|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,768 Year: 4,025/9,624 Month: 896/974 Week: 223/286 Day: 30/109 Hour: 3/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
No Nukes writes;
Shapiro is questioning some aspects of the modern theory of evolution. The question is exactly what the scope of those questions are. I think you overstate them a bit. If information is stored in the cell, it is stored in chemical/mechanical structures and is accessed by known processes. In fact Shapiro talks about natural genetic engineering processes that are identical in nature to other processes known to be carried out in cells. Besides, you've already said more. Are you now backing away from this statement: I don't know if I am overstating Shaprio's position.What I am saying is that the chemical/mechanical functions are known, but how and why the information, that Shapiro calls natural genetic engineering, works to have the cell perform those functions is where the new, modified, replaced theory will be discovered. NoNukes writes;
Besides, you've already said more. Are you now backing away from this statement: Not sure what you mean by that statment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Wounded King writes;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shadow, you have to get out of this revisionist genetic history of yours. Mayr's book may have been published in 2001 but the position he was discounting was one that hadn't been current for decades. All I was trying to point out is that Darwin's theory has changed substantially since Darwin published it, as has the modern synthesis theory. When the modern synthesis was declared the leaders of that revision of the theory were very certain that they were correct.I am now saying that perhaps a whole new look has to be taken to determine what, if any impact, the information, communciation discoveries will take evolution in the future. NoNukes wriites;
In fact it seems to me quite remarkable that within 30 years of those earliest sequencing technologies having been developed, when sequencing 24 base pairs was an achievement, we had the publication of the first draft Human Genome sequences in 2001. I agree, and that is why I think all should keep an open mind as to where the Information, communciation, sentience in the cell theories may take us. I have my opinions as to what we are going to find out, but those are my opinons are of course are not fact. When I practiced trial law it was important to learn every word each witness would say at trial, what all the evidence would be, and to then try to lead the jury to the truth as to what the evicence showed. In my cases it was always "what caused the serious injury or death of this person". Was it negligence by the Dr. or was it merely a bad outcome. We relied on experts to tell the jury their opinions based on all the medicine involved in the case. That is what I am trying to do here. I have been reading and trying to digest what all the papers are revealing and then trying to reach an opinion as to where they are leading in re evolution.Obvioulsy I have a bias, as do all of us on this board, but I try to look at the evidence objectively, as I hope all will also do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
All I was trying to point out is that Darwin's theory has changed substantially since Darwin published it, as has the modern synthesis theory. Really? Doesn't that make this whole thread rather pointless then since the current evolutionary synthesis is already a substantially revised form of Darwinian theory and incorporates these discoveries? The only thing that will tell us where these will lead in the future is time.
When the modern synthesis was declared the leaders of that revision of the theory were very certain that they were correct. Any evidence to support this? I'm sure they didn't think they were wrong, and indeed they weren't. But I see no reason to believe that they considered what they outlined mathematically to be the be all and end all of evolutionary research.
NoNukes wriites No he didn't, that was still me.
When I practiced trial law it was important to learn every word each witness would say at trial, what all the evidence would be, and to then try to lead the jury to the truth as to what the evicence showed. ... That is what I am trying to do here. Sadly your approach seems to tend strongly towards the leading and to be very light on the evidence.You seem much happier throwing quotes from Mayr, Mattick and Shapiro at us than actually presenting any evidence to support the claims you are deriving from what they say. What should anybody care exactly what Shapiro himself means by non-random if the evidence does not support the interpretation of it you are using? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Shapiro seem to be very specific in his choice of words and is a highly regarded professional. When he uses the phrase "going from random accidents to regulated biochemical systems" and "heuristic guidance", which to me means they may be discovering or learning something for themselves., leads me to the conclusion that the whole process is nonrandom. Objection your honor: speculation. You are misreading what Shapiro says, and then leaping to unsupported conclusions from there. Not a good way to go.
