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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 151 of 296 (635988)
10-03-2011 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Taq
10-03-2011 12:38 PM


Re: Nitpicks and an interesting reference
taq writes:
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)?
I do not understand the data from a scientific standpoint. I am not qualified to say one way or the other if there is evidence of directed mutations in the data.
I can only rely on the author who provides the data, and I still think Wright, based upon all her writings is of the opinion there is some type of directed mutations.
The last paper I read by Wright, the Review, was dated I believe 2000. Since then Shapiro has given the opinon there is evidence of mutations that are beneficial and non random. He talks about ..."adaptive inventions with a spontaneous probability of occurrence that is vanishingly small."
So I am still not convinced that all mutations are random for beneficial adapation.
I guess I will go back to my old thread in re Darwinism and is there a need for changes in the Darwin's theory, neo-Darwinism and the modern synthesis, with a discussion of the developments since the 1960's.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Taq, posted 10-03-2011 12:38 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Taq, posted 10-03-2011 5:17 PM shadow71 has replied

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


(1)
Message 152 of 296 (636005)
10-03-2011 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by shadow71
10-03-2011 3:40 PM


Re: Nitpicks and an interesting reference
I do not understand the data from a scientific standpoint.
Then it doesn't matter what Wright et al. actually conclude. You can't tell if that conclusion is supported or not. The same goes for Shapiro.
Also, the entire purpose of this thread was to help you understand the data from a scientific standpoint. So what specific questions do you have? How can we help you understand the data? I like talking science, so no question is a bad question as long as it is asked by a curious mind.
I can only rely on the author who provides the data, and I still think Wright, based upon all her writings is of the opinion there is some type of directed mutations.
If that opinion is contradicted by the data then it is not a worthwhile opinion.
The last paper I read by Wright, the Review, was dated I believe 2000. Since then Shapiro has given the opinon there is evidence of mutations that are beneficial and non random. He talks about ..."adaptive inventions with a spontaneous probability of occurrence that is vanishingly small."
Then please find the primary lit paper where we can look at this data and discuss it in another thread.
So I am still not convinced that all mutations are random for beneficial adapation.
What data convinced you that mutations are not random with respect to fitness? What data WOULD convince you that mutations are random with respect to fitness? Why is the data in this paper unconvincing?
I guess I will go back to my old thread in re Darwinism and is there a need for changes in the Darwin's theory, neo-Darwinism and the modern synthesis, with a discussion of the developments since the 1960's.
Why? You were not looking for discussion in that thread. You kept repeating the same thing over and over as if that constituted an argument. It doesn't. Yeah, we get it. You think Shapiro and Wright are arguing for non-random mutations with repsect to fitness. So what? If Wright thought that fire was made of fire pixies it still wouldn't be true. You are making nothing but an argument from authority while ignoring the actual evidence. That is a worthless discussion to have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by shadow71, posted 10-03-2011 3:40 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by shadow71, posted 10-09-2011 1:24 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 153 of 296 (636627)
10-08-2011 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Taq
09-27-2011 3:06 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
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.
The evidence that shows intelligence is:if beneficial mutation is 1 per 500 million and this secures organism's survival, as in fact it does. Nature needs only what it is enough.
Proof of what? That everything else is intelligent too just because man is? That has to be the worst argument you have used yet.
I quote From Guenter Albrecht-Buehler and Robert Laughlin Rea work on CELL INTELLIGENCE My experimental work during the past 30 years suggests that single tissue cells have their own data- and signal-processing capacities that help them control their movements and orientation... Cells can seemeasure space and time and must be able to derive abstract data from physical signals.
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Taq, posted 09-27-2011 3:06 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 10-08-2011 3:07 PM zi ko has replied

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


Message 154 of 296 (636629)
10-08-2011 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Percy
09-29-2011 10:19 AM


but intelligence and designers are not part of any theory of mutation. Maybe you can provide an example of what you're thinking of?
Of course there is not such theory of mutation. But nature intelligence is a fact. See please my 153 message of this thread to Taq.
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Percy, posted 09-29-2011 10:19 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 155 of 296 (636630)
10-08-2011 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by zi ko
10-08-2011 2:37 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
ziko writes:
The evidence that shows intelligence is: if beneficial mutation is 1 per 500 million and this secures organism's survival, as in fact it does. Nature needs only what it is enough.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by zi ko, posted 10-08-2011 2:37 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by zi ko, posted 10-11-2011 1:12 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 156 of 296 (636681)
10-09-2011 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Taq
10-03-2011 5:17 PM


