|
Author
|
Topic: Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 517 of 968 (600943)
01-17-2011 8:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 514 by shadow71
01-16-2011 8:50 PM
|
|
Re: yawn
Hi again, shadow71, and thanks for your reply.
Would you have the education to explain how product liability case law should be followed in order to prove a case in front of the jury in a case?
Probably not, but you could read it and form your opinions on it, correct? Yes, I could form an opinion, and it would be the opinion of an under-educated layman, and not that of someone educated in the field of product liability law and competent to discuss it in depth. Curiously, I would not have the presumption to assume that my opinion would matter to anyone that was educated in the field of product liability law, and most especially I would not presume to say that one lawyer's position was any better than any other. I would look to the common position as being most likely correct, and not any lawyer outliers, no matter how much they matched my personal under-educated opinion. If I was interested in the outlier position and wanted to know how possible it was, then I would ask other product liability lawyers about it: if they told me that the person with the outlier position was an attention seeking individual who published things like this to get attention even though what he actually said did not amount to a significantly different position from the common one, then I would accept that.
You have his paper to read. You can refute his findings if they are not accurate. I assumed all scientists read papers , agree, disagree etc.. and reply to the author's findings. Again, this forum is not designed to debate by links, but by personal argument based on how well you understand the positions. As I've stated, and as the critique posted by Percy showed, I don't see any significant change to the overall pattern of evolution, certainly not enough to call for the death of the ToE (but perhaps the terms "Darwinism" and "neo-Darwinism", which are neither accurate nor descriptive of the ToE today, can be dispensed with, to the greater clarity of understanding that accompanies the use of proper terminology). I don't see anything he suggests as new or novel within the field of evolutionary biology.
So I don't think you are working with a blank slate. Are we supposed to debate the contents of the paper among ourselves while you watch? We've done that: nothing really new in the paper. Done.
Are you findings consistent with "Crick's Central Dogma of Molecular Biology" or do you agree that Crick's Dogma has been replaced by new findings by Temin and Mitzutant et. al. that have changed cellular informatics, and how the interpretation of changes in the genome take place? Crick's Central Dogma of Molecular Biology - DNA to RNA to Protein
quote:
From this affirmation and the knowledge that RNA was the immediate precursor for protein, Francis Crick proposed in a 1954 paper - and reasserted in 1970 - formulated a flow diagram which has become known as the central dogma of molecular biology: DNA to RNA to Protein.
... however modern advances in molecular biology and genetics have shown that this idea was too simple. ...
Modern discoveries have highlighted that the flow of genetic information is much more dynamic. ...
That's from the first google reply to "Crick's Central Dogma of Molecular Biology". Dogma does not belong in science, as all concepts are subject to change over time, even if it is just refinement of previous concepts in light of additional information that it is likely correct. Genetics is a new field however, essentially starting with the finding of DNA. Do you think nothing new has been learned in the last 40 to 60 years in the field of genetics? Do you think Koonin somehow is the only person to have noted this? Again, what he presents is not news, nor does it require massive rewriting of current knowledge.
But the recent findings in Cellular information including a read write memory system view of the genome in lieu of the conventional 20th century view of the genome ... If by "conventional 20th century view" you mean a 40 to 60 year old non-current genetics view, then once again we are dealing with things currently known. Much ado about nothing.
... as a read only memory subject to an accidental change do change the explanation and the how of evolutionary change. And yet, curiously, evolution is still the change in the frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities, and the theory (that this is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it) is still valid. What he is quibbling about is whether there is a new mechanism within the arsenal of biology to effect change. That horizontal gene transfer occurs in bacteria is not new. That viruses can insert genes into other DNA sequences is not new. That the processes of life are found to be more complex and more dynamic the more we study them is not new. etc etc etc So is it a molehill of incremental changes incorporated into the science of evolution or is it a mountain of attention grabbing sensationalism to pile all these up and say "this is all new since 50 years ago" and that the 50+ yr old ideas need to be changed when they already have been changed?