He replied;
quote: So I am of the opinion that he is proposing a system of decision making in the cells that go beyond nonrandom mutation. If you will remember back in that thread, I actually demonstrated that the mutations produced by these specific mechanisms are random with respect to fitness. I can go over the E. coli DinB mutagenesis process again if you like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
What I am saying is that the chemical/mechanical functions are known, but how and why the information, that Shapiro calls natural genetic engineering, works to have the cell perform those functions is where the new, modified, replaced theory will be discovered. This would fall under the Details heading that I talked about in a previous post. Shapiro has pointed to specific mechanisms that produce random mutations which helps us better understand divergence between species. For example, when comparing different mammalian lineages we can find explosions in transposon insertions in certain lineages which may have played an important role in the evolution of those lineages. At the same time, these transposons inserted randomly into the genome and were either selected against, for, or were fixed through neutral drift. Again, everything comes back to the basic fundamentals of the Modern Synthesis. What changes is the details.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
The only thing I can contribute to talk of genetics and evolution is that genetics is not a trail. Since creationism sees a great blueprint or computer program for biology then it follows that there is simply a dna score for parts and processes in biology. for example I discovered marsupials are just placentals with some late adaptations. yet evolutionists try to say marsupials are a group from some ancestor and unrelated to placentals. They invoke the dna formations as showing the marsupials have like dna but unlike placentals. Well then this demonstrates that the dna was simply a atomic manifestation of the biological change from placental to marsupial. In short all these creatures got the same dna score because they had the same thing happen to them. Like body change equals like dna change and addition. So drawing conclusions of biological relationships from genetics is a waste of time except in minor cases of very close and obvious relationship. Genetics is not evidence for evolution but it has only been a line of reasoning. Every single thing you claim in this post is wrong. Just flat wrong. It reminds me of one of my nephews who could never put his shirt on correctly or put his shoes on the right feet. You would think that just by chance alone he would get one of these right 50% of the time, but he never seemed to. You are the same way. Marsupials and placentals share a common ancestor. They are not unrelated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
shadow71 writes: NoNukes writes: Besides, you've already said more. Are you now backing away from this statement: Not sure what you mean by that statment. In message 19 you said the following:
quote: In message 40, in response to a request to explain a link between Shapiro's ideas and Special Creation, you say the following:
quote: The latter statement is considerably weaker and less interesting than your former statement. I was hoping to hear a defense of some of the connections between the ideas in Shapiro's paper and Special Creation that you have made elsewhere and in message 19. Am I expecting too much?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4171 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
I wish I could contribute more, but lot of this beyond me currently. I did run across this though, I hope it works right?? if not then ignore this and I will try again or take another approach.
http://www.math.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/sewell.pdf I found it interesting though the math is a bit beyond me. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
fearandloathing writes: I did run across this though, I hope it works right?? if not then ignore this and I will try again or take another approach. Looks like something that would have been more appropriate in the now defunct evidence for design thread. The ideas in this paper are probably off topic here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
That is an interesting little article, a nice summary of some or the misleading mathematical approaches which we see occasionally in arguments for ID or creationism.
However It doesn't really seem on topic for this particular discussion. Maybe it would be better going into the Links forum. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4171 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
Wounded King writes: That is an interesting little article, a nice summary of some or the misleading mathematical approaches which we see occasionally in arguments for ID or creationism. However It doesn't really seem on topic for this particular discussion. Maybe it would be better going into the Links forum. TTFN, WK yea, I thought this is where I had seen some IC arguments. I was wrong, I shoulda looked at past post and I would've seen my error, sorry.Although Dr A might want to look at it for his debate??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
jar writes;
Actually I am a devout Christian and yes, I firmly believe that anyone that believes in Special Creation is either getting conned or if they claim to be a scientist or educated, a con man. Of course there can also be a few that are simply insane. What can I say? Could you please defineyour meaning of "Special Creation?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
shadow71 writes: jar writes;
Actually I am a devout Christian and yes, I firmly believe that anyone that believes in Special Creation is either getting conned or if they claim to be a scientist or educated, a con man. Of course there can also be a few that are simply insane. What can I say? Could you please defineyour meaning of "Special Creation?" That any living thing is something more than the result of natural evolution or that any living thing (for that matter any thing, living or otherwise) was the special desired creation of any GOD. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Wounded King writes;
Really? Doesn't that make this whole thread rather pointless then since the current evolutionary synthesis is already a substantially revised form of Darwinian theory and incorporates these discoveries? The only thing that will tell us where these will lead in the future is time. What I am saying is that the information, communciation, sentience research is different from the modern synthesis in that there is direction rather then random mutation, and Shapiro says he defines "selection" as "purfiying" selection.The definition I found for purfying or negative selection is the selective removal of alleles thar are deleterious. If that is so, how can one define that type of selection as anything but directed or purpose caused? So this is more than a revision of the modern synthesis, it is an invalidation of the theory. Wounded King continues;
Sadly your approach seems to tend strongly towards the leading and to be very light on the evidence.You seem much happier throwing quotes from Mayr, Mattick and Shapiro at us than actually presenting any evidence to support the claims you are deriving from what they say. What should anybody care exactly what Shapiro himself means by non-random if the evidence does not support the interpretation of it you are using? The evidence I am providing is the work of experts in the field. I as a non scientist cannot provide the nutsl and bolts of the workings of the cell, but rather provide the evidence of the experts in the field.I have no doubt that Shapiro, based upon his CV, would qualify as an expert in microbiology. So the quotes from Mary, Mattick and Shaprio are indeed very strong evidence, that I have provided.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
taq writes;
Objection your honor: speculation. You are misreading what Shapiro says, and then leaping to unsupported conclusions from there. Not a good way to go. Not speculation, but inferences from what the expert states and clearly admissible. Remember Shapiro said I understood him pretty well, and he is the one who can comment on that w/o rebuttal.So you objection is denied. taq also wrote;
If you will remember back in that thread, I actually demonstrated that the mutations produced by these specific mechanisms are random with respect to fitness. I can go over the E. coli DinB mutagenesis process again if you like. But that process does not state what caused the mutations and cannot rule out randomness w/respect to fitness.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024