Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 1:22 PM
137 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,429 Year: 3,466/19,786 Month: 461/1,087 Week: 51/212 Day: 12/39 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
6061
62
636465Next
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1006 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 917 of 968 (605003)
02-16-2011 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 913 by molbiogirl
02-16-2011 1:53 PM


Re: Just stop it
Molbiogirl writes;

Maybe you should say "mutations are non-random, but their effect on fitness are not yet known and may well be deterministic.

I could live with this statement. "mutations are non-random, but their effect on fitness are not yet fully known and may well be deterministic.

And she writes;

You continue to insist that evolution is deterministic.
This is important to you for some reason.
In fact, it seems awful darn important to a lotta you creos.
Explain that to me.

Still waiting on that definition, btw.

It would lend support to my positon on creation. That God, the Roman Catholic God created the Universe and all life in some way and that creation is Creatio Continium.

I am also. I asked Percy for his definition of Creationist and he still has not given it to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 913 by molbiogirl, posted 02-16-2011 1:53 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 918 by molbiogirl, posted 02-16-2011 2:09 PM shadow71 has responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 714 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 918 of 968 (605005)
02-16-2011 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 917 by shadow71
02-16-2011 2:06 PM


Re: Just stop it
I could live with this statement. "mutations are non-random, but their effect on fitness are not yet fully known and may well be deterministic.

Those are your words!!!
Jeezlooweez. Are you that thick?

It would lend support to my positon on creation. That God, the Roman Catholic God created the Universe and all life in some way and that creation is Creatio Continium.

How? For the third time, HOW?

And I still need the definition of "highly nondeterministic" v. "random".

HINT:

This is further enhanced in high-performance computer architectures that incorporate circuits with pipelines and caches, which have highly non-deterministic effects. Even a small change on a position sensor can have an apparently chaotic impact on certain derived values.

Generative learning structures and processes for generalized connectionist networks
Information Sciences
Volume 70, Issues 1-2, May 1993, Pages 75-108

Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 917 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 2:06 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 936 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 4:26 PM molbiogirl has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7672
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 919 of 968 (605006)
02-16-2011 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 914 by shadow71
02-16-2011 1:58 PM


Re: Ray Comfort takes Shapiro out of context too
No he doesn't, but I don't think he rules it out.

So the only one claiming that mutations are non-random with respect to fitness is you, and without any evidence to support the assertion.

If you want to claim that mutations are non-random with respect to fitness then it is incumbent on YOU to cite the evidence necessary to conclude that mutations are, in fact, non-random with respect to fitness.

What you have now constructed is a negative argument which is a logical fallacy. You have started with an assumption and until that assumption is completely ruled out you will not budge from this assumption. This is not how science works.

I believe ID supporters would find that his work is supportative to a degree of their position.

How so, just out of curiousity? For the purposes of this question I am assuming that you are NOT an ID supporter so don't worry about getting your head bitten off.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 914 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 1:58 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 930 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 3:19 PM Taq has not yet responded

shadow71
Member (Idle past 1006 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 920 of 968 (605007)
02-16-2011 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 884 by jar
02-14-2011 7:36 PM


Re: Simplified Explanation of Shapiro's Views
Jar writes;

That doesn't even make any sense that I can see. Fitness is determined after the fact. It is totally unrelated to the mutation side.

My question is: May the mutations be non-random and in fact deterministic in regards to fitness?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 884 by jar, posted 02-14-2011 7:36 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 921 by jar, posted 02-16-2011 2:20 PM shadow71 has responded
 Message 923 by Taq, posted 02-16-2011 2:29 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 921 of 968 (605008)
02-16-2011 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 920 by shadow71
02-16-2011 2:18 PM


Re: Simplified Explanation of Shapiro's Views
shadow71 writes:

Jar writes;

That doesn't even make any sense that I can see. Fitness is determined after the fact. It is totally unrelated to the mutation side.

My question is: May the mutations be non-random and in fact deterministic in regards to fitness?

How?

Fitness is determined after the fact.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 920 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 2:18 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 927 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 3:00 PM jar has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7672
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 922 of 968 (605009)
02-16-2011 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 912 by shadow71
02-16-2011 1:47 PM


Re: Just stop it
He inspires me by his directness and honesty and self confidence.

From the viewpoint of an actual biologist, I would never call Shapiro's thesis "direct". It's a lot of showmanship. Frankly, there is nothing wrong with this per se. There needs to be a bit of salesmanship in every scientific paper. In fact, I have seen papers that are actually quite thin when it comes to actual scientific content but due to the style of the writing (aka showmanship) it was accepted for publication in a prestigious journal.

What I see in Shapiro's papers is a lot of terms that were invented simply to make Shapiro's work seem more original. Everything he discusses is already known and described by terms already in general use amongst biologists. Instead of using these well known terms he invents his own (e.g. natural engineering systems). It would be like me describing the aerodynamics of a wing as the "fluidic engineered dynamos of turbulent lift", and then write an entire textbook as if I am describing a whole new field of physics. Why not just call it aerodynamics?

At the same time, I don't want to discount Shapiro's contributions as it relates to his actual original research. He does quality lab work with well designed experiments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 912 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 1:47 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

Taq
Member
Posts: 7672
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 923 of 968 (605012)
02-16-2011 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 920 by shadow71
02-16-2011 2:18 PM


Re: Simplified Explanation of Shapiro's Views
My question is: May the mutations be non-random and in fact deterministic in regards to fitness?

