Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution.
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 310 of 433 (627847)
08-04-2011 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by zi ko
08-04-2011 11:26 AM


Re: Are there RANDOM MUTATIONS?
I said there is no evidence of random mutations , not that they don't exist.
I already showed you the evidence. Do we need to go through it again?
I n view that many times i have been misunderstood, i think i must clear up my position regarding evolution-randomness:
Life can make use of randomness for its purpose, by filling a gap in its try to percervance with this mechanism, amongst others, e.g directed or semidirected mutations,
What percentage of mutations are directed or semidirected? And what is a semidirected mutation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by zi ko, posted 08-04-2011 11:26 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by zi ko, posted 08-06-2011 1:08 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 324 of 433 (628722)
08-12-2011 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by zi ko
08-12-2011 10:11 AM


Re: So not all information is sufficient, how do we tell?
It is all "according to my theory"
You don't have a theory. You have a belief. There is a difference between the two.
quote:
We have "empathy a hard wired function in brain' according to researchers. What is your explanation of the existance and use of such hard wired mechanism and function?
The same as it is for every other animal. It has to do with brain development which is controlled by our DNA.
What your beliefs are missing is any evidence that empathy guides mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by zi ko, posted 08-12-2011 10:11 AM zi ko has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 359 of 433 (655180)
03-08-2012 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by zi ko
03-07-2012 11:26 PM


Re: Are there RANDOM MUTATIONS?
Current theory as regards mutation CAN'T make any prediction at all.
Sure it can. For example, we could look at the LTR's of orthologous endogeneous retroviruses (ERV's).
quote:
Third, sequence divergence between the LTRs at the ends of a given provirus provides an important and unique source of phylogenetic information. The LTRs are created during reverse transcription to regenerate cis-acting elements required for integration and transcription. Because of the mechanism of reverse transcription, the two LTRs must be identical at the time of integration, even if they differed in the precursor provirus (Fig. 1A). Over time, they will diverge in sequence because of substitutions, insertions, and deletions acquired during cellular DNA replication.
Just a moment...
So we can predict that an orthologous ERV that inserted into the common ancestor of humans and african green monkeys will have more divergent LTR's than an ERV that is only shared by humans and chimps. This is exactly what we see, and what is evidenced in the paper cited above.
My theory at least can make the general prediction that LIFE WILL BE PRESERVED AT THE END, as far as earth, as we know it, will continue to exist.
That has nothing to do with mutations. What you are talking about is Earth avoiding a cataclysmic event that makes life impossible on Earth, such as hitting a massive planetoid.
Guided mutations coexist with random ones . . .
What guided mutations? Evidence please.
I am very much interested if you could explain for me why chimps and humans differ in some genes more than others on the basis of random mutations,
Actually, it has to do with selection. The background random mutation rate continues to operate, and those mutations pass through the filter of natural selection.
All the predictions made by evolution theory on the basis of natural selection are equally made by my theory with the same sucess.
Your theory is unfalsifiable. If a mutation is detrimental or neutral you claim it is a product of random mutations. If it is beneficial then you claim it is due to guided mutations even if it occurs through the same mechanisms as detrimental and neutral mutations. It is no different than watching John Smith win the lottery and then declaring the lottery was guided so that John Smith could win, and counting this as a prediction. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by zi ko, posted 03-07-2012 11:26 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by zi ko, posted 03-08-2012 10:18 PM Taq has replied
 Message 380 by zi ko, posted 03-23-2012 12:54 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 363 of 433 (655319)
03-09-2012 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by zi ko
03-08-2012 10:18 PM


