|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How novel features evolve #2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
What if creationists are pathologically incapable of posting on-topic? Or is it a skill you worked on? A strategy you're purposefully employing? An odd mental quirk? Maybe we could discuss this question too in every thread, along with guided evolution and philosophical questions about the nature of evidence. Why have forums and threads, anyway? Why not just go to a single thread with a few hundred thousand messages? What if evolutionists avoid (for what reason?) answering crucial questions and use authority to get away? Of course i am off topic now , but you were the same just before me.When i posed a simple question on message 127, i just got an authoritarian NO, based on such a meagre evidence and against any contemporary scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
What if evolutionists avoid (for what reason?) answering crucial questions and use authority to get away? Of course i am off topic now , but you were the same just before me.When i posed a simple question on message 127, i just got an authoritarian NO, based on such a meagre evidence and against any contemporary scientific knowledge.
Each and every time you bring up the randomness of mutations I cite EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS. In this thread I have referenced two experiments which demonstrate random mutations. I even started a thread where I discussed a paper written by Wright who is much more friendly to your ideas of guided mutations than most scientists (thread found here). Now you are once again claiming that we are ignoring some phantom evidence that you fail to supply each time, all the while ignoring the experimental results we post. To help steer this somewhere else, I would be happy to start a new thread on a peer reviewed primary research paper of your choosing (no secondary reviews please). Are you up to the task?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
Hi guys. I think I can see my way through to connect the current discussions to the topic, but it's becoming a rapidly disappearing target.
If there is some point you feel is excellent, though off topic, try composing a new PNT. If you think you can tie together your current discussion towards either explaining how novel features evolve or refuting the notion that novel features can evolve - then please do. Suspensions, or text hidings may follow if I don't see the connection between what you are saying and the topic. I don't promise that it will be fair. You have been warned.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
This thread died around page 6 when we couldn't pin down the gene(s) that changed in the mice and haven't as yet been able to provide another likely candidate for a complete audit trail from mutation to selection.
Shame, it leaves the insane with an almost reasonable argument.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Hi guys. I think I can see my way through to connect the current discussions to the topic, but it's becoming a rapidly disappearing target. Understanding the relationship between fitness and mutation is vitally important for understanding how novel features evolve. Going back to the pocket mouse example, the authors found that the mutations in the MC1R (which is thought to be responsible for dark fur) only occurred in one of the populations found on dark lava. However, the other populations still had dark fur. This is a very important observation. First, we observe that the lava fields are separated by hundreds of miles. We also observe that the dark allele is strongly selected against in the range between the dark lava fields. Therefore, there is no expectation that the mutations conferring dark fur will be able to move from one lava field to the other given that the dark allele is dominant. This offers a way of testing whether mutations are guided or random with respect to fitness. Given the multitude of possible mutations in different genes that can give rise to dark fur we would not expect random mutations to result in the same mutation in independent populations. If mutations are guided then we would expect the same mutations to occur in each population. What do we observe? Different mutations in each populaton. This is extremely strong evidence for random mutations. We can apply this same knowledge to evolution in general. Given the random nature of mutations and the contigencies within the genomes that they occur in we would expect different solutions to the same problem in different lineages. This is why we see feathers and fur as two separate solutions for thermoregulation in mammals and birds. This is why we see different solutions for eyes, wings, and fins amongst different lineages. So I would say that the random nature of mutations is strongly on topic. However, an extended discussion of why we think that mutations are random probably deserves a focused topic of its own.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Taq writes: So I would say that the random nature of mutations is strongly on topic. If guided mutations can lead to novelty then wouldn't they also be on topic? It seemed like Zi Ko was trying to co-opt yet another thread to discuss his own favorite ideas, but if he can introduce some evidence for guided mutations and describe how they lead to novelty then it seems like it would be a welcome addition to this thread. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
If guided mutations can lead to novelty then wouldn't they also be on topic?
Very much so, at least in the opinion of this non-moderator. What is needed is evidence of these guided mutations and how they lead to novel features. I think the pocket mouse example found earlier in this thread may be useful in such a discussion, but I think it should be up to zi ko to choose the examples to be used.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
It seemed like Zi Ko was trying to co-opt yet another thread to discuss his own favorite ideas,
It isn't so bad after all, if it is not off topic. You just fight and redicule , if you can, my ideas. Choosing "proper" opponents it is not scientific at least. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
What part of "if he can introduce some evidence for guided mutations and describe how they lead to novelty then it seems like it would be a welcome addition to this thread" didn't you understand?
