Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9071 total)
562 online now:
candle2, dwise1, nwr, PaulK, Phat, Tanypteryx (6 members, 556 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,110 Year: 4,222/6,534 Month: 436/900 Week: 142/150 Day: 12/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory
zi ko
Member (Idle past 2850 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 76 of 264 (675651)
10-14-2012 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Theodoric
10-13-2012 12:03 AM


In the OP Iset the matters iwould like to discuss. Not the new Lamarckian Synthesis Theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Theodoric, posted 10-13-2012 12:03 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Larni, posted 10-14-2012 6:57 AM zi ko has taken no action
 Message 79 by Theodoric, posted 10-14-2012 5:25 PM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 2850 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 77 of 264 (675652)
10-14-2012 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Coyote
10-12-2012 11:56 PM


Re: Re DOUPTING IS THE BEAUTY OF SCIENCE
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Coyote, posted 10-12-2012 11:56 PM Coyote has taken no action

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 78 of 264 (675653)
10-14-2012 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by zi ko
10-14-2012 6:00 AM


In the OP Iset the matters iwould like to discuss. Not the new Lamarckian Synthesis Theory.

So in thread called 'About the New Lemarkian Synthesis' you don't want the to talk about the 'New Lemarkian Synthesis'?

Priceless.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


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
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by zi ko, posted 10-14-2012 6:00 AM zi ko has taken no action

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7309
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 79 of 264 (675687)
10-14-2012 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by zi ko
10-14-2012 6:00 AM


In the OP Iset the matters iwould like to discuss. Not the new Lamarckian Synthesis Theory.

Again. WOW!!!

So you don't understand what is meant by "Scientific Theory"?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by zi ko, posted 10-14-2012 6:00 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by zi ko, posted 10-15-2012 8:27 AM Theodoric has seen this message

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 2850 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 80 of 264 (675721)
10-15-2012 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Theodoric
10-14-2012 5:25 PM


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.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Theodoric, posted 10-14-2012 5:25 PM Theodoric has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Admin, posted 10-15-2012 8:45 AM zi ko has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12788
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

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 2850 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 82 of 264 (675782)
10-15-2012 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Admin
10-15-2012 8:45 AM


You are right Percy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Admin, posted 10-15-2012 8:45 AM Admin has seen this message

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 83 of 264 (675867)
10-16-2012 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by zi ko
10-12-2012 11:37 PM


Re: Re DOUPTING IS THE BEAUTY OF SCIENCE
I agree. . Ufortunaly in science there are theories,not proved, but just accepted by its followers as true, for not exactly scientific reasons, as f.e randomness in mutations,

Scientists accept the theory of random mutations because that is what the evidence indicates:

http://www.genetics.org/content/28/6/491.full.pdf+html

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/BBABFJ.pdf

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 know your arguments. They are so few.

They are many, but you refuse to even acknowledge the ones that I do put forth. When will be reviewing the Luria and Delbruck paper or the Lederberg's paper?

I understand the difficulties (long time scale, focusing in mutations on metazoa etc). The same it applies to environmentally guided mutations. I just hope you aknowledge this.

There is no difficulty in determining that mutations are random in metazoans, you just refuse to go over the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by zi ko, posted 10-12-2012 11:37 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by zi ko, posted 10-16-2012 9:47 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 84 of 264 (675870)
10-16-2012 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Admin
10-15-2012 8:45 AM


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.

Fair enough. The Luria and Delbruck paper along with the Lederbergs' paper linked above are the classic experiments demonstrating how mutations are random. This was done in prokaryotes, but the same processes that produce mutations in prokaryotes are occuring in eukaryotes. This includes chemical mutagenesis, incorporation of the incorrect base during replication, radiation, recombination, and indels.

For metazoans with long generation times it is difficult to do these same experiments. However, we can use genomic comparisons and the appearance of disease alleles to help us reach a conclusion. First, we observe that the processes of mutagenesis in metazoans produces deleterious mutations. These processes are the same ones that produce beneficial mutations. If mutations are being guided, then why do we get detrimental mutations. Second, when we compare genomes between species we observe that there are many neutral changes that have occurred since common ancestry. These changes are seen in pseudogenes and introns, to name two commonly used examples. Once again, the same mechanisms that produce neutral mutations and detrimental mutations are also producing beneficial mutations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Admin, posted 10-15-2012 8:45 AM Admin has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by zi ko, posted 10-16-2012 10:06 PM Taq has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 2850 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 85 of 264 (675880)
10-16-2012 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Taq
10-16-2012 5:02 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Taq, posted 10-16-2012 5:02 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Taq, posted 10-17-2012 10:10 AM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 2850 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 86 of 264 (675881)
10-16-2012 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Taq
10-16-2012 5:40 PM


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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Taq, posted 10-16-2012 5:40 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by NoNukes, posted 10-16-2012 11:32 PM zi ko has replied
 Message 90 by Taq, posted 10-17-2012 10:11 AM zi ko has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 264 (675882)
10-16-2012 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by zi ko
10-16-2012 10:06 PM


Nature wouldn't allow it to happen

I presume that you are describing the actions of Mother Nature here.

Exactly what do you mean by your statement? How would nature disallow a non beneficial change from occurring?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

Well, you may still have time to register to vote. Even North Carolinians can still register for early voting. State Registration Deadlines


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by zi ko, posted 10-16-2012 10:06 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by zi ko, posted 10-17-2012 8:27 AM NoNukes has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 2850 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 88 of 264 (675893)
10-17-2012 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by NoNukes
10-16-2012 11:32 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by NoNukes, posted 10-16-2012 11:32 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Larni, posted 10-18-2012 6:45 AM zi ko has taken no action
 Message 92 by NoNukes, posted 10-18-2012 9:09 AM zi ko has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 89 of 264 (675899)
10-17-2012 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by zi ko
10-16-2012 9:47 PM


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.

The same processes that produce detrimental and neutral mutations are the same processes that produce beneficial mutations. They are one in the same. If they are random processes when they produce detrimental and neutral mutations then they are random when they produce beneficial mutations. You are simply using post hoc rationalizations to claim that mutations are random.

Let's use an analogy. Let's say that I have a rabbit's foot that I claim guides the roll of the dice so that I win. I also claim that it doesn't always work, but it does sometimes. I then go to the craps table. Everytime I lose I claim that the rabbit's foot just wasn't working on that roll. When I win I claim that the rabbit's foot was working. When I compare 1,000 of my rolls with someone who does not have my rabbit's foot it turns out that we won at the same rate. Would you say that my claims about the rabbit's foot are supported or not supported by the evidence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by zi ko, posted 10-16-2012 9:47 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by zi ko, posted 10-18-2012 4:18 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 90 of 264 (675900)
10-17-2012 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by zi ko
10-16-2012 10:06 PM


There is the long lasting, environmetally positioned, epigenetical change.

Those are not mutations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by zi ko, posted 10-16-2012 10:06 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by zi ko, posted 10-18-2012 4:24 PM Taq has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022