|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
zi ko writes: You've examined mutations in fossils? Wow!
Gould and others dit it. Gould and others examined mutations in fossils? Wow! Zi Ko, think a little bit about this. With rare exceptions, fossils contain no organic material. DNA is organic. There is no DNA in fossils. You still do not seem to understand that mutation and natural selection pull in different directions regarding with you call "life preservation," and I would have thought this would have prevented you from making a clear statement relative about Wright and Shapiro, and yet you successfully pull it off in Message 267:
zi ko in Message 267 writes: But there is evidence brought by Shapiro, wright, Yablonca ect, showing that information from environment guides evolution direction by direct action and not just indirectly through natural selection. Yes, you are right that this is what Shapiro and Wright appear to be saying, but as has been pointed out many times, they greatly exaggerate. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
You've examined mutations in fossils? Wow!
Come on Percy! The original issue was:"The relative lack of intermediate fossils during periods of great environmental changes ." This is I am refering to. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
That is not what Shapiro says and you know it. You have had that pointed out to you many times.
I refer you to message 271 by Percy.No one believes random mutations are the only factor in evolution. This you have been told many times. Why do you keep ignoring what you have been told?I never had ignored natural selection.Is there anything else you thing i ignore? Try to unndestand what i am saying. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
So what are these mutations?
The increased rate of mutations that led to rapid evolution renders them directed . Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I understand what you are saying.
It is wrong.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
zi ko writes: Come on Percy! The original issue was:"The relative lack of intermediate fossils during periods of great environmental changes ." This is I am refering to. Since you haven't edited your original message, what you actually said is still there in Message 262:
zi ko in Message 262 writes: I show you two cases of guided mutations:1.The relative lack of intermediate fossils during periods of greate environmental changes. Hence the comment, "You've examined mutations in fossils? Wow!" With only rare exceptions fossils do not contain organic material. You cannot cite the lack of intermediate fossils as an example of guided mutations because there are no mutations to examine. In the future I suggest that if you're going to selectively quote mine your own posts that you edit them first so you don't get caught. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2497 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
ziko writes: The increased rate of mutations that led to rapid evolution renders them directed . Rapid change in phenotype doesn't necessarily imply an increased mutation rate. Rather, new and strong selection pressure can be working on existing variation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
No one can prove tedency in nature. The Wright et al. paper demonstrates that we can.
But in spite of any deleterious mutatations the fact is that life is preserved; Where did you show that? If Wright et al. used a population of just 100 bacteria they would not have been preserved given the fact that the beneficial mutation only occurs once in every 500 million divisions.
The existance of deleterious or neutral mutations does not cancel this tedency. I guess you have never heard of the multiple mass extinctions that have occurred in Earth's history? The Permian extinction saw more than 90% of species disappearing from the face of the Earth.
Again your evidence maby it is misinterpreted by you.You have to prove, at least for yourself, there is not any tedency behind these "facts". That is exactly what I have done in this thread. The data from the paper demonstrates that the increased mutation rate is specific to ssDNA, not the leuB gene. If you are going to claim that I am misrepresenting the findings then you had better show how I am misrepresenting it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
The increased rate of mutations that led to rapid evolution renders them directed .
Again, I have shown that this is not true with reference to the Wright et al. paper. It is an increase in the random mutation rate, not directed mutagenesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
The Wright et al. paper demonstrates that we can.
Let's suppose you are right in your deductions. You still have to prove that the same mechanisms or principles apply to higher types of life. Also that the "obvious" lack o tedency on this experiment was not the result of nuture's "knowledge" that tedency on that particular case was not necessary; so the tedency to life preservation was not clearly evident, but it was there.
Where did you show that? If Wright et al. used a population of just 100 bacteria they would not have been preserved given the fact that the beneficial mutation only occurs once in every 500 million divisions.
But what if nature can "know"that 500 million divisions is a usual happening and could rely on this fact?I guess you have never heard of the multiple mass extinctions that have occurred in Earth's history? The Permian extinction saw more than 90% of species disappearing from the face of the Earth. I guess you have never heard of the multiple mass extinctions that have occurred in Earth's history? The Permian extinction saw more than 90% of species disappearing from the face of the Earth.
But in spite of this life managed to preserve itself so successfuly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Rapid change in phenotype doesn't necessarily imply an increased mutation rate. Rather, new and strong selection pressure can be working on existing variation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would tend to to agree with you. But it could also mean that changes originated from neural system may be intervening. (see http://www.sleepgadgedabs.com). Your use of the word "rather" i suppose you imply that you accept the possibility, that other things could be happening as well.If strong selection pressures is the only couse, which might well be true, then it has to clearly beyond any doupt be proved; and particularly it has to be sure that other co-working couses are excluded. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Hi Zi Ko,
When someone uses the same argument in thread after thread regardless of topic, thereby causing those threads to go off-topic, then we ask them to take that argument to its own thread and to stop introducing it in other threads. You already had a thread to discuss your ideas, Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist?, but now you're trying to introduce them into other threads. These are the ones I've found so far:
You've already lost your posting privileges in the Human Origins and Evolution forum. If you continue discussing the ideas from your webpage in threads where it is not the designated topic then I will remove your posting permissions in the rest of the science forums. If you would like to continue working on the topic proposal you began (Did evolution evolve?) then let me know and I will reopen it. You misspelled the url of your webpage, please do not correct it. Edited by Admin, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2497 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
zi ko writes: If strong selection pressures is the only couse, which might well be true, then it has to clearly beyond any doupt be proved; and particularly it has to be sure that other co-working couses are excluded. I think that I agree with Percy that you should take your ideas to the thread proposal that you made earlier, because we'll be wandering off the topic of the Wright paper if we discuss this. I was replying to a comment you made on rapid change in the fossil record, which doesn't directly relate to this topic at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
O.K Percy,
but what if in a thread i read a question or an issue that could IMO give an answer or a new direction to the discussion related to the issue? In that case you may give the impression that you are afraid of discussing the issue from all possible views-sides.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Hi Zi Ko,
Moderators deal with specific situations as they arise. I can't answer your hypothetical, but you already have an answer regarding your insertion of your webpage and its hypothesis in thread after thread.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024