But , would you agree, that alterations to the genome that occur in bursts and novel adapatations that require changes at multiple locations in the genome that can arise within a single generation would cause a rethinking of the Modern Synthesis? One of his examples was the Cambrian "Explosion" -- a period of change that occurred over millions of years, and seemed sudden in geological time due to the paucity of early fossil finds. Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia
quote:
The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the relatively rapid appearance, over a period of many million years, of most major Phyla around 530 million years ago, as found in the fossil record.[1][2] This was accompanied by a major diversification of other organisms, including animals, phytoplankton, and calcimicrobes.[3] Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude (as defined in terms of the extinction and origination rate of species[4]) and the diversity of life began to resemble today’s.[5] The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in Cambrian rocks.
The rate of evolution has been observed to vary widely in other cases as well -- such as following mass extinctions -- this is not an explosion in the normal sense of the term. Also see Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia
quote:
A range of theories are based on the concept that minor modifications to animals' development as they grow from embryo to adult may have been able to cause very large changes in the final adult form. The hox genes, for example, control which organs individual regions of an embryo will develop into. For instance, if a certain hox gene is expressed, a region will develop into a limb; if a different hox gene is expressed in that region (a minor change), it could develop into an eye instead (a phenotypically major change). Such a system allows a large range of disparity to appear from a limited set of genes, but such theories linking this with the explosion struggle to explain why the origin of such a development system should by itself lead to increased diversity or disparity. Evidence of Precambrian metazoans[19] combines with molecular data[96] to show that much of the genetic architecture that could feasibly have played a role in the explosion was already well established by the Cambrian.
This was the main thrust of Schwartz's book, " Sudden Origins", however his concept has been unable to overturn modern evolutionary theory, as he also claimed.
Message 515 Sorry Razd, this quote should have preceded my last reply in my previous reply. I agree. Are you familar with the new concept of "natural genetic engineering? If it is valid it will mean many changes in the modern synthesis. Will it? Page not found - Suite 101 (May 31, 2007)
quote:
Firstly, they encode instructions for the plant to manufacture certain amino acids that are the favoured food of the bacteria. These amino acids, called opines, are never naturally produced by the plant, nor are they easily utilized by other organisms. The Agrobacteria, however, are specifically adapted to eat them, and in having the plant manufacture them, the bacteria have created themselves a cozy niche, free from competition. Secondly, the bacteria send genes that instruct for hormone production, causing the affected cell to multiply rapidly, and indeterminately, very much like cancer. These virulence (vir) genes essentially multiply the effect of the bacteria’s efforts, so that an entire mass of food-supplying GM plant cells can be cultivated. The result is that tumorous growths occur on the affected plants, which we recognize in our garden as galls.
and Dr. Jim Shapiro, Chicago, Natural Genetic Engineering -- the Toolbox for Evolution: Prokaryotes (Mar 15, 2001)
quote:
Natural Genetic Engineering -- the Toolbox for Evolution: Prokaryotes
Dr. Jim Shapiro, Chicago
Interesting synopsis that is 10 years old. Once again this is an issue that is old news in evolution science ... nor does it mean that "many changes in the modern synthesis" will be needed: this is still the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities - where in this case the ecology includes the bacteria. The theory is still that evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it. Providing a more comprehensive accounting of the ecological factors is not a major rewrite of theory.
Thanks for the posting tips. I am trying to get a handle on them. You're welcome, their use makes reading your posts easier. I generally use the [qs](pasted quote)[/qs] for message quotes and [quote](pasted quote)[/quote] for quotes from books and articles (with references and links of course) Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 514 by shadow71, posted 01-16-2011 8:50 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 528 of 968 (601170)
01-19-2011 12:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 521 by shadow71
01-18-2011 3:57 PM
|
|
Re: yawn
Hi again shadow71.
I understand this to mean he is saying that major changes are the result of planned, engineered functions in the cell that do not rely on gradual, random changes. Then you are jumping to a concussion.
(1) hereditary variation arises from the non-random action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering; Non-random does not mean planned. Hydrogen and oxygen do not react and form random combinations, rather there is a very high preponderance of H 2O combinations with a smattering of HO and H 2O 2 some H 2 and some O 2 and very little else. This is a reality of chemistry, not of planned engineered functions in the atoms. Biological actions and reactions are similar: the chemical possibilities mean that complete randomness is not possible. This is one of the reasons why the formation of life by chemical reactions is possible. Again, this is not news. It does not mean that evolution is no longer the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities. Nor does it mean that the theory, that evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life, is invalid when this occurs.