Re: Are there ONLY RANDOM MUTATIONS?
but what is the evidence that these supposed random mutageneses are not in fact guided from environment,external or internal?
This goes back to the two foundational papers on mutations:
Luria and Delbruck Flucutaiton Experiment
Lederbergs' Plate Replica Experiment
In these experiments they demonstrate that mutations confering bacteriophage and antibiotic resistance occur in the absence of either bacteriophage or antibiotics. In other words, the mutations occur when they are not needed. The occur spontaneously and without any meaningful input from fitness. They are OBSERVED to be random with respect to fitness.
So why would a guided process produce mutations that are not needed, and in fact deleterious to the health of the organism? That is the opposite of what a guided process should look like, and yet that is the process of mutagenesis that we observe. The very same mechanisms that produce beneficial mutations also produce neutral and detrimental mutations. There is no way around this conclusion.
Again, what is the evidence for random mutations vs guided mutations?
I have provided evidence that they are random. It is now up to you to supply evidence that mutations are guided, or retract your claim that they are guided.
I am afraid also current theory has the same problem at least up to now and it had a lot of time to prove itself.
It doesn't have this problem, and hasn't since the 1940's and 1950's when those experiments above were done. Scientists had demonstrated that mutations were random with respect to fitness before they had even discovered DNA. Since the discovery of DNA we have been able to tease out the specific molecular mechanisms of mutagenesis, and once again they have been found to be random with respect to fitness (such as in the case of the Wright et al. paper that we discussed).
Maybe i have to stress again "guidance" in my hypothesis is "collecting" information from environment.
How is this done? What are the molecular mechanisms that are involved? How does one design and experiment to test this hypothesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by zi ko, posted 03-08-2012 10:18 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by zi ko, posted 03-10-2012 2:56 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 364 of 433 (655321)
03-09-2012 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by zi ko
03-08-2012 10:41 PM


Re: Are there RANDOM MUTATIONS?
This does not mean that such mechanisms don't exist.
But you are saying that they DO exist, so it is up to you to supply evidence for this claim or retract it until you do have this evidence.
Neural intervention in evolution is a very new idea
From everything I have seen you post, it is an entirely made up idea. It is make believe.
It is randomness's in mutations predictive value that concerns me.
Then you should read the Luria and Delbruck paper where one of their hypotheses predicted that there would be high variance in the number of bacteriophage mutants in parallel cultures due to random mutations. This work was done in the 1940's, and it has the very predictions you claim don't exist. You are 70 years behind modern science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by zi ko, posted 03-08-2012 10:41 PM zi ko has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 370 of 433 (655653)
03-12-2012 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by zi ko
03-10-2012 2:56 AM


Re: Are there ONLY RANDOM MUTATIONS?
These are just experiments ( very important of course) and as such have not any predictive value.
The hypotheses that the papers tested through those experiments did have predictive value. Please read the Luria and Delbruck paper. They spell out numerous hypotheses that they test with those experiments, one of which is random mutagenesis.
Any way you treat their results in the way they fit to your expectations and beliefs.
No, I treat them as they should be treated. Please read the Luria and Delbruck paper. It spells out what the results should be if the mutations are guided and what the results should look like if the mutations are random. Please show why their hypotheses are wrong, if you can.
1.You can't apply them easily to metazoa, where things are much complicated and where nature life cannot rely it's preservation on pure chance. Now environmental information must be used to prevent the disorginizing effect of the expected more common deleterious mutations, through reducing their rates.
How does the rate reducing mechanism know which mutations to fix and which to not fix?
2.In one cell organisms nature can use more easily "randomness" in mutations for it's final goal, e.g ,life's preservation. So we can't really talk about real randomness.
But we can talk about the fact that the same mechanisms that produce beneficial mutations also produce neutral and detrimental mutations which is contrary to the hypothesis of guided mutations.
I n metazoa ,through neural system.
That is not a mechanism. That is make believe. A mechanism has evidence to back it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by zi ko, posted 03-10-2012 2:56 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by zi ko, posted 03-13-2012 12:36 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 371 of 433 (655654)
03-12-2012 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Wounded King
03-12-2012 9:21 AM


Re: Zi Ko's new best friend?
Despite Cabej's emphasis on the CNS' role in the 'processing of information' most of his examples are developmental and are more related to the CNS' development and how that interacts with other developing systems than to the nervous system's role as a mediator of environmental information, and certainly not the direct result of neural activity.
It also deals with gene regulation, not DNA sequence. Zi ko is trying to say that the brain can change DNA sequence which is quite different than gene regulation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Wounded King, posted 03-12-2012 9:21 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 377 of 433 (655931)
03-15-2012 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by AceGreen
03-14-2012 8:58 PM


