|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
In the OP Iset the matters iwould like to discuss. Not the new Lamarckian Synthesis Theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Thanks for the valuable information. But my intention of OP, as you can see, was not to describe a new theory. Only to discuss some relevant matters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
So you don't understand what is meant by "Scientific Theory"?
And so you find a good reason not to discuss the real issue. Is it any different from what i have said on OP about Darwinian evolutionists and their sacred caw of randomness in mutations? Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
You are right Percy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
They don't blindly accept random mutations. Notice how I posted two peer reviewed papers that contain evidence that backs my claims. Notice how you do not do this.
I accept the mechanism of random mutation in ONE CELL ORGANISM.On these cases randomness is an economical way, for nature, to proceed to evolution of species. In metazoans things are more complicated, Environmental guidance and randomness cooperate,for the same purpose, eg evolution,as a shorter cut of a long road. That's the reason of the existence of detrimental or neutral mutations. Epigenetic changes, lasting for environmental reasons for very long times, maybe thousands of years,pave the way for deep genome changes, not in a very strict manner, so to live room for some randomness to take place . So it is where they come thedetrimental mutations you are referring to.It is the best and more economic way for nature to suceed evolution. Economy is a BIG axiom for nature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Once again, the same mechanisms that produce neutral mutations and detrimental mutations are also producing beneficial mutations.
Here is where our difference lies. NOT exactly the same. There is the long lasting, environmetally positioned, epigenetical change. This last couldn't go astray. Nature wouldn't allow it to happen, as it is a very economic short cut road to evolution. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
How would nature disallow a non beneficial change from occurring?
Nature Does not know what change is beneficial or not. That will be decided by natural selection. Nature only keeps mutations on line not in a strict manner, with existing phenotypes tedencies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
If they are random processes when they produce detrimental and neutral mutations then they are random when they produce beneficial mutations.
Detrimental, neutral and beneficial mutations in metazoa are not random. All of them are happening in a frame of loose guidance of the prevailing, for maybe thousands of years, epigenetic tedencies. imply detrimental or neutral mutations do not find their target.As for your analogy i can offer a better one. If during the gabling game process the dices are exchanged (by environment) with others, which have three instead of six numbers, would you still say the gabling is not guided?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Those are not mutations.
Nobody said they are. But they can lead to "desired" by environment mutations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
If your statement means something other than saying that Nature won't allow detrimental epigenetical changes, then I cannot figure out what you are saying.
Epigenetic changes are never detrimental, as they had been selected by natural selection. What i am saying is that nature would not allow epigenetic changes to go astray.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Are you truly unable to see the contradiction in this sentence?
Perhaps you could show me it.
Where "astray" means what exactly? Perhaps if you cite an example of an astray epigenetic change that nature won't allow. Astray =lost, useless. You ask me to give evidence of a possible phenomenon,a supposition, taking place over thousand of years. You just think the almost nil evidence, due to long time frame needed to happen, as they say, for random mutations in metazoa.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Based on what evidence?
Almost nil, as it is the evidence for random muations, to be fair.
Yes, because the results of the roll will still be random with respect to the bet made. The only thing that would change is the payout for the bets as judged by the odds of randomly hitting specific results. Reducing the number of slots on the roulette wheel does not make the results non-random. They are still random. Reducing the number of ping pong balls in the lottery hopper does not make the lottery non-random. It is still random.
I think we are reaching to some agreement. The process is not consciously guided relating fitness.It is a natural process governed by natural laws. Randomness here is an unfortunate term to describe the real thing. The crucial factor here is the permanent existance of the environment factor that changes dynamically and constantly the numbers on the dices.. We have either to exclude it once and for all, by hard evidence against it, or accept its possibility to play a significant role in evolution. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
2: You ignore (again) the evidence of mutations (positive, neutral and negative with respect to fitness) being RANDOM!
the evidence brought here up to now were about one cell organism, which i accepted, not for metazoa.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
What I asked for is an example, and it can be one you invent, of an astray epigenetic change that you believe nature would not allow. I want you to tell me how nature would prevent such a change.
I really i don't follow you. I never said "of an astray epigenetic change that nature would not allow." What i am saying is: Nature would never, for reasons of economics, would allow n epigenetic ghange to go astray ( eg to get useless. An example: elongated girrafes neck, being first an epigenetic change, paved the way of deep genome mutations that increased number of spondyls etc.
You say that epigenetic changes are developed through natural selection, but then you deny that such changes can ever be detrimental without specifying what the environment is.
No. Epigenetic changes are developed by environmental factors. Natural selection chooses the best of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3647 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
You are obviously wrong since I have pointed to two examples of epigenetic changes that are not only useless but detrimental.
Are yo referring to message 84? You then were talking about detrimental mutations. Epigenetic changes after being selected by natural selection could not be detrimental.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024