(2) major disruptions of an organism's ecology trigger cell and genome restructuring. Again, it is common modern knowledge that bacterial organisms react to stress with increased rates of mutations. Whether this is due to a "trigger cell" (or part of a cell) or due to the reduced action of the mechanisms for checking and correcting replication accuracy is moot, as the result is increased mutations. Change the ecology and organisms change in response, change the ecology drastically and organisms change drastically or go extinct. This too is not news. It does not mean that evolution is no longer the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities. Nor does it mean that the theory, that evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life, is invalid when this occurs.
(3) ecologically-triggered cell and genome restructurings produce organisms which, at some frequency, will possess novel adaptive features that suit the altered environment. Repeat: change the ecology and organisms change in response, change the ecology drastically and organisms change drastically or go extinct. This higher rate of mutation and reduced selection will produce more organisms that differ from the original individuals. The possibility of speciation events increases in isolated subpopulations. Again, this is also seen following extinction events (when selection is lowered). This too is not news. It does not mean that evolution is no longer the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities. Nor does it mean that the theory, that evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life, is invalid when this occurs.
(4)once ecological stability has been achieved, natural genetic engineering functions are silenced, the tempo of innovation abates, and microevolution can occur to fine-tune recent evolutionary inventions through successions of minor changes. And yet the increased rate of evolution still occurs by microevolution as well ... it does not mean that evolution is no longer the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities. Nor does it mean that the theory, that evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life, is invalid when this occurs.
This 21st century scenario assumes a major role for the kind of cellular sensitivities and genomic responses emphasized by McClintock in her 1984 Nobel Prize address. Made 27 years ago?
It also answers the objections to conventional theory raised by intelligent design advocates, because evolution by natural genetic engineering has the capacity to generate complex novelties. You must have missed that part. It is still a natural process, and what it affects is the rate of change. It does not mean that evolution is no longer the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities. Nor does it mean that the theory, that evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life, is invalid when this occurs.
In other words, our best defense against anti-science obscurantism comes from the study of mobile DNA because that is the subject that has most significantly transformed evolution from natural history into a vibrant empirical science. At best this is just a(nother) mechanism for the causing changes to hereditary traits, it does not mean that evolution is no longer the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities. Nor does it mean that the theory, that evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life, is invalid when this occurs. Curiously, the theory of evolution has progressed from the times of Darwin and the early stages of evolutionary science by understanding the mechanisms that are involved, in genetics, in population dynamics, and in many other areas. The new knowledge adds to the bank of information available to modern evolutionary biologists and increases our understanding of how evolution works. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 521 by shadow71, posted 01-18-2011 3:57 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 530 of 968 (601297)
01-19-2011 5:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 529 by shadow71
01-19-2011 5:22 PM
|
|
increased mutation rate is not directed mutation
Hi shadow, do you know what confirmation bias is? Confirmation bias - Wikipedia
quote:
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. ... They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. ...
quote:
... cells RESPOND TO SIGNS OF DANGER, FREQUENTLY RESTRUCTURING THEIR GENOMES AS PART OF THE RESPONSE."
(EMPHASIS MINE) This is contra to what you posted above. No it isn't. What you are mistakingly interpreting as directed mutation to counter the danger, is in actuality just an increased rate of mutations, such that the possibility of one that is beneficial in countering the danger can evolve sooner rather than (too) much later. In other words, organisms have evolved mechanisms that allow them to adjust their rate of mutation in response to changing selective pressures. After 3.5 billion years of life on this planet, and gazillions of opportunities, this should not be a major surprise, and it would certainly be subject to positive selection once it began, because variation in ecologies is the rule rather than the exception. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 529 by shadow71, posted 01-19-2011 5:22 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 533 of 968 (601321)
01-19-2011 8:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 531 by shadow71
01-19-2011 7:31 PM
|
|
Re: The past five decades of research in genetics and molecular biology have brouRe: yawn
Hi again Shadow71,
Above quote was taken from Shapiro letter to Boston Review Feb.10th. 2006 But your interpretation is not. - can you point to where he even implies " planned" in any way shape or form? Do the same for "engineered" as not a completely natural process. If you cannot do this, then you need to accept that your interpretation is not supported by the evidence. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 531 by shadow71, posted 01-19-2011 7:31 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 535 by shadow71, posted 01-20-2011 12:06 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: Shapiro's use of the word "intelligent"
Thank you molbiogirl, long time no see. Anything new in molecular self replication?