--Percy Edited by Percy, : Remove extraneous space.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
This offers a way of testing whether mutations are guided or random with respect to fitness. Given the multitude of possible mutations in different genes that can give rise to dark fur we would not expect random mutations to result in the same mutation in independent populations. If mutations are guided then we would expect the same mutations to occur in each population. What do we observe? Different mutations in each populaton. This is extremely strong evidence for random mutations. We can apply this same knowledge to evolution in general. Given the random nature of mutations and the contigencies within the genomes that they occur in we would expect different solutions to the same problem in different lineages. This is why we see feathers and fur as two separate solutions for thermoregulation in mammals and birds. This is why we see different solutions for eyes, wings, and fins amongst different lineages. I would easily agree, if we accept guidance as the act of an omnipotent all knowing Supernatural choosing the best, in our opinion, procedure. But this is not the case.According to my thesis guidance is expressed by the information flow from environment to genome. It is not strictly determined. It is a loosely directed try and error process. In one cell organisms even pure randomness can be allowed for, if is economical, as nature can use all available means in its scope to preserve and evolve life. Maybe this is the procedure Supernatural had chosen to act . Maybe it is just a matter of natural laws . So your deductions do not seem so strong, as other mechanisms could have as well the same results. As for the need of evidence I say: After about 250 ys what is the evidence for random mutations in metazoa? Almost negligible, understandably though. Because of complexity of the subject (see discussion of pocket mouse issue) it is difficult to expect proofs. But the fact is remaining. Your laboratory examples are based on one cell organisms, not on metazoa. How would we then expect clear cut evidence for guided evolution in order to just discuss the issue? Still , accepting lately the importance of environmental effect on genome sequence is quite enough to justifiably discussing it in this thread . We know of spontaneous mutations. Do we know for sure that these are not the result o some kind of environmental pressure? Stress in chicken causes always the same behavior disturbances. Isn’t it an indication of guided genome change, due environmental pressure? The same I think applies to pocket mouse coloring. Can we say with confidence that the repairing mechanism is not guided, so to ensure the perpetuation of useful mutations? Of course I should have brought the evidence in favor of my case, not just ask questions. I think we share the same fate. You don’t have it either. Can we agree on that? Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
I would easily agree, if we accept guidance as the act of an omnipotent all knowing Supernatural choosing the best, in our opinion, procedure. We don't need to accept that at all. If there is a set mutational response to a specific stimuli then we would expect the same stimuli to result in the same mutations. You don't need a supernatural creator to do that.
According to my thesis guidance is expressed by the information flow from environment to genome. It is not strictly determined. It is a loosely directed try and error process. Please provide evidence for this claim.
After about 250 ys what is the evidence for random mutations in metazoa? Massive mountains of genomic data showing sequence divergence of orthologous genes due to synonymous mutations, not to mention different rates of change in genes and pseudogenes. The pocket mouse example is another piece of evidence since differnent mutations for dark fur occurred in different populations.
How would we then expect clear cut evidence for guided evolution in order to just discuss the issue?
If the same mutation occurred in response to the same stimuli when other options were open. The evolution of dark fur in pocket mice is the perfect example, and I laid out what I would have expected to see if guided mutations were true. I would reread that post if I were you.
We know of spontaneous mutations. Do we know for sure that these are not the result o some kind of environmental pressure? What evidence led you to believe that they were guided?
Stress in chicken causes always the same behavior disturbances. Isn’t it an indication of guided genome change, due environmental pressure? Absolutely not. Those changes in behavior do not require changes in DNA sequence. We are talking about changes in DNA sequence.
Can we say with confidence that the repairing mechanism is not guided, so to ensure the perpetuation of useful mutations? Yes, we can. Repair mechanisms fix DNA damage based on the chemistry of the DNA. It is not based on the changes in fitness that the repairs will induce. There is no way for these repair mechanisms to differentiate between a mutations that will have no effect on fitness and those that will.
I think we share the same fate. You don’t have it either. Can we agree on that?
No, I don't agree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
We don't need to accept that at all. If there is a set mutational response to a specific stimuli then we would expect the same stimuli to result in the same mutations. You don't need a supernatural creator to do that. No we don't need.But we don't need either for the same reason, a one way alternative only, that of purely random mutatations.
Massive mountains of genomic data showing sequence divergence of orthologous genes due to synonymous mutations, not to mention different rates of change in genes and pseudogenes. The pocket mouse example is another piece of evidence since differnent mutations for dark fur occurred in different populations.
These "massive mountains of data" can equally be qaused by the flaw of environmental information to genome. So this argument is of no value. You obviously need to exclude first this possibibility, before being so sure about your theory. It is not me that needs to bring the evidence, as i only want to discuss that possibility.
If the same mutation occurred in response to the same stimuli when other options were open. The evolution of dark fur in pocket mice is the perfect example, and I laid out what I would have expected to see if guided mutations were true.
Again, this would be true if we would need a Supernatural creator. But this isn't the case.
Repair mechanisms fix DNA damage based on the chemistry of the DNA. It is not based on the changes in fitness that the repairs will induce. There is no way for these repair mechanisms to differentiate between a mutations that will have no effect on fitness and those that will.
.Again repair mechanisms in my paradigm fix DNA damage based on the chemistry of DNA and and the chemicals brougt by the environmental changes.We just need a better SUPER PC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Is there any chance you'll begin addressing the topic anytime soon?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi zi ko
According to my thesis guidance is expressed by the information flow from environment to genome. ... Isn't this just selection?
The "information flow from environment to genome" is where the individuals survive to breed, yes? Change the ecological environment and different individuals survive to breed because there is different "information flow from environment to genome" -- and this can lead to different genomes in different populations, novel traits, and eventually to speciation, yes? Thus the directed part of the evolution would have to be in manipulation of the ecological environment, yes? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hey, guys, if I'm just not grasping how Zi Ko is on-topic then please just briefly explain. I'm not that dumb, it shouldn't take more than a few sentences. But if he really is off-topic then could we please stop helping him be off-topic?
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024