Re: Nitpicks and an interesting reference
Taq writes:
Why? You were not looking for discussion in that thread. You kept repeating the same thing over and over as if that constituted an argument. It doesn't. Yeah, we get it. You think Shapiro and Wright are arguing for non-random mutations with repsect to fitness. So what? If Wright thought that fire was made of fire pixies it still wouldn't be true. You are making nothing but an argument from authority while ignoring the actual evidence. That is a worthless discussion to have.
I think your logic is flawed in this response. You interpret the data as not showing a non-random beneficial adapation. Wright and Shapiro, as confirmed by Merlin's paper posted by Wounded King, do argue for non-random adapation for fitness.
You, Wright and Shapiro have a different interpretation of the data. How can you be sure your interpretation is correct? If Wright and Shapiro are qualified to interpret the data and reach their opinons, I can surely rely on their opinions.
If you step outside of your data and look at the wholistic marvel of evolution, it is pretty hard to rule out non-randomness for beneficia adapations.
Ziko also has a good point. Why do we need a bigger ratio for non random adapation for fitness, when one is all that is needed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Taq, posted 10-03-2011 5:17 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by crashfrog, posted 10-09-2011 1:32 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 10-09-2011 3:42 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 161 by Taq, posted 10-12-2011 12:18 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 157 of 296 (636682)
10-09-2011 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by shadow71
10-09-2011 1:24 PM


Re: Nitpicks and an interesting reference
Why do we need a bigger ratio for non random adapation for fitness, when one is all that is needed?
If I tell you that the coin is showing "heads", how do you know if it landed that way as the result of a fair toss, or because I placed it that way?
In order to determine if I'm placing coins heads-up or flipping them, you need enough coins for it to be a statistically meaningful sample, and then you need to see if the number of coins heads-up is significantly different than the number you would expect as a result of chance. Chance says that the odds of "heads" in a fair toss is 1/2, but a single coin can't be half heads and half tails - it has to be one or the other.
Therefore a single coin can't tell us whether it was the result of chance or "intelligent placing".
If you step outside of your data and look at the wholistic marvel of evolution, it is pretty hard to rule out non-randomness for beneficia adapations.
No, it isn't. In fact, it's impossible to find any evidence of non-randomness of mutation. The results of mutations are invariably random with regards to fitness. Are the rates of mutations always random with regards to mutation? No, because an organism's phenotype determines its rate of mutation. We wouldn't expect anything else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by shadow71, posted 10-09-2011 1:24 PM shadow71 has not replied

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


Message 158 of 296 (636686)
10-09-2011 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by shadow71
10-09-2011 1:24 PM


Re: Nitpicks and an interesting reference
Hi Shadow,
This thread is about what the data in this paper shows:
But in your Message 151 you said this:
shadow71 in Message 151 writes:
I do not understand the data from a scientific standpoint.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by shadow71, posted 10-09-2011 1:24 PM shadow71 has not replied

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


Message 159 of 296 (636839)
10-11-2011 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Percy
10-08-2011 3:07 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
you're claiming that environmental change improving the rate of beneficial mutations is evidence of intelligence
Yes.
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.
I quote from my work:
" Are random mutations, and natural selection consistent with my hypothesis and what is their role in evolution?
These basic Darwinian concepts remain essential tools in evolution. In spite of any directionism implied by the thinking neural system and the natural engineering systems ect, random mutations are a fact and so it is natural selection. Randomness of mutations as regards to fitness remains in action, but now is thought that it is a mechanism used by nature for its needs and its ultimate scope of preservation of life. The same applies to natural selection. So mutations can be: entirely random as regards fitness, semi-directed (by this term I mean mutations enhanced in rate or facilitated to happen in special loci, or otherwise), or entirely directed; but all of them are really directed in regard to life’s preservation (or death). "
then what happens to claims of the designer designing and constructing all life from bacteria to man?
Again i quote:
" Am I legitimized to base my hypothesis on the idea of nature’s innate intelligence and what I mean by it?
Intelligence: I don’t give it the original meaning of the word (namely, to choose between contingent alternatives). What I really mean is: in response to environmental and other factors, a naturally inside organism pre-existing mechanism, and by force of chemistry and physics, causes changes in the genome. So I think of it as a mechanism, but not intelligence in any traditional sense. Of course we have then the eternal question to face here: how was this made? But this is a second level question.... It doesn’t necessarily imply a Designer, but it can’t also of course preclude it."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 10-08-2011 3:07 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 10-11-2011 3:19 PM zi ko has replied
 Message 162 by Taq, posted 10-12-2011 12:29 PM zi ko has replied

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


Message 160 of 296 (636860)
10-11-2011 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by zi ko
10-11-2011 1:12 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
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.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by zi ko, posted 10-11-2011 1:12 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by zi ko, posted 10-12-2011 5:28 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 161 of 296 (636943)
10-12-2011 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by shadow71
10-09-2011 1:24 PM


