thread.
I agree Percy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Percy, posted 09-28-2011 8:05 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 147 of 296 (635525)
09-29-2011 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by zi ko
09-29-2011 9:46 AM


Life perservation is a term wider than fitness.
Doesn't matter. In this experiment the probability of a bacterium surviving the conditions in the environment is 1 in 500 million. Out of 500 million bacteria a single bacterium will survive, and it will be a random bacteria. There is no way you could ever predict beforehand which bacterium is going to get the needed mutation. If you have 100 bacteria then the chances of any of those bacteria survivng is 100 in 500 million, or 1 in 5 million if you want to get rid of some zeros. Life perserverance is determined by random probabilities when it comes to the appearance of beneficial mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by zi ko, posted 09-29-2011 9:46 AM zi ko has not replied

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


Message 148 of 296 (635802)
10-01-2011 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Wounded King
09-29-2011 4:35 AM


Re: Nitpicks and an interesting reference
HI Wounded King,
Just wondering if you have read Shapiro's book, " Evolution a view from the 21st century"?
If so do you belive his science is wrong? Or is it that he strikes a cord that challenges some of the accepted Modern synthesis beliefs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Wounded King, posted 09-29-2011 4:35 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Wounded King, posted 10-01-2011 8:00 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 150 by Taq, posted 10-03-2011 12:38 PM shadow71 has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 149 of 296 (635805)
10-01-2011 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by shadow71
10-01-2011 7:20 PM


I don't read ... books (on biology).
Hi Shadow,
No, I haven't read Shapiro's books. I'm not really one for reading books on the biological sciences any more, although I read many as an undergrad, I much prefer the primary literature nowadays.
So as to what Shapiro say in his book I can't comment. In terms of what he has said in the published literature I think that I have already made my opinion clear in several threads and indeed in the post you just replied to here.
In the discursive elements of his papers and review he frequently goes well beyond what the data will actually support. He also seems to use very confusing non-standard terminology to try and shoehorn a whole series of processes into the category of intelligent, processes which I would argue really don't belong there.
I find it very unlikely that he is more circumspect and restrained in his book than he was in his papers.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by shadow71, posted 10-01-2011 7:20 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 150 of 296 (635969)
10-03-2011 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by shadow71
10-01-2011 7:20 PM


Re: Nitpicks and an interesting reference
Just wondering if you have read Shapiro's book, " Evolution a view from the 21st century"?
I'm with WK on this one. I don't read books on biology. I read the primary lit (and even help write some of it). If I do read a book it is more along the lines of Netter's Infectious Diseases (btw, I know one of those authors personally). When I am curious about something in that book I order the primary lit paper that is referenced in the interesting bit.
So, are we done discussing Wright's paper? Do you agree with the rest of us that there is no evidence of directed mutations in the paper (your opinion, not Wright's)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by shadow71, posted 10-01-2011 7:20 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by shadow71, posted 10-03-2011 3:40 PM Taq 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