Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,602 Year: 4,859/9,624 Month: 207/427 Week: 17/103 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution.
AceGreen
Junior Member (Idle past 4478 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 03-14-2012


Message 376 of 433 (655922)
03-14-2012 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by Wounded King
03-14-2012 12:23 PM


Re: Are there ONLY RANDOM MUTATIONS?
In at least 2 of the examples, Pax6 and Neural Crest Cells I'd say it was the role of the developing nervous system as an organising centre that was the cause of that involvement since the key developmental timepoints involved are well before the CNS starts acting as a central interpreter of environmental information.
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.
Concerning the neural crest cells, based on other published works, Cabej writes that hindbrain (neural tube) provides the neural crest cells with epigenetic patterning Dynamics information’. He quotes Trainor . ‘‘the proper program of events governing the migration of crest may need first to be established in the hindbrain to allow migratory crest cells to interpret and respond to environmental signals set up through a series of tissue interactions.’’
However, it seems to me that examples on the direct involvement of the CNS in producing evolutionary innovations are to be found in his book. Don’t worry I find the $150 a bit steep myself. Maybe go to the author’s site?
*Note: Are are block quotes done on this site? Thanks .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Wounded King, posted 03-14-2012 12:23 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by Taq, posted 03-15-2012 12:25 AM AceGreen has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


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

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 378 of 433 (655983)
03-15-2012 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by Taq
03-15-2012 12:25 AM


Re: Are there ONLY RANDOM MUTATIONS?
Again, this thread is about guided mutations.
Actually, this thread is about Zi Ko's 'neurogenic theory' and in one of his several OP variants he included epigenetics as one of the factors he was interested in.
Maybe you are getting mixed up with the thread about the Wright paper. That would be fairly understandable since there are currently 2 parallel subthreads going on, one titled "Re: Are there ONLY RANDOM MUTATIONS?" and the other "Re: Are there RANDOM MUTATIONS?"
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Taq, posted 03-15-2012 12:25 AM Taq has not replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 379 of 433 (655993)
03-15-2012 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by zi ko
03-08-2012 10:18 PM


Re: Are there ONLY RANDOM MUTATIONS?
I can't pretend i fully understand this ERV stuff and its predictive value as regards randomness in mutations
If you don't understand this how can you even talk about this kind of think at an equal level with those trying to educate you?

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
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

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 381 by zi ko, posted 03-23-2012 1:41 AM Larni has not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3701 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 380 of 433 (656905)
03-23-2012 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 359 by Taq
03-08-2012 11:49 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
.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.
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.
What guided mutations? Evidence please.
Exactly the same "evidence" you provide for random mutations.
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.
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..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Taq, posted 03-08-2012 11:49 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Taq, posted 03-23-2012 11:40 AM zi ko has replied
 Message 383 by Meddle, posted 03-23-2012 1:08 PM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3701 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 381 of 433 (656910)
03-23-2012 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by Larni
03-15-2012 9:59 AM


Re: Does random mutation theory have predictive value?
I can't pretend i fully understand this ERV stuff and its predictive value as regards randomness in mutations
If you don't understand this how can you even talk about this kind of think at an equal level with those trying to educate you?
So you do understand. Could you then please explain to me how it has this predictive value?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Larni, posted 03-15-2012 9:59 AM Larni has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


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

  
Meddle
Member (Idle past 1352 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


Message 383 of 433 (656947)
03-23-2012 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by zi ko
03-23-2012 12:54 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
Exactly the same "evidence" you provide for random mutations.
Then how would you differentiate between mutations that are random and those which are 'guided'?