The results of experiments are not consistent with non-random, deterministic mutations. The results are consistent with random, non-deterministic mutations. This is made clear in the two experiments I cited (twice) for you earlier. The mutations conferring phage and antibiotic resistance occur in a random generation in the absence of either phage or antibiotics. When these mutations occur they are either neutral or slightly deleterious (in the case of the tonB mutations conferring phage resistance). These mutations are not produced in response to the presence of either phage or antibiotics. In fact, these same mutations can be produced in the absence of the entire cell. They can be produced with nothing more than a DNA template and the required polymerases and cofactors.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 920 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 2:18 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

shadow71
Member (Idle past 1006 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 924 of 968 (605018)
02-16-2011 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 893 by Taq
02-15-2011 11:03 AM


Re: Simplified Explanation of Shapiro's Views
Thanks again Taq. I have downloaded both papers and am in the process of trying to understand them.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 893 by Taq, posted 02-15-2011 11:03 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 925 by Taq, posted 02-16-2011 2:47 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7672
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 925 of 968 (605020)
02-16-2011 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 924 by shadow71
02-16-2011 2:41 PM


Re: Simplified Explanation of Shapiro's Views
Thanks again Taq. I have downloaded both papers and am in the process of trying to understand them.

The Luria-Delbruck paper is going to very hard to understand for the layman. That is why I linked to a webpage that boiled it down. However, the Lederberg paper is actually written in a very straightforward manner that you shouldn't have too much trouble understanding.

It is also worth mentioning that Luria and Delbruck won a Nobel Prize primarily for the work described in that experiment.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 924 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 2:41 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

shadow71
Member (Idle past 1006 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 926 of 968 (605022)
02-16-2011 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 894 by Taq
02-15-2011 11:07 AM


Re: Simplified Explanation of Shapiro's Views
Taq writes;

Transposons do not repair DNA. Nowhere in any of Shapiro's papers did I read anything that would indicate that transposable elements are part of DNA repair. If anything, they have a penchant for doing away with the function of a gene once they insert.

I apologize, I meant the term mobile DNA elements, as cited by Shapiro in his paper "Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21st century."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 894 by Taq, posted 02-15-2011 11:07 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1006 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 927 of 968 (605023)
02-16-2011 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 921 by jar
02-16-2011 2:20 PM


Re: Simplified Explanation of Shapiro's Views
Jar writes;

How?

Fitness is determined after the fact.

That is the understanding of science, my question goes to the possibility as to whether fitness is in fact determined by the non-random mutation itself.
Thereby questioning when in fact fitness is determined.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 921 by jar, posted 02-16-2011 2:20 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 929 by Taq, posted 02-16-2011 3:09 PM shadow71 has not yet responded
 Message 931 by DBlevins, posted 02-16-2011 3:46 PM shadow71 has responded
 Message 934 by jar, posted 02-16-2011 4:15 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 928 of 968 (605024)
02-16-2011 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 911 by shadow71
02-16-2011 1:42 PM


Re: Just stop it
shadow71 writes:

Am I reading Wounded King wrong in re random mutations and fitness?

WK told you the same thing everyone else has been telling you. He was talking about probabilistic distributions, and that means there's something random going on.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 911 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 1:42 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7672
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 929 of 968 (605027)
02-16-2011 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 927 by shadow71
02-16-2011 3:00 PM


Re: Simplified Explanation of Shapiro's Views
That is the understanding of science, my question goes to the possibility as to whether fitness is in fact determined by the non-random mutation itself.

Again, there seems to be a disconnect here. Of course an organism's fitness is determined by the mutations in it's genome. No one is arguing otherwise. What we are saying is that the processes that produce these mutations have no way of determining which of the mutations they produce will increase or decrease fitness. These processes are blind as to the effect of these mutations on fitness. This is what makes them random.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 927 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 3:00 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

shadow71
Member (Idle past 1006 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 930 of 968 (605032)
02-16-2011 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 919 by Taq
02-16-2011 2:12 PM


Re: Ray Comfort takes Shapiro out of context too
Taq writes;

If you want to claim that mutations are non-random with respect to fitness then it is incumbent on YOU to cite the evidence necessary to conclude that mutations are, in fact, non-random with respect to fitness.

I am reading some papers now that seem to suggest that some non-random mutations may be such in re fitness.
One is by Barbara E. Wright in the Journal of Bacteriology, June 200, p.293-301, Vol. 182, No 11.
But right now I am not prepared to state that is what she means.
I will post what I think she means when I have reread it about 25 more times.

Taq writes about my reply that I believe ID supporters would find Shapiro's work supportive to a degree of ID.

How so, just out of curiousity? For the purposes of this question I am assuming that you are NOT an ID supporter so don't worry about getting your head bitten off
.

As I understand ID. They state that because of findings such as complexity etc. that there had to a Designer.
I would think Shapiro's talk of Natural Genetic Engineering, sentience in cells etc. that this would lead to a Designer. Just speculation on my part. I cannot speak for ID.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 919 by Taq, posted 02-16-2011 2:12 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 932 by molbiogirl, posted 02-16-2011 4:01 PM shadow71 has responded
 Message 958 by Wounded King, posted 02-17-2011 4:36 AM shadow71 has not yet responded

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 1848 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 931 of 968 (605036)
02-16-2011 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 927 by shadow71
02-16-2011 3:00 PM


Re: Simplified Explanation of Shapiro's Views
That is the understanding of science, my question goes to the possibility as to whether fitness is in fact determined by the non-random mutation itself.
Thereby questioning when in fact fitness is determined.

You seem to be suggesting that the cause of (a) mutation(s) is directed by some agency in order to compensate for a future event that would change the organisms fitness?

Are you are suggesting that the mutation that allowed a strain of bacteria to be able to digest nylon was directed by some agency that had the foreknowledge of the discovery of nylon?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 927 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 3:00 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 935 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 4:19 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
6061
62
636465Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019