Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
90 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Phat (3 members, 87 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,347 Year: 4,459/6,534 Month: 673/900 Week: 0/197 Day: 0/30 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory
Admin
Director
Posts: 12793
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 2 of 264 (674562)
09-28-2012 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by zi ko
09-28-2012 9:22 AM


Your proposal is mostly about epigenetic inheritance, but you also mention a "Superior Intelligence". Did you just want to discuss epigenetic inheritance, or did you want to argue that epigenetic inheritance requires and is therefore evidence for a "Superior Intelligence"?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by zi ko, posted 09-28-2012 9:22 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by zi ko, posted 09-30-2012 12:45 AM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12793
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 4 of 264 (674564)
09-30-2012 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by zi ko
09-30-2012 12:45 AM


Okay, so because you have indicated you will not be arguing for a "Superior Intelligence" I will promote your thread to the Biological Evolution forum instead of the Intelligent Design forum.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by zi ko, posted 09-30-2012 12:45 AM zi ko has taken no action

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12793
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 5 of 264 (674566)
09-30-2012 2:15 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12793
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 41 of 264 (674997)
10-04-2012 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by zi ko
10-04-2012 7:20 PM


Hi Zi Ko,

One doesn't argue that unless someone has evidence that unicorns don't exist that therefore they do. And one doesn't argue that unless someone has evidence that mutations aren't guided that therefore they are.

If you wanted to discuss the case for random mutations then you should have proposed that topic, but you didn't. Please make your case by presenting the evidence for Lamarckian synthesis instead of asking others for the evidence against.

Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

Edited by Admin, : Improve bad writing.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by zi ko, posted 10-04-2012 7:20 PM zi ko has taken no action

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12793
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 81 of 264 (675723)
10-15-2012 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by zi ko
10-15-2012 8:27 AM


Hi Zi Ko,

I'm going to take on a moderator role in this thread.

Would you rather discuss whether mutations are random before resuming discussion about a new Lamarckian synthesis theory? If so then I think a digression onto that topic would be a good idea, and evolutionists should present their evidence for mutations being random with regard to fitness. I think the key question you're asking is whether evolutionists merely assume mutations are random with regard to fitness because they can imagine no mechanism by which it could be any other way, or because they have evidence.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by zi ko, posted 10-15-2012 8:27 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by zi ko, posted 10-15-2012 7:52 PM Admin has seen this message
 Message 84 by Taq, posted 10-16-2012 5:40 PM Admin has seen this message

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12793
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 105 of 264 (676094)
10-19-2012 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by zi ko
10-19-2012 12:49 AM


Moderator Request
zi ko writes:

Almost nil, as it is the evidence for random muations, to be fair.

Evidence that mutations are random has been provided. You objected that evidence for randomness in mutations in unicellular organisms is not evidence for randomness in multicellular organisms, but now the onus for providing evidence is upon you because the replication mechanisms in the cells of both unicellular and multicellular organisms are pretty much the same.

You position makes little sense. To use an analogy, why would the sole photocopier of a small business be more likely to introduce random errors than a photocopier in a huge corporate headquarters where there are many other copiers?

So if you think the DNA copying process in a unicellular organisms can experience random errors while that in multicellular organisms cannot then you have to provide your evidence or at least a rationale. Taq is already asking you for this evidence, and I agree that you need to provide it.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by zi ko, posted 10-19-2012 12:49 AM zi ko has taken no action

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12793
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 124 of 264 (676171)
10-20-2012 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by zi ko
10-19-2012 9:58 PM


Hi Zi Ko,

Allow me to repeat myself word-for-word:

Evidence that mutations are random has been provided. You objected that evidence for randomness in mutations in unicellular organisms is not evidence for randomness in multicellular organisms, but now the onus for providing evidence is upon you because the replication mechanisms in the cells of both unicellular and multicellular organisms are pretty much the same.

You position makes little sense. To use an analogy, why would the sole photocopier of a small business be more likely to introduce random errors than a photocopier in a huge corporate headquarters where there are many other copiers?

So if you think the DNA copying process in a unicellular organisms can experience random errors while that in multicellular organisms cannot then you have to provide your evidence or at least a rationale. Taq is already asking you for this evidence, and I agree that you need to provide it.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by zi ko, posted 10-19-2012 9:58 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by zi ko, posted 10-20-2012 10:12 AM Admin has replied
 Message 174 by zi ko, posted 10-31-2012 12:26 PM Admin has seen this message

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12793
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 130 of 264 (676232)
10-20-2012 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by zi ko
10-20-2012 10:12 AM


Moderator Request
Hi Zi Ko,

I said that you have to provide your evidence or at least a rationale. That means you have to provide new evidence that makes your idea make sense, or you have to a rationale based on existing evidence. A rationale of "It's not impossible" is just an excuse to keep talking when you've got nothing. It's not based on any evidence.

Why don't you follow my suggestion from earlier in the thread and use the Time article to structure your arguments? It provided some pretty strong evidence and arguments, it was foolish to abandon it as quickly as you introduced it.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by zi ko, posted 10-20-2012 10:12 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2012 1:49 AM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12793
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 133 of 264 (676255)
10-21-2012 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by zi ko
10-21-2012 1:49 AM


Re: Moderator Request
zi ko writes:

The Time article and many others of the kind had been shown on the OP. there was the legitimate argument by many, that though the inheritance of epigenetic changes for many generations is now wildly accepted, still there are not mutations that cause the epigenetic changes.So what can I offer in the discussion by repeating the same data and argunents?

I wasn't suggesting that you endlessly rehash the Time article. I was suggesting that you use it to structure your arguments. You first need a clearly worded central hypothesis for your ideas, such as:

"Epigenetic changes acquired during an organism's lifetime are heritable and therefore Lamarckian."

The Time article organized a set of well structured evidence and arguments around this hypothesis. By reminding people of these as context directs and by seeking out your own additional evidence and arguments, you should be able to eliminate the scatterbrained and scattershot qualities in your approach, and this should prove valuable in helping you advance your position.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2012 1:49 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2012 11:13 AM Admin has seen this message

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12793
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 139 of 264 (676354)
10-22-2012 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by zi ko
10-21-2012 11:21 AM


Re: Moderator Request
zi ko writes:

You are right Percy. But I only wish to have an intelligent discussion here, not to convince anybody that i am right.

At a minimum your goal must be to convince people you know what you're talking about, and as I said before, your scatterbrained and scattershot approach is working against that.

You didn't bring a single evidence of your robust theory of evolution, concerning random mutations in metazoa, remember, in spite of 150 ys of intence research.

Let me repeat word for word my request from Message 124, where I was apparently already repeating myself word for word:

Allow me to repeat myself word-for-word:

Evidence that mutations are random has been provided. You objected that evidence for randomness in mutations in unicellular organisms is not evidence for randomness in multicellular organisms, but now the onus for providing evidence is upon you because the replication mechanisms in the cells of both unicellular and multicellular organisms are pretty much the same.

You position makes little sense. To use an analogy, why would the sole photocopier of a small business be more likely to introduce random errors than a photocopier in a huge corporate headquarters where there are many other copiers?

So if you think the DNA copying process in a unicellular organisms can experience random errors while that in multicellular organisms cannot then you have to provide your evidence or at least a rationale. Taq is already asking you for this evidence, and I agree that you need to provide it.

You said you could only provide a rationale, but rationales have to be based upon evidence. You can use existing evidence or introduce new evidence, but your rationale has to be based upon evidence.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2012 11:21 AM zi ko has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022