|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
The above work , among many others, shows the possible mechanism that guided mutations follow. When in a epigenetic area , through long periods of epigenetic changes, relevant regulations are havily placed one upon others, ( and this phenomenon is a FACT), we onlly can expect as an inevitable sequence, the replacement of that complex and and energy expensive situation, with an act a Gordian knot solution , which is the somehow, but not strict, guided mutation.
The mechanism that the authors cite is random mutations in cis-regulatory elements (CRE's) that give rise to novel regulatory pathways that are the passed through natural selection.
quote: All you have done is outline the selection regime. The source of variation is still random mutations. You have not cited any mechanisms that could guide mutations in a manner that would be non-random with respect to fitness. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
The authors just express their fixed belief in randomness ( or could they dare to do otherwise?). Then why are you citing this paper as supporting guided mutations? Where do they outline a mechanism for guided mutations? Where do they present any evidence that could be considered a mechanism for guided mutations?
In any case i think they are describing a mechanism of epigenetic changes causing new mutations.
Where? I did a word search for both "epigenetic" and "methylation". Those words are not found ANYWHERE in the article. The only mechanism I saw that they discuss is natural selection. For example:
quote: That is the only guiding that I saw, and it is done after the mutations appear, not before. Have you actually read the paper? Where do the authors describe epigenetics guiding mutations as you claim?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
You seem to support a totally illogical situation: You now are forced by the evidence to accept that eoigenetic changes, inherited to many generations, accompanied with a lot of regulating mechanisms, loaded in specific epigenetic genome places, sudenly due to a random mutation , that leads propably evolution to different direction, are all wiped out and go astray. What does that even mean? I really don't understand what you are trying to claim. The paper you cited is talking about random mutations in regulatory DNA that results in changes in DNA regulation. These changes then pass through natural selection. That is the mechanism in the paper. If that is not the mechanism you are trying to evidence, then why did you cite this paper?
Even if this paradox is happening, evolution remains guided by environment, not only by the process of selection, by energetic environmental through epigenetics intervention.
What about mutations?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
My conclusions are independed and maybe different from auhors conclusions. Then why are you citing the paper? If you are just going to find papers to disagree with then this discussion can not move forward. What you need to find is a paper that outlines the mechanism that is responsible for guided mutations.
They don't take into account the possibility of guided mutations. But they don't preclude it. This is their mistake.
In science, you need evidence for a mechanism before you can include it. Where is that evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
The mistake is self evident.After a work of maybe thousant of ys, during which epigenetic changes were accumulated together with many regulatory mechanisms,sudenly by a random mutation that most propably leads to a different direction of evolution all is cancelled and so all the previous work done is going astray. That is the stupidiest thing for nature to happen. It doesn't matter if you think it is stupid or not. Random mutations is what the evidence indicates, and you have not presented any evidence that would lead us to consider guided mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
We all know that there is a continous information flow from environment to organisms and even to the genome,plenty of epigenetic changes loaded to particular genome areas, and many REGULATION MECHANISMS,constantly fuctioning. However, none of these mechanisms guide mutations. Pointing to epigenetics and DNA regulation does not evidence guided mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
If the waste and the stupidity of the idea is proved over any doupt don't you think your pet Darwinian theory is in danger? You may think it is stupid for the Earth to move about the Sun, but the reality is that it does. You are commiting the Fallacy of Incredulity: Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki We observe that mutations are random with respect to fitness. You have not offered a single observation that demonstrates that mutations are guided.
Here are some links Where in those links can we find a mechanism that guides mutations?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
am not trying to show how epigenetics pave the way to mutations. You need to show how epigenetics guides mutations so that they are only beneficial and do not produce neutral or detrimental mutations. Where have you done that?
At present i am satisfied just to show the absurdities of the "classic" theory.
All you are doing is making an argument from incredulity which is a logical fallacy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I many times had said that my theory allows the existance of neutral or deleterious mutations together with beneficial. Then what is the point of guided mutations?
Nor you ,nor as ST. DAWKINS did, can state a single case of random mutation leading to new species. Compare the human and chimp genome. The differences between those genomes are the result of random mutations.
But in addition,you are in the difficult position of explainig that inpropable and totally unuderstandable waste, on the limit of the ubsurddity,of the epigenetic work that was taken place in each organism over thousands of years. That is an argument from incredulity. I don't need to explain your difficulty in accepting reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Guidance is loose, just to restrict the needed number of random mutations.
If you buy more lottery tickets does the lottery cease to be random?
They equally well could due to the procedure of loose guidance.
Based on what evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
This analogy does not fit to reality so it is unfortunate. We don't have more tickets, but less numbers to choose from. There some difference. How so?
About metazoans, on the same amount of evidence you have for randomness, What is that evidence?
and with no any scientific obligation to to give any account of why such a usefull work done by epigenetics for many many years in a species has to be ignored by true science and and has to become useless and go astray .
The account is that mutations are random, so detrimental mutations do occur. I have been giving you the account from the very start of this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
elongated girrafes neck, being first an epigenetic change, Where did you show this?
But again that means phenotype ( as the result of envionmental effect, is the real moto for evolution, the guiding force . No, it means that natural selection is what pushes a population in a given morphological direction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Becouse DNA changes through epigenetics by histone and methylation mechanisms,and the numerous regulation mechanisms are well established. Histone packaging and DNA methylation does NOT change DNA sequence.
My question is:Are giraffe's neck and front legs elongation etc epigenetic in nature, or due to DNA sequenc change?
DNA sequence change, without a doubt. If giraffes were consistently given food on the ground for multiple generations you would not see them suddenly all change into okapis: Okapi - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
What i am saying is that epigenetic changes pave the way( so guide) DNA sequence change.
How does that work?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Surely there was a degree of epigenetic change. It exists to all animals. It is a fact. Nobody can deny this. Where did you show that epigenetics caused the giraffe ancestor to have a longer neck?
Do you really think that natural selection, which surely works, acts against or in cocordance with existing phenotype, that is partly respnsible to epigenetic effect. This last is a fact i think.
What evidence led you to this conclusion? Natural selection selects for mutations that improve the fitness of the population. It doesn't matter if these mutations act against or in concordance with epigenetic changes. Also, I have already shown that epigenetic changes can be detrimental such as in the case of type II diabetes and fetal alcohol syndrome.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024