I suggest anyone who's interested in Shapiro's use of the word "intelligent" read this thread:
There is intelligence and intelligence ...
He is saying we need to think of cellular processes as interactive systems (as we do with neural nets) rather than one way, linear, cause-effect systems. Curiously, that was exactly my impression. DNA has, over 3+ billion years, accumulated a lot of information* that it uses that during the non-random replication processes (the parts not affected by mutation, and therefore being most of the process/es). That can certainly be called an intelligent use of information, because it is non-random, but that does not make it an intentionally planned or mystically directed process. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 537 by molbiogirl, posted 01-20-2011 1:33 PM | | molbiogirl has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 547 of 968 (601474)
01-20-2011 7:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 545 by Taq
01-20-2011 6:21 PM
|
|
Re: increased mutation rate is not directed mutation
Hi Taq,
What evidence convinced you that Shapiro is right? Or more to the point, that his (shadow71) interpretation of Shapiro is right. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 545 by Taq, posted 01-20-2011 6:21 PM | | Taq has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 554 by Taq, posted 01-20-2011 8:54 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 548 of 968 (601477)
01-20-2011 7:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 536 by shadow71
01-20-2011 12:14 PM
|
|
Re: increased mutation rate is not directed mutation
Hi shadow71,
Message 534: On this board the possibility of a non-Darwinian theory is never considered. Those who bring up the possibility are "uneducated". So I read James A. Shapiro and am posting his findings and conclusions. btw, I used the term undereducated. In terms of levels of education I am undereducated compared to people like molbiogirl and Taq, and I learn from them. This does not mean uneducated (having zero knowledge on the subject).
Message 535: Please read my post 534 to Granny Magda. Shapiro clearly states His belief in a potential of " possible intelligent cellular action in evolution." Agreed, however he also clearly does not say that "changes are the result of planned, engineered functions" as you have. To go from one to the other requires a "leap-of-faith" rather than a logical conclusion ... or confirmation bias based of beliefs rather than information.
Would you agree that based on what I posted in Message 534 to Granny Magda, that I may not be suffering from confirmation bias? Yes, because I still cannot get from "possible intelligent cellular action in evolution" to "changes are the result of planned, engineered functions. Intelligence covers a broad spectrum. Computers are intelligent in their ability to store, process and use information, but idiots at creating novel concepts - the term idiot savant comes to mind. You may not think of a light switch as being intelligent, however a computer is little more than a vast number of switches programed to respond in certain ways to certain stimuli. The software in computers have accumulated ways to process information in repeatable ways, and this is what gives them the ability to arrive at "intelligent" solutions. Like computers DNA has accumulated the results of billions of years of trial and error tests of billions and billions of various attempts at finding valid responses to ecological conditions and their changes. That does not mean that it can predict changes or intelligently morph in a certain direction as would be expected of "planned, engineered functions." As Taq points out (mid=601461), the increased rate of mutation caused by "possible intelligent cellular action in evolution" is non-directional, with some beneficial, some neutral and some deleterious results. It is the increased rate of mutations that allows the beneficial mutations that do arise to be selected during crisis. If it were "planned, engineered functions" then there would be many beneficial and no deleterious mutations, and as this is not the case we can consider your concept of "planned, engineered functions" falsified. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 536 by shadow71, posted 01-20-2011 12:14 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 567 of 968 (601663)
01-22-2011 6:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 549 by shadow71
01-20-2011 8:38 PM
|
|
Re: increased mutation rate is not directed mutation
Hi again shadow71, sorry but still seem to be reading more into this than exists.
When he says Molecular compuation network demonstrating biologically useful properties OF SELF-AWARENESS AND DECSION MAKING (emphasis mine) does that not speak of some sort of ability to make decisions based upon what the circumstances present? Please note that the full sentence is:
quote:
One can characterize this surveillance/inducible repair/checkpoint system as a molecular computation network demonstrating biologically useful properties of self-awareness and decision-making.
He is not saying that this is necessarily a conclusion from the data, rather that in his opinion that the behavior actually observed CAN be classified in that manner. Curiously, I find opinion to be a poor judge of reality, unable to force evidence to fit, no matter how well informed that opinion may be. In this case it may be a little presumptious. It is very easy to make a primitive computation system with these characteristics. Back in 1964 at university one of the tasks we had was to plug together black boxes to make such a system, a primitive, simplistic computer. The black boxes came in two flavors: the AND gates required both inputs to be positive to issue a positive output, while the OR gates require either input to be positive to issue a positive output. The task was to emulate a mechanical soda machine, detect the value of the money input in a variety of ways and output the proper soda and any change (this was back when soda was 10 cents a can). This is not earth shaking intelligence, nor is it significant self-directing decision making, it is a response mechanism that makes a variety of different responses in reaction to a variety of different inputs. It does not come up with novel new solutions to brand new input situations. Evolution, over billions of years, has given all evolved life the results of billions x billions of trial and error experiments, with the results of successful experiments passed on and built on. It would be shocking (to me anyway) if this did not involve evolution of the ways and means that evolution responds to a variety of different inputs with different learned results, including allowing increased mutations in areas where they have been more beneficial in the past.
How do you interpret the statement that "...that cells have molecular computing networks which process information about internal operations and about the external enviroment to make DECISIONS controlling growth, movent, and differentiation... This clearly speaks of decision making processes . In the same way that the black box soda machine has a decision making process, responding to a variety of different inputs with a variety of response outputs that have been tried in the past, and where the successful trial offspring survived. One of these is increased rate of mutation, another may be to increase reproduction, and another may be to limit increased mutations to segments that are not life threatening. It does not come up with novel new solutions to brand new input situations, and it does not decide or direct what mutations would be best. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 549 by shadow71, posted 01-20-2011 8:38 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 572 of 968 (601691)
01-23-2011 8:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 568 by barbara
01-22-2011 11:36 PM
|
|
Re: increased mutation rate is not directed mutation
Hi barbara, thanks.
There is no man made device or machine that is built to make decisions. And yet machines\devices have been built that beat chess-masters at chess. The logical conclusion then is that chess does not involve decisions, which is ridiculous, so therefore your premise is false. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 568 by barbara, posted 01-22-2011 11:36 PM | | barbara has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 585 of 968 (601757)
01-23-2011 10:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 581 by shadow71
01-23-2011 8:58 PM
|
|
what gets turned on? what's new?
Hi shadow71, still trying to make reality fit fantasy?
Does this show that there is a program in the cells that activate responses, other than by a random process? Not really, what you have is a system that turns the rate of mutation up or down in response to input from the ecology. We still have the process of evolution defined as:
Evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities That rather obviously still applies.
... clearly not a random, non programmed event. Curiously, it does not mean that specific pre-programmed singularly directed responses are activated, but that what is activated is increased random mutations.
It appears that the cells have computer like information that activitvates responses to stresses etc., ...
If this is correct, what effect does that have on the the current theory of evolution? First, once again, your interpretation is not correct, so the answer is moot, however if you wish to know what the impact of scientists like Shapiro finding new mechanisms by which some evolution occurs for some organisms would have on the modern theory of evolution ... see below.
Message 578shapiro writes: The point of this discussion is that our current knowledge of genetic change is fundamentally at variance with neo-Darwinist postulates.
I interpret this to mean that he is questioning the theory of evolution as per the modern interpretation. Then you are equivocating between neo-Darwinism and the modern interpretation of the theory of evolution, in spite of being told several times that these are not the same thing. Let me see if I can make it a little easier for you - the modern interpretation of the theory of evolution can be simply stated as:
The Theory of Evolution is that the process of evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it. This means that everything we know about how evolution occurs, and everything we know about the diversity of life, is part of the modern interpretation of the theory of evolution. This includes Darwinism. This includes neo-Darwinism. This includes all the current knowledge within the field of biological evolution about all the mechanism involved in the process of evolution. This also means that any new knowledge that is confirmed and validated by the scientific process concerning new mechanisms for the process of evolution, whether for specific organisms or general, will be incorporated into the theory of evolution, and that when that is done, we can "redefine" the modern theory of evolution to be:
The Theory of Evolution is that the process of evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 581 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2011 8:58 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 594 of 968 (601916)
01-24-2011 11:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 591 by barbara
01-24-2011 10:05 PM
|
|
Re: Differences in DNA sequences
Hi again barbara,
if epigenetics is not a factor, what specific mutations in the germ cells would modify the offspring to create a new generation of slightly different appearance from their parents? Do you know anyone that looks exactly like one of their parents? If not, then all you need are the numbers of mutations in a single generation of humans. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 591 by barbara, posted 01-24-2011 10:05 PM | | barbara has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 595 by Taq, posted 01-25-2011 1:19 AM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 606 by barbara, posted 01-25-2011 4:03 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 608 of 968 (602051)
01-25-2011 7:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 599 by shadow71
01-25-2011 11:43 AM
|
|
Re: what gets turned on? what's new?
Hi shadow71,
Then according to your reasoning the theory of evolution as we know it can never be falsified because any new mechanisms we discover are automatically attributed to our theory of evolution. No (however this misunderstanding could be the problem behind your failure to see that Shapiro, Konnin, Schwartz, etc, are not challenging the ToE as drastically as you appear to think). What will falsify the theory of evolution is objective empirical evidence that some of the diversity of life is not explained by any of the mechanisms of evolution. A cow that gives (natural) birth to a modern horse would violate the ToE, because (a) it would not fit into the nested hierarchies of life, and (b) would not involve hereditarty traits being passed from one generation to the next.
For example if "random mutation" is found to be unable to change information in the cell to to allow one species to evolve into another species, would your theory of evolution still be true? First evolution does not equal random mutation, it involves selection of available mutations for those that offer the most opportunity for survival and breeding success. Second, you need to define what you mean by "into another species" - do you mean that a cow cannot evolve into a horse? Or do you mean that one species of cow cannot evolve to the point where it is classified as another species of cow (arbitrary speciation based on the amount of morphological change observed)? Or do you mean where daughter populations of one species of cow become reproductively isolated and result in a (non-arbitrary) speciation event?
"hereditary variation arises from the NON-RANDOM action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering." (My emphasis} And your continued misunderstanding. What is mobilized is a non-random increase in the rate of random mutations. He is still talking about hereditary variation.
If that is accurrate then randon mutation does not account for the process of evolution. How does increased random mutation not involve random mutation?
Does not account for evolution from one species to another, macro evolution. Curiously, we have lots of objective empirical evidence that shows that evolution - the change in the frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities - has resulted in reproductive isolation of daughter populations occupying different ecologies. This is objective empirical evidence of non-arbitrary speciation, or macroevolution as it is defined and used within the science of evolutionary biology. What you need to show is not that one species cannot evolve, but that species arise by some other method.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 599 by shadow71, posted 01-25-2011 11:43 AM | | shadow71 has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 609 of 968 (602055)
01-25-2011 7:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 606 by barbara
01-25-2011 4:03 PM
|
|
Re: Differences in DNA sequences - how much is needed? some.
Hi barbara, thanks.
I am talking about the point when the appearance changes in morphology that defines them as another species. Are you talking about the amount of change that biologists see in the fossil record before deciding that arbitrary speciation has occurred? That's kind of hard to define, seeing as the standard is essentially arbitrary. If you are talking about the amount of change that subpopulations go through before non-arbitrary speciation occurs thru reproductive isolation, then I would suggest that the Asian Greenish Warbler is an excellent model: Greenish warblers
quote:
Greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides) inhabit forests across much of northern and central Asia. In central Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warbler coexist without interbreeding, and therefore these forms can be considered distinct species. The two forms are connected by a long chain of populations encircling the Tibetan Plateau to the south, and traits change gradually through this ring of populations. There is no place where there is an obvious species boundary along the southern side of the ring. Hence the two distinct 'species' in Siberia are apparently connected by gene flow. By studying geographic variation in the ring of populations, we can study how speciation has occurred. This unusual situation has been termed a 'circular overlap' or 'ring species'. There are very few known examples of ring species.
Plumage Patterns West Siberian greenish warblers (P. t. viridanus) and east Siberian greenish warblers (P. t. plumbeitarsus) differ subtly in their plumage patterns, most notably in their wing bars, which are used in communication. While viridanus has a single wing bar, plumbeitarsus has two. Around the southern side of the ring, plumage patterns change gradually.
Song Male greenish warblers are very active singers, using song both to attract females and to defend their territories. Each male has a repertoire of song units, and songs are made by stringing together units in various ways. There is much geographical variation in both the song units and the rules by which units are assembled into songs. The figure below illustrates spectrograms of example songs from eight locations around the ring. There is a clear gradient in song characteristics around the ring, with the northern forms viridanus and plumbeitarