Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
139 online now:
CosmicChimp, Faith, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 135 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 870,727 Year: 2,475/23,288 Month: 666/1,809 Week: 98/225 Day: 1/28 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution.
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 391 of 433 (657074)
03-25-2012 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by Panda
03-25-2012 2:37 PM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
Isn't this example tautological?
'existing universal laws' is a reasonably accurate simile for 'nature'.

Perhaps it is. Your definition of nature is as good as any. I'm just trying to come up with an expression that shows the problems with assigning a purpose to something is not a being, and that cannot plan. If I have recited a tautology, then I don't see that recital to be a problem.

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 389 by Panda, posted 03-25-2012 2:37 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by Panda, posted 03-25-2012 5:25 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 392 of 433 (657075)
03-25-2012 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by zi ko
03-25-2012 2:44 PM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
Nobody said universal laws possess sentience or purpose. But they could lead to creatures that have them.

Statements like the above are the reasons why I generally avoid your threads.

You said:

Nature's purpose could be imposed by:
1.The existing universal laws.

You did not say that Nature could produce purposeful creature's but that Nature itself had purpose and you compared Nature holding a purpose to a supernatural being having a purpose in the same message. But the fact is that Nature cannot be distinguished from universal laws.

Your statement that nature can produce creatures that have purpose is not a point of dispute. The question is instead whether random variation with a process that selects for surviving long enough to reproduce can result beings with sentience and purpose. You don't believe that, but you have not expressed evidence based reason for your belief.

I see your denial that there is evidence to believe that random mutation with natural selection can result in purposeful sentient beings, but I only see your own incredulity in support of that denial.

I consider this post to be my summary, since I have not played a significant role in this thread.


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 390 by zi ko, posted 03-25-2012 2:44 PM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by zi ko, posted 03-26-2012 10:25 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2122 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 393 of 433 (657087)
03-25-2012 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by NoNukes
03-25-2012 2:50 PM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
NoNukes writes:

If I have recited a tautology, then I don't see that recital to be a problem.


I agree with your assessment of zi ko's argument - I was simply pointing out that there was a more basic problem with his first suggestion than the one you described.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2012 2:50 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 2029 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 394 of 433 (657144)
03-26-2012 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by NoNukes
03-25-2012 3:08 PM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
You did not say that Nature could produce purposeful creature's but that Nature itself had purpose .... But the fact is that Nature cannot be distinguished from universal laws.

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.So i don't understand your reaction.We have reached at the most crucial point of our conversation.It will be a pity if you quit now.

Your statement that nature can produce creatures that have purpose is not a point of dispute.

So we agree on this one.It is very important. But here we are faced with some questions:
1.How from an endity (universal laws) which does not pocess purpose or sentience result purposeful creatures.
2.These creatures with purpose characteristics: a)are all the creatures seen in nature? b) is this characheristic existing in all of creatures functions?
c) if it is not, how it is restricted and why to the one or the other direction or debth? d)why there is not, as far as i know, any relative scientific research research? e) etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2012 3:08 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Taq, posted 03-26-2012 11:24 AM zi ko has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8225
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


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 responded

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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8225
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


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 yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8225
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


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 yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8225
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(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 yet responded

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 2029 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 399 of 433 (657709)
03-30-2012 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 395 by Taq
03-26-2012 11:13 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
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.

Answering to to each of your remarks, i fear it would just recycle old arguments we had in previous posts. I only willrecite GG Simpson:
the final explication must go to GG Simpson, in 1953 (pages 86f):

"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]

Fear of the ordinary sense of chance and random which Gould describes above arises largely from a desire to find meaning in the events of the world around us. Science is not the appropriate place to find this meaning. Neither can meaning be imposed upon scientific explanations......
Even mutations are, as a matter of fact, non-random in various senses,......For example, mutations have well-understood physical causes, and to this extent they are non-random. ...
The causes of mutations are not evolutionary processes; the changes to organisms that result from mutations are."

I suggest this article by Wilkins. At least it shows some doubts about the randomness of mutations.

Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by Taq, posted 03-26-2012 11:13 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Wounded King, posted 03-30-2012 5:57 AM zi ko has responded
 Message 401 by Taq, posted 03-30-2012 11:11 AM zi ko has responded
 Message 404 by Wounded King, posted 04-02-2012 11:53 AM zi ko has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2504 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 400 of 433 (657710)
03-30-2012 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 399 by zi ko
03-30-2012 5:42 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
Wow Zi Ko, your nested quoting there make that whole thing fairly hard to interpret.

The article (Wilkins, 1997)doesn't really show much doubt about randomness, what it does is describe and discuss a common misconception of the role of randomness in evolution and the distinction between random in a scientific sense and its more common usage.

It is a shame you didn't include the mentioned Gould quote since it eloquently addresses your recent line of enquiry about the predictive value of random mutations ...

SJ Gould writes:

In ordinary English, a random event is one without order, predicatability or pattern. The word connotes disaggregation, falling apart, formless anarchy, and fear. Yet, ironically, the scientific sense of random conveys a precisely opposite set of associations. A phenomenon governed by chance yields maximal simplicity, order and predictability--at least in the long run. ... Thus, if you wish to understand patterns of long historical sequences, pray for randomness.

At this point you seem to have retreated to a position where you refuse to defend or provide any evidence to support your theory's more novel features about the role of the nervous system in directing evolution and are now just trying to create a new terminology to just describe evolution as it is commonly understood. You perseverance of life looks little different from the evolutionary concept of fitness taken up to the higher level of the whole global ecosystem as a system for regulating and producing variant ecosystems to account for changes in the environment, perhaps you should move onto quoting gigantic chunks of James Lovelock now.

TTFN,

WK

Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by zi ko, posted 04-02-2012 10:51 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8225
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


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 responded

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

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 2029 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 402 of 433 (658101)
04-02-2012 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 400 by Wounded King
03-30-2012 5:57 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
It is a shame you didn't include the mentioned Gould quote since it eloquently addresses your recent line of enquiry about the predictive value of random mutations ...

I don't think that predictability and predictive value are the same and Gould surely was talking only of predictability of mutations.

Thus, if you wish to understand patterns of long historical sequences, pray for randomness.

That gives me a good idea. Nature's innate intelligence or God know about that property of randomness not to be used in evolution. So no real randomness...

perhaps you should move onto quoting gigantic chunks of James Lovelock now.

I prefer to think that innate intelligence acts on an a micro atomic level.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Wounded King, posted 03-30-2012 5:57 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 2029 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 403 of 433 (658103)
04-02-2012 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by Taq
03-30-2012 11:11 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
I have already agreed that mutations are not random with respect to time, rate, or position in the genome.

How you then are you able to talk about randomness in mutations as regards preserving life (or fitness as you call it)?

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?

Lottery is not random when it happens at times, rate or positions apropriate to the needs of the people who play (or use) it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Taq, posted 03-30-2012 11:11 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by Taq, posted 04-02-2012 1:32 PM zi ko has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2504 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 404 of 433 (658116)
04-02-2012 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 399 by zi ko
03-30-2012 5:42 AM


Guilt by omission
Looking back at Wilkins' article I see that Zi Ko is being tricksy in his quoting. From the section of material from GG Simpson he cut out, without any indication he had done so, the following sections ( the ellipses are all from the original Wilkins article) ...

There is, on one hand, a randomness as to where and when a mutation will occur. ...

On the other hand, the term "randomness" as applied to mutation often refers to the lack of correspondence of phenotypic effect with the stimulus and with the actual or the adaptive direction of evolution. ... It is a well known fact, emphasized over and over again in discussions of genetics and evolution, that the vast majority of known mutations are inadaptive. ...

This suggests very strongly that what Simpson means by adaptive mutation is not a directed mutation in response to a specific environmental stimulus but rather simply a beneficial mutation, one that helps the organism adapt to its new environment. The opposite being an inadaptive mutation that doesn't contribute to such adaptation.

TTFN,

WK

P.S. I still have no idea what you are trying to say when you talk about the predictive value of mutations, it seems to be an essentially meaningless term as you use it.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by zi ko, posted 04-03-2012 11:32 AM Wounded King has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8225
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


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 responded

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020