Re: Nitpicks and an interesting reference
You interpret the data as not showing a non-random beneficial adapation.
Where is my interpretation incorrect? It is not enough to claim that someone is interpretting the data. That is what everyone does with the data. You need to show that my interpretation is incorrect or admit that it is correct.
Wright and Shapiro, as confirmed by Merlin's paper posted by Wounded King, do argue for non-random adapation for fitness.
This misses the mark since we are discussing non-random MUTATION, not adaptation. Of course adaptation is non-random since natural selection is involved. The question is how variation is produced which is then acted on by natural selection.
If you step outside of your data and look at the wholistic marvel of evolution, it is pretty hard to rule out non-randomness for beneficia adapations.
Actually, no it isn't. Lineage specific adaptations are exactly what we should see if mutation is random with respect to fitness, and that is exactly what we see.
Why do we need a bigger ratio for non random adapation for fitness, when one is all that is needed?
For a colony of 100,000 bacteria (about the standard size for a colony on an agar plate) a mutation rate of 1 in 500 million is not enough. Gene regulation is a non-random process with respect to fitness, and 99.9999% of bacterial clones show the same gene regulation patterns with respect to environment every time. That is what we expect from a non-random process. This is NOT what we see with the process of mutation. Bacterial clones do NOT produce the same mutations. Only 2 out of 1 billion produce the same mutation. This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what we see with non-random processes such as gene regulation.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by shadow71, posted 10-09-2011 1:24 PM shadow71 has not replied

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


Message 162 of 296 (636945)
10-12-2011 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by zi ko
10-11-2011 1:12 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
So mutations can be: entirely random as regards fitness, semi-directed (by this term I mean mutations enhanced in rate or facilitated to happen in special loci, or otherwise), or entirely directed; but all of them are really directed in regard to life’s preservation (or death). "
So what are they with regards to the paper under discussion: entirely random, semi-directed, or entirely directed? Please support your argument with reference to the data found in the paper.
Also, how do detrimental mutations fit into your argument?
Intelligence: I don’t give it the original meaning of the word (namely, to choose between contingent alternatives). What I really mean is: in response to environmental and other factors, a naturally inside organism pre-existing mechanism, and by force of chemistry and physics, causes changes in the genome.
Do you consider it "intelligent" when it produces detrimental mutations? If so, why? Why is it a good idea to produce detrimental mutations?
So I think of it as a mechanism, but not intelligence in any traditional sense.
Then why don't you just call it a mechanism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by zi ko, posted 10-11-2011 1:12 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by zi ko, posted 10-12-2011 5:53 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 163 of 296 (636984)
10-12-2011 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Percy
10-11-2011 3:19 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
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.
Mainstream position doesn't always means the correct one. Where is the confusion, if the hypothesis happens to be proved at the end wright? It is confortable to speak from authority. But where are the arguments?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 10-11-2011 3:19 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 10-12-2011 7:00 PM zi ko has replied

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


Message 164 of 296 (636988)
10-12-2011 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Taq
10-12-2011 12:29 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
So what are they with regards to the paper under discussion: entirely random, semi-directed, or entirely directed? Please support your argument with reference to the data found in the paper.
Also, how do detrimental mutations fit into your argument?
Random as regards fitness, but directed as regards life preservation. Detrimental mutations are to be expected in random mutations.
Do you consider it "intelligent" when it produces detrimental mutations? If so, why? Why is it a good idea to produce detrimental mutations?
Yes. because it makes the job for nature.
Then why don't you just call it a mechanism?
It is a mechanism that stems from nature's innate intelligence, because this mechanism i don't believe could be created by chance, if this is your belief.So our difference is just a matter of belief, as you have no evidence to support your belief.
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Taq, posted 10-12-2011 12:29 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Taq, posted 10-13-2011 2:42 PM zi ko has replied

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


(1)
Message 165 of 296 (636999)
10-12-2011 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by zi ko
10-12-2011 5:28 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
zi ko writes:
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.
Mainstream position doesn't always means the correct one. Where is the confusion, if the hypothesis happens to be proved at the end wright? It is confortable to speak from authority. But where are the arguments?
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:
zi ko writes:
Intelligence: I don’t give it the original meaning of the word (namely, to choose between contingent alternatives). What I really mean is: in response to environmental and other factors, a naturally inside organism pre-existing mechanism, and by force of chemistry and physics, causes changes in the genome.
You redefined the "intelligent" part of intelligent design to be nature. Basically you said nature is responsible, and evolutionists agree with you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by zi ko, posted 10-12-2011 5:28 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by zi ko, posted 10-13-2011 8:45 AM 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