|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| |||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| WookieeB | |||||||
|
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member  Posts: 18252 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Gould and others examined mutations in fossils? Wow! Zi Ko, think a little bit about this. With rare exceptions, fossils contain no organic material. DNA is organic. There is no DNA in fossils. You still do not seem to understand that mutation and natural selection pull in different directions regarding with you call "life preservation," and I would have thought this would have prevented you from making a clear statement relative about Wright and Shapiro, and yet you successfully pull it off in Message 267:
Yes, you are right that this is what Shapiro and Wright appear to be saying, but as has been pointed out many times, they greatly exaggerate. --Percy
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
zi ko Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Come on Percy! The original issue was: "The relative lack of intermediate fossils during periods of great environmental changes ." This is I am refering to. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
zi ko Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
I refer you to message 271 by Percy. I never had ignored natural selection.Is there anything else you thing i ignore? Try to unndestand what i am saying. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
zi ko Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
The increased rate of mutations that led to rapid evolution renders them directed . Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Larni Member  Posts: 3975 From: Liverpool Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
It is wrong. 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 Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member Posts: 18252 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Since you haven't edited your original message, what you actually said is still there in Message 262:
Hence the comment, "You've examined mutations in fossils? Wow!" With only rare exceptions fossils do not contain organic material. You cannot cite the lack of intermediate fossils as an example of guided mutations because there are no mutations to examine. In the future I suggest that if you're going to selectively quote mine your own posts that you edit them first so you don't get caught. --Percy
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
bluegenes Member (Idle past 522 days)  Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Rapid change in phenotype doesn't necessarily imply an increased mutation rate. Rather, new and strong selection pressure can be working on existing variation.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taq Member  Posts: 7670 Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
The Wright et al. paper demonstrates that we can.
Where did you show that? If Wright et al. used a population of just 100 bacteria they would not have been preserved given the fact that the beneficial mutation only occurs once in every 500 million divisions.
I guess you have never heard of the multiple mass extinctions that have occurred in Earth's history? The Permian extinction saw more than 90% of species disappearing from the face of the Earth.
That is exactly what I have done in this thread. The data from the paper demonstrates that the increased mutation rate is specific to ssDNA, not the leuB gene. If you are going to claim that I am misrepresenting the findings then you had better show how I am misrepresenting it.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taq Member Posts: 7670 Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
Again, I have shown that this is not true with reference to the Wright et al. paper. It is an increase in the random mutation rate, not directed mutagenesis.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
zi ko Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Let's suppose you are right in your deductions. You still have to prove that the same mechanisms or principles apply to higher types of life. Also that the "obvious" lack o tedency on this experiment was not the result of nuture's "knowledge" that tedency on that particular case was not necessary; so the tedency to life preservation was not clearly evident, but it was there.
But what if nature can "know"that 500 million divisions is a usual happening and could rely on this fact? I guess you have never heard of the multiple mass extinctions that have occurred in Earth's history? The Permian extinction saw more than 90% of species disappearing from the face of the Earth.
But in spite of this life managed to preserve itself so successfuly.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
zi ko Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Admin Director  Posts: 12578 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 4.6 |
When someone uses the same argument in thread after thread regardless of topic, thereby causing those threads to go off-topic, then we ask them to take that argument to its own thread and to stop introducing it in other threads. You already had a thread to discuss your ideas, Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist?, but now you're trying to introduce them into other threads. These are the ones I've found so far:
You've already lost your posting privileges in the Human Origins and Evolution forum. If you continue discussing the ideas from your webpage in threads where it is not the designated topic then I will remove your posting permissions in the rest of the science forums. If you would like to continue working on the topic proposal you began (Did evolution evolve?) then let me know and I will reopen it. You misspelled the url of your webpage, please do not correct it. Edited by Admin, : Grammar.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
bluegenes Member (Idle past 522 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
I think that I agree with Percy that you should take your ideas to the thread proposal that you made earlier, because we'll be wandering off the topic of the Wright paper if we discuss this. I was replying to a comment you made on rapid change in the fossil record, which doesn't directly relate to this topic at all.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
zi ko Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
but what if in a thread i read a question or an issue that could IMO give an answer or a new direction to the discussion related to the issue? In that case you may give the impression that you are afraid of discussing the issue from all possible views-sides.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Admin Director Posts: 12578 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 4.6 |
Moderators deal with specific situations as they arise. I can't answer your hypothetical, but you already have an answer regarding your insertion of your webpage and its hypothesis in thread after thread.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019