Re: Are there ONLY RANDOM MUTATIONS?
I am not a specialist in the field but in the article Cabej writes:
The neural control of recruitment of Pax6 in the regulatory network of lens crystallin during the early individual development strongly suggests that the nervous system must have also been responsible for the initial recruitment of lens crystalline in metazoan evolution.
There is no doubt that the evolution of the CNS developmental pathways was an important factor. However, this is not what Zi ko is going for. He is claiming that the CNS chooses which mutations will occur in offspring. This is not what the quote is alluding to.
Also, epigenetics does not involve mutations. Two of the important mechanisms in epigenetics is DNA methylation and histone packaging. Neither involves changes in DNA sequence. Again, this thread is about guided mutations. Epigenetics does not even involve mutations, much less guided mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by AceGreen, posted 03-14-2012 8:58 PM AceGreen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Wounded King, posted 03-15-2012 7:43 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 382 of 433 (656938)
03-23-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by zi ko
03-23-2012 12:54 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
Why that means that guidance in some degree didn't happen? Yoy seem keep forgetting that guidance in mutations is not a strict procedure. It can be only an increase in mutation rates at specific site of genome.
Then why call them guided at all? An increase in the random mutation rate is still an increase in the RANDOM mutation rate. Buying more lottery tickets does not make the lottery non-random.
Exactly the same "evidence" you provide for random mutations.
Then why not call them random mutations and be done with it?
As it is yours of random mutations. Life can use even "randomness" to fulfill it's scopes. We both are in the same boat. We just rely on what belief we prefer to choose Again i repeat detrimental and neutral mutations can be a product in the guided procedure..
Mine is not a belief. It is a testable hypothesis. I have defined what random mutations should look like, and I have experiments that have produced results consistent with this definition. Let's use the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation experiment as an example. If parallel cultures produced the same number of mutants then my definition would be falsified. They don't. That is the test. That is how my definition of random mutations is falsifiable. Your definition of guided mutations is an unfalsifiable moving target.
Would it be helpful if we went over the two experiments (fluctuation test and plate replica test)?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by zi ko, posted 03-23-2012 12:54 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by zi ko, posted 03-24-2012 8:33 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 395 of 433 (657149)
03-26-2012 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 384 by zi ko
03-24-2012 8:33 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
Buying lottery by a man is not equivalent of "buying lottery" by nature, becouse nature has a great purpose to fulfill , e.g preserve life .
Is the lottery random or not? Does buying more lottery tickets make the lottery non-random?
Also it can choose between different possibilities, or as it happens usually, it can combine all them.
What are these possibilities, and how does nature choose between them?
Becouse if i call them random , which it can be true at the low level of one cell organisms, according to your dedefinition, then i will find it difficult to apply this concept to higher organisms, in relation to mutations, whic lead to changes are more clearly evident that they are guided, as f.e in instinct formation etc.
How are mutations guided with respect to instinct formation?
It is testable as far as somebody doesn't accept nature's innate strife for preserving life through using environmental information, something so obvious to me and well proved in epigenetics .
Why should I accept it? I have 7 other planets in this very solar system where nature does nothing to preserve life. In fact, the rule seems to be that the nature is lifeless. Life on Earth is the exception, not the rule. You have also not shown how nature is trying to preserve life. In another 5 billion years our Sun will swell and swallow the Earth. Bye bye life. That is nature. We have record of massive extinctions. All you seem to be doing is using confirmation bias.
Also, epigenetics does not involve mutations so I am curious why you use it to argue against random mutations. Also, the differences between chimps and humans, who are quite closely related, is not due to epigenetics. This difference is due to a difference in DNA sequence, not DNA methylation states or histone packaging (i.e. epigenetics).
You don't deny this fact as regards epigenetic changes due to environmental effect on paragenome, but you stop arbitrarily there. You don't accept any effect on genome in the long run maybe thousands of years, without any scientific evidence to support your opinion, as scietists have not the means ,e.g time, to make the neccessary following.
There is nothing arbitrary about it. If you claim to have a new theory of evolution then it MUST explain the differences between species. Epigenetics does not explain this difference. Changes in DNA sequence do.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by zi ko, posted 03-24-2012 8:33 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by zi ko, posted 03-30-2012 5:42 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 396 of 433 (657150)
03-26-2012 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 387 by zi ko
03-25-2012 10:07 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
I think that either of them is logically preferable to me as a cause of life, than randomness.
As soon as you start picking options because you prefer them you have ceased to use logic. It appears that your theory is based on what you wish to be true.
