The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

Evolution by means of natural selection is also controversial.Wouldn't you agree that if these experiments turn out to in fact be true, that that essentially shatters the entire notion of evolution by natural selection? Isn't that what makes them controversial?When bacteria is "prepared" to make a mutation in response to certain pressure, we have certainly opened a whole new door that can't be shut.I am not naive enough to believe that most of the believers in Darwinian evolution would ever actually release their frozen grip around their theory, but there would at least be some that have keep their skepticism alive enough to begin to look elsewhere for truth.

What is the mechanism that you are proposing is responsible for bacteria generating a mutation in response to a selective pressure?

From that very article..."The mechanism for such mutation in stationary phase is not known, but it requires some function of RecA which is apparently not required for mutation during exponential growth."Is there a reason why you said this is one possible mechanism, when the article that you referenced says the mechanism is unknown?And from the paper by Zhang and Saier:"Directed mutation is a proposed process that allows mutations to occur at higher frequencies when they are beneficial. Until now, the existence of such a process has been controversial."And how does this support the notion of Darwinian evolution? What explanation does Darwinian evolution offer for directed mutations?I have all along believed that adaptive mutations occur, but I can't see any which in which this bolsters your evolutionary theory. I can see lots of ways in which it contradicts it however.

Let's face it WK, you are pretty skeptical of the whole random mutation natural selection cock and bull story, aren't you? You have studied biology, and you realize that there is no way it can account for all the life on earth.And that is why you are trying to downplay its role in your theory, and you are always mentioning "other mechanisms". The problem is, those mechanisms you described, are not a mechanism at all, but in fact a process, a system. That is why you even used the word system.So without RM and natural selection, you realize your theory is in tatters, but you don't have any to replace it, so what can you do? You can say there are many other mechanisms involved in your theory, still try to call it Darwinian evolution, and each time a new discovery is made involving another process that organisms go through, just throw on another label of "other mechanisms." , when in fact you are talking about a system, not a mechanism.If an organisms sprouts a brand new head in a day, well you can just say that is another mechanism for evolution. The theory becomes so flexible and so accommodating as to become meaningless, and I honestly believe in the back of your mind, with what you have studied, you are starting to realize this.

Are you reading WK's mind now?

Well, its really up to Wk to respond, and I certainly don't believe he is going to reject the Darwinian theory; but I also think he is at least one of the more honest and contemplative posters here, and so even though I know he is a committed evolutionist, I do believe that deep down he would agree that there is still a lot of room for speculation about what is really going on.As someone who studies biology, he has seen that there are plenty of things in nature and science that can't be so easily explained by simple random mutation and natural selection, as you believe. So he has emphasized that there are many more mechanisms than those, but of course he can't really define those mechanisms-because there is simply too much unknown about what is really going on.But your suggestion that ultimately random mutation and natural selection can account for the existence of all of these characteristics is your conclusion not his. I realize you are fighting to contain the idea to a natural one (because that is your desired conclusion), even if we don't know what it is, but the fact is that unless you can fully explain how these mechanisms came to be, their cause could be natural, un-natural or something in between, and we just don't know. As such, your speculation that natural selection produced it is not really scientific, it is just your imagination of what you think is happening-which may or may not be true.

I was having a scientific conversation with Wk, that you opted to get into. You are making all kinds of statements that I never said-such as saying that i claimed if it can't be seen, God must have done it. What I actually was saying was that if the mechanisms begin appearing to be much more than random mutations and natural selection, then the whole theory becomes a whole new ball game.You have speculated that even adaptive mutations could arise through random mutations and natural selection. Fine-site any evidence if you have it, or don't preach about not caring if the evidence can be "seen, heard, tasted, smelled or touched,..". In this instance what you have is none of those. You only have your speculation. What is that worth?About my religious beliefs, since you don't know what they are, and I didn't bring them up here, why bring them into anything. I am talking abut what the science is showing about adaptive mutations.

Where are you claiming these processes, like endosymbiosis, and epigenetic inheritances arose from? Were they random mutations that were selected for through natural selection?

How about transposon insertion, where did that "mechanism" come from? Random mutations?

We'll let's summarize what is being said here. When adding in details about the proteins involved, and other tangential matters, it is easy to distract from the real point (sometimes I wonder if that is not your intention).These "mechanisms", as you are calling them, do possibly have significant origins from random mutations and naturals selection- some even more so than others.So, according to you, epigenetics originated (significantly or partially?) through random mutations and natural selection. Likewise, endosymbiosis, if it is even a valid concept, was formed through RM and NS, among other things. Of course the fact that endosymbiosis even exists is still just theoretical, so of course the method through which it might have come about, if its even true, is even more suppositional in nature.Now of course, by your use of the term mechanism, we get to include every process of life, such as breathing, metabolizing food, cell, division, and any other system of organic matter, ...but even with this loose definition of what is an actual mechanism, and what is actually just a process (such as transposson insertion), I still find you parsing the root origins of all of these processes.The bottom line is, if you say they "could be" partially related to RM and NS what is the other source of origin? Is there another? You are trying to make the argument that RM and NS are not the only mechanisms of the modern evolutionary theory (which I can understand why you are trying to make this escape hatch, because of the difficulties for explaining things by such an unguided process), but isn't it true, that you have nothing else to start with other than those two originators? How can you say that it came from something else? Where else can an intelligent system come from with your theory? It doesn't matter what you use to define as a mechanism of evolution, ultimately by your own theory they can ONLY come from RM & NS in the beginning. Otherwise,please tell me how they can come from something else.I think, once again, you are trying to run from your own theory, by creating a category of "other mechanisms" (preferably as vague and as flexible as possible), when in truth ANY other origin for a mechanism runs completely contrary to your theory. So we are back to the beginning, your theory ONLY has RM and NS as a base. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

I wasn't asking what the theory said one hundred years ago, or what it might say in another 100 years, I am asking what you are saying today. If you have any other mechanism for evolutionary designed intelligent structures that does not have either RM and NS as its cause, please explain?If you wish to claim the two mechanisms as 1. Rm and neutral selection, and 2. Rm and Natural selection, ok, make the case if you chose. Please stop using the excuse of ID can't provide a better explanation diversion. If you don't believe in ID why are you using that for a yardstick?