Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 4:11 AM
34 online now:
frako, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,573 Year: 3,610/19,786 Month: 605/1,087 Week: 195/212 Day: 10/27 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
10111213Next
Author Topic:   Information's role in evolution.Should we put it more in the picture?
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2172 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 121 of 192 (623915)
07-14-2011 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by zi ko
07-14-2011 12:59 PM


Becuase the orignal bacteria weren't resistant.
How the authors had excluded that some bacteria had met these fungi?

Becuase if the bacteria already had a latent antibiotic resistance it would have given them a completely different result to the one they observed. They would not have observed the resistance trait arising in line with the established mutation rate. The original Lederberg paper can be read here.

TTFN,

WK

Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by zi ko, posted 07-14-2011 12:59 PM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by zi ko, posted 07-16-2011 10:35 AM Wounded King has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 122 of 192 (623936)
07-14-2011 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by zi ko
07-14-2011 12:59 PM


Re: I need clear answers
It is knoun that fungi produce antibiotics in nature. How the authors had excluded that some bacteria had met these fungi?

The bacterial populations were grown from a single bacterium. If that single bacterium was resistant to antibiotics then nearly the entire population would have been resistant. That was not the case. Instead, only 1 out of billions of bacteria were resistant, and this resistance came about due to a mutation that occured prior to the bacteria being exposed to antibiotic. The mutation was not a reaction to the presence of the antibiotic.

This experiment has been done time after time after time. The mutations observed in this experiment, and others like it, are random with respect to fitness. I can cite specific biochemical pathways that further demonstrate how mutations are random, if you like.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by zi ko, posted 07-14-2011 12:59 PM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by zi ko, posted 07-16-2011 10:47 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 1697 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 123 of 192 (624161)
07-16-2011 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Wounded King
07-14-2011 1:13 PM


Re: Lederberg experiment
Becuase if the bacteria already had a latent antibiotic resistance it would have given them a completely different result to the one they observed. They would not have observed the resistance trait arising in line with the established mutation rate. The original Lederberg paper can be read here.

So the experiment prooves that there are randon mutations. It does not prove that they are the only ones.
According to my "speculative theory"(www.sleepgadgetabs.com): 1. random and directed mutations can coexist. 2.In onecell organisms randomness is seen more often. 3.The experiment conditions energise random mutations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Wounded King, posted 07-14-2011 1:13 PM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Wounded King, posted 07-18-2011 4:10 AM zi ko has responded
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 07-18-2011 1:38 PM zi ko has responded

    
zi ko
Member (Idle past 1697 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 124 of 192 (624162)
07-16-2011 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Taq
07-14-2011 3:22 PM


Re: The Lederbrgs experiment
The bacterial populations were grown from a single bacterium. If that single bacterium was resistant to antibiotics then nearly the entire population would have been resistant. That was not the case. Instead, only 1 out of billions of bacteria were resistant, and this resistance came about due to a mutation that occured prior to the bacteria being exposed to antibiotic. The mutation was not a reaction to the presence of the antibiotic.

This experiment has been done time after time after time. The mutations observed in this experiment, and others like it, are random with respect to fitness. I can cite specific biochemical pathways that further demonstrate how mutations are random, if you like.

My answer is the same as message 123

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Taq, posted 07-14-2011 3:22 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
zi ko
Member (Idle past 1697 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 125 of 192 (624164)
07-16-2011 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Larni
07-12-2011 9:01 AM


Re: I need clear answers

What is the evidence that mutations are strictly random and not information or function driven? Isn't speculation? You don't seem to worry about it.

This is where your mode of thought clashes with the scientific methodology.

You ask here why we don't concider empathy as a driver for evolution: the reason that no one conciders empathy as a driver for evolution is because there is no reason to.

What you (again!) seem to be saying is that you have a suspision that empthay drives evolution.

I'm fine with that but you need to suport your idea with some evidence for anybody in the scientific world to take you seriously.

You could be correct, but you have to show us that you correct.

You can't appeal to other people to prove you right and expect that to fly in a science forum.

I am not a biologist or something alike.

Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.


Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Larni, posted 07-12-2011 9:01 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Larni, posted 07-16-2011 11:58 AM zi ko has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 126 of 192 (624172)
07-16-2011 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by zi ko
07-16-2011 10:55 AM


Re: I need clear answers
You say you are not a biologist and yet you want people to take you seriously?

I don't get why you think your armchair philosophising has any likely hood of getting any traction in biological circles when biologists on this very site are telling you your ideas and bollocks.

I don't want to sound mean but you don't seem to know much about the scientific method.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by zi ko, posted 07-16-2011 10:55 AM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by zi ko, posted 07-22-2011 12:53 AM Larni has responded
 Message 140 by shadow71, posted 07-27-2011 8:42 AM Larni has responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2172 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 127 of 192 (624464)
07-18-2011 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by zi ko
07-16-2011 10:35 AM


Re: Lederberg experiment
In onecell organisms randomness is seen more often

This is totally contrary to the evidence, in fact the only evidence at all of anything that might constitute a directed mechanism, such as those examples put forward by Wright and Shapiro, are in single celled organisms.

The experiment conditions energise random mutations.