We really need to start seeing evidence for guided mutations as part of your theory. If all you have is wishful thinking then just say so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by zi ko, posted 03-25-2012 10:07 AM zi ko has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 397 of 433 (657151)
03-26-2012 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by zi ko
03-25-2012 2:44 PM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
I think you misunderstood me.I was refering to tobelievers to random mutations as well.... I think those too are pretenting it is science and not simply a belief.
I have already shown you two SCIENTIFIC experiments that evidence random mutations. It is not a belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by zi ko, posted 03-25-2012 2:44 PM zi ko has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 398 of 433 (657152)
03-26-2012 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 394 by zi ko
03-26-2012 10:25 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
0K. Nature cannot be. But universal laws, in the way they are, are tied to produce purposeful creatures, although they don't 'pocess sentience or purpose', in given circumstances.
Where did you offer any evidence of this?
If this is true, why is intelligent life the exception and not the rule? Why is life apparently so rare in the universe, much less intelligent life? If the purpose of nature is life then it is doing a very, very poor job. The vast, vast majority of the universe is extremely hostile to life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by zi ko, posted 03-26-2012 10:25 AM zi ko has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 401 of 433 (657745)
03-30-2012 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 399 by zi ko
03-30-2012 5:42 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
"This sort of limitation and the fact that different mutations may |have widely and characteristically different rates of incidence show that mutations are not random in the full and usual sense of the word or in the way that some early Darwinists considered as fully random the variation available for natural selection. I believe that the, in this sense, nonrandom nature of mutation has had a profound influence on the diversity of life and on the extent and character of adaptations. This influence is sometimes overlooked, probably because almost everyone speaks of mutations as random, which they are in other senses of the word.
A population in process of adapting to chnage in its environment or to an environment new to it may be expected to have some adaptive instability. It may be adapting by utilization of expressed and potential variability but it may also be adapting in part by adaptive mutations. Sooner or later and in some changes of adapation, if it is true that mutation is the ultimate source of material for evolution, adaptive mutation must be involved. In spite of the general "randomness" of mutation in the special senses noted, there is adequate evidence that aadaptive mutations are often available under such circumstances."
Also some paragrafs from:
Evolution and Chance
by John Wilkins
[Last Update: April 17, 1997]
I have already agreed that mutations are not random with respect to time, rate, or position in the genome. What I have clearly stated time after time is that mutations are random with respect to FITNESS which directly contradicts your claims of mutations being guided. It appears that you are now trying to distract people away from your complete lack of evidence for guided mutations as defined by fitness.
Again, is the lottery non-random because it happens at a set time every week? Is the lottery non-random because it always returns numbers in a defined range? Is the lottery non-random because people will buy more tickets when the jackpot is higher? The answer to all of these is no. The same applies to mutations.
Also, you quote Simpson as saying "adaptive mutation must be involved" and yet you do not offer any evidence to support this claim. You are now using a proxy to assert your empty claims. This is not an improvement. This is a backwards step for you.
I suggest this article by Wilkins. At least it shows some doubts about the randomness of mutations.
Where does Wilkins state that mutations are non-random with respect to fitness? Where does Wilkins state that the nervous system guides mutations in a non-random nature with respect to fitness?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by zi ko, posted 03-30-2012 5:42 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by zi ko, posted 04-02-2012 11:14 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 405 of 433 (658128)
04-02-2012 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by zi ko
04-02-2012 11:14 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
How you then are you able to talk about randomness in mutations as regards preserving life (or fitness as you call it)?
I am able to talk about it by actually demonstrating it, as shown in the Luria-Delbruck and Lederberg experiments. In these experiments, the beneficial mutations occurred without the bacteria needing those mutations. They were OBSERVED to be random with respect to fitness.
Lottery is not random when it happens at times, rate or positions apropriate to the needs of the people who play (or use) it.
The lottery is random with respect to the tickets just as mutations are random with respect fitness. The chances of a specific lottery result are not increased simply because someone has a ticket with those numbers on it. To use another analogy, the chances of the ball landing on a specific number in Roulette is not increased simply because someone has money on that number. The lottery result is not guided so that a specific person will win just like the organism does not sense an environmental challenge and then produce a specific mutation to overcome that challenge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by zi ko, posted 04-02-2012 11:14 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by zi ko, posted 04-03-2012 12:13 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