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 385 by zi ko, posted 03-24-2012 9:14 AM Meddle has not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3701 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 384 of 433 (656980)
03-24-2012 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by Taq
03-23-2012 11:40 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
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.
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 . Also it can choose between different possibilities, or as it happens usually, it can combine all them.
Then why not call them random mutations and be done with it?
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.
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.
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 . 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.
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Taq, posted 03-23-2012 11:40 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2012 1:12 PM zi ko has replied
 Message 395 by Taq, posted 03-26-2012 11:13 AM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3701 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 385 of 433 (656983)
03-24-2012 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by Meddle
03-23-2012 1:08 PM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
Then how would you differentiate between mutations that are random and those which are 'guided'?
I don't try to. I believe they all are guided as they both, "random"and guided mutations serve nature's strife to preserve life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Meddle, posted 03-23-2012 1:08 PM Meddle has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 386 of 433 (656994)
03-24-2012 1:12 PM
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 . Also it can choose between different possibilities, or as it happens usually, it can combine all them.
Nature is an abstract concept that roughly speaking refers to the entire world outside of things that result from man's own purpose. Nature is literally incapable of having any purpose, because it possess no sentience. Similarly, it is only by colloquial thinking that we can even say that Nature is indifferent to life, because non-entities cannot even be said to have feelings.
Perhaps your anthropomorphism of Nature has some rationale and logic behind it. But so far, it is a rationale and logic that I do not see and that you do not explain. What I do see is muddled, and non-linear thinking, that I would label irrational. Of course, I could be wrong.
Perhaps if you explain what entity it is that you actually believe has such a purpose, or how a non-entity might at least euphemistically be said to have purpose, others could more easily understand what you mean.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

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 387 by zi ko, posted 03-25-2012 10:07 AM NoNukes has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3701 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 387 of 433 (657043)
03-25-2012 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 386 by NoNukes
03-24-2012 1:12 PM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
Perhaps if you explain what entity it is that you actually believe has such a purpose, or how a non-entity might at least euphemistically be said to have purpose, others could more easily understand what you mean.
Nature's purpose could be imposed by:
1.The existing universal laws.
2.By a supernatural entity.
I think that either of them is logically preferable to me as a cause of life, than randomness. Of course somebody could prefer the last one; But in any case it is a matter of belief, and not a scientific conclusion, as many here tent irrationally to to think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2012 1:12 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2012 1:33 PM zi ko has replied
 Message 396 by Taq, posted 03-26-2012 11:19 AM zi ko has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 388 of 433 (657064)
03-25-2012 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by zi ko
03-25-2012 10:07 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
Nature's purpose could be imposed by:
1.The existing universal laws.
Not directly, because existing "universal laws" is just another abstract concept that cannot possess sentience or purpose. In fact, what we call laws are simply our observations of how the universe seems to work.
2.By a supernatural entity.
I think you are really limited to only this possibility. The first possibility is just patent nonsense, and is what allows you to say that when an apple falls to the ground, it is being directed by sentience.
I think that either of them is logically preferable to me as a cause of life, than randomness. Of course somebody could prefer the last one; But in any case it is a matter of belief, and not a scientific conclusion, as many here tent irrationally to to think.
Yes, and I suspect that if you were to simply call your "theory" a belief rather than trying to pretend it was science, this thread would not be approaching 400 messages in length.
Edited by NoNukes, : remove extraneous quoted material.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by zi ko, posted 03-25-2012 10:07 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Panda, posted 03-25-2012 2:37 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 390 by zi ko, posted 03-25-2012 2:44 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3795 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 389 of 433 (657071)
03-25-2012 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by NoNukes
03-25-2012 1:33 PM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
NoNukes writes:
zi ko writes:
Nature's purpose could be imposed by:
1.The existing universal laws.
Not directly, because existing "universal laws" is just another abstract concept that cannot possess sentience or purpose. In fact, what we call laws are simply our observations of how the universe seems to work.
Isn't this example tautological?
'existing universal laws' is a reasonably accurate simile for 'nature'.

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2012 1:33 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2012 2:50 PM Panda has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3701 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 390 of 433 (657073)
03-25-2012 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by NoNukes
03-25-2012 1:33 PM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
Not directly, because existing "universal laws" is just another abstract concept that cannot possess sentience or purpose. In fact, what we call laws are simply our observations of how the universe seems to work.
Nobody said universal laws possess sentience or purpose. But they could lead to creatures that have them.
I think you are really limited to only this possibility. The first possibility is just patent nonsense, and is what allows you to say that when an apple falls to the ground, it is being directed by sentience.
What does me prevent to say that aple is directed by gravity?
Yes, and I suspect that if you were to simply call your "theory" a belief ... .
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2012 1:33 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2012 3:08 PM zi ko has replied
 Message 397 by Taq, posted 03-26-2012 11:20 AM zi ko has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024