Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation

zi ko writes: You've examined mutations in fossils? Wow! Gould and others dit it.

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:

zi ko in Message 267 writes: But there is evidence brought by Shapiro, wright, Yablonca ect, showing that information from environment guides evolution direction by direct action and not just indirectly through natural selection.

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

You've examined mutations in fossils? Wow!

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.

That is not what Shapiro says and you know it. You have had that pointed out to you many times. No one believes random mutations are the only factor in evolution. This you have been told many times. Why do you keep ignoring what you have been told?

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.

So what are these mutations?

The increased rate of mutations that led to rapid evolution renders them directed .

Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

I understand what you are saying.

It is wrong.

zi ko writes: 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.

Since you haven't edited your original message, what you actually said is still there in Message 262:

zi ko in Message 262 writes: I show you two cases of guided mutations: 1.The relative lack of intermediate fossils during periods of greate environmental changes.

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

ziko writes: The increased rate of mutations that led to rapid evolution renders them directed .

Rapid change in phenotype doesn't necessarily imply an increased mutation rate. Rather, new and strong selection pressure can be working on existing variation.

No one can prove tedency in nature.

The Wright et al. paper demonstrates that we can.

But in spite of any deleterious mutatations the fact is that life is preserved;

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.

The existance of deleterious or neutral mutations does not cancel this tedency.

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.

Again your evidence maby it is misinterpreted by you.You have to prove, at least for yourself, there is not any tedency behind these "facts".

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.

The increased rate of mutations that led to rapid evolution renders them directed .

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.

The Wright et al. paper demonstrates that we can.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Rapid change in phenotype doesn't necessarily imply an increased mutation rate. Rather, new and strong selection pressure can be working on existing variation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would tend to to agree with you. But it could also mean that changes originated from neural system may be intervening. (see www.sleepgadgedabs.com). Your use of the word "rather" i suppose you imply that you accept the possibility, that other things could be happening as well.If strong selection pressures is the only couse, which might well be true, then it has to clearly beyond any doupt be proved; and particularly it has to be sure that other co-working couses are excluded.

Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

Hi Zi Ko,

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:

• Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation
• What bothers me about the evolution of Man
• Instinctual Behavior Vs Intelligent Decisions

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.

zi ko writes: If strong selection pressures is the only couse, which might well be true, then it has to clearly beyond any doupt be proved; and particularly it has to be sure that other co-working couses are excluded.

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.

O.K Percy,
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.

Hi Zi Ko,

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.