What does this even mean? There are some experiments that can induce elevated rates of mutation but the replica plate experiment set up we were discussing isn't one of them.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by zi ko, posted 07-16-2011 10:35 AM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by zi ko, posted 07-22-2011 12:45 AM Wounded King has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 128 of 192 (624517)
07-18-2011 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by zi ko
07-16-2011 10:35 AM


Re: Lederberg experiment
So the experiment prooves that there are randon mutations. It does not prove that they are the only ones.
According to my "speculative theory"(www.sleepgadgetabs.com): 1. random and directed mutations can coexist. 2.In onecell organisms randomness is seen more often. 3.The experiment conditions energise random mutations.

"Speculative theory" is an oxymoron within the confines of science.

Also, we have shown experiments which demonstrate random mutagenesis. Where are your experiments which demonstrate guided and directed mutations which would make a significant impact on evolution?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by zi ko, posted 07-16-2011 10:35 AM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by zi ko, posted 07-22-2011 12:03 AM Taq has responded

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 1697 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 129 of 192 (625259)
07-22-2011 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Taq
07-18-2011 1:38 PM


Re: Lederberg experiment
Also, we have shown experiments which demonstrate random mutagenesis. Where are your experiments which demonstrate guided and directed mutations which would make a significant impact on evolution?

the question of environment guiding eolution towards specific adaptations, together with natural selection and random mutations
is i think, solved ( see epigenetics, J Shapiro wright, Pigliucci ect). The era of simple answers and simple exlanations has gone.The element and concept of complexitveness in both questioning and answeing is now prevaling. This is a fact.This is the base we have all to agree.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.


Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 07-18-2011 1:38 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Taq, posted 07-22-2011 11:28 AM zi ko has not yet responded

    
zi ko
Member (Idle past 1697 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 130 of 192 (625263)
07-22-2011 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Wounded King
07-18-2011 4:10 AM


Re: Lederberg experiment

In one cell organisms randomness is seen more often

This is totally contrary to the evidence, in fact the only evidence at all of anything that might constitute a directed mechanism, such as those examples put forward by Wright and Shapiro, are in single celled organisms.

Shapiro and Wright had been studying bacteria only. But they say that macroevolution in multi cell organisms is mainly information driven.


The experiment conditions energise random mutations.

What does this even mean? There are some experiments that can induce elevated rates of mutation but the replica plate experiment set up we were discussing isn't one of them.

The replica plate had its own characteristics that they may didn't enhance mutation rates.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Wounded King, posted 07-18-2011 4:10 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Wounded King, posted 07-22-2011 6:54 AM zi ko has not yet responded
 Message 134 by Taq, posted 07-22-2011 11:27 AM zi ko has responded

    
zi ko
Member (Idle past 1697 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 131 of 192 (625264)
07-22-2011 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Larni
07-16-2011 11:58 AM


Re: I need clear answers
You either don't seem to know the work of Shapiro, Wright, Pigliucci, Yablonca, studies in epigenetics.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Larni, posted 07-16-2011 11:58 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Larni, posted 07-22-2011 4:13 AM zi ko has not yet responded
 Message 138 by Admin, posted 07-22-2011 6:09 PM zi ko has not yet responded
 Message 139 by Admin, posted 07-22-2011 6:17 PM zi ko has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 132 of 192 (625289)
07-22-2011 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by zi ko
07-22-2011 12:53 AM


Round and round and round and round......
You either don't seem to know the work of Shapiro, Wright, Pigliucci, Yablonca, studies in epigenetics.

Sigh.

You have been shown that you are very wrong about what you believe the epigenetics studies show by WK and Taq so many times int this thread it beggers belief.

You idea about empathy drivng evolution is unsupported.

Give it up or do some fucking research.

Armchair theorising is a waste of time, no better than having a mental wank.

Edited by Larni, : mental wank.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by zi ko, posted 07-22-2011 12:53 AM zi ko has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2172 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 133 of 192 (625306)
07-22-2011 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by zi ko
07-22-2011 12:45 AM


Re: Lederberg experiment
But they say that macroevolution in multi cell organisms is mainly information driven.

Well fine, but the fact that they say that isn't any sort of evidence. Without some sort of data to support it that is just an assertion or the expression of an opinion.

Of course by using a term like 'information driven' you have once again highlighted your lamentable inability to define any of the terms you use meaningfully. After all I have already provided links to papers showing how natural selection can work to transfer environmental information into the genome, which to my mind would satisfy a requirement for information as a driver of macroevolution.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by zi ko, posted 07-22-2011 12:45 AM zi ko has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 134 of 192 (625335)
07-22-2011 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by zi ko
07-22-2011 12:45 AM


Re: Lederberg experiment
Shapiro and Wright had been studying bacteria only. But they say that macroevolution in multi cell organisms is mainly information driven.

We have been saying the same thing, that species evolve through information that moves from the environment to the population through the filter of natural selection.

The replica plate had its own characteristics that they may didn't enhance mutation rates.

This doesn't explain why the clones on the replica plate came from the same spot on the master plate. The only explanation for this is that the mutation occurred on the master plate before the bacteria were exposed to antibiotics on the replica plates.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by zi ko, posted 07-22-2011 12:45 AM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by zi ko, posted 07-22-2011 12:21 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 135 of 192 (625336)
07-22-2011 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by zi ko
07-22-2011 12:03 AM


Re: Lederberg experiment
the question of environment guiding eolution towards specific adaptations, together with natural selection and random mutations
is i think, solved ( see epigenetics, J Shapiro wright, Pigliucci ect).

How does epigenetics explain the differences between humans and chimps?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by zi ko, posted 07-22-2011 12:03 AM zi ko has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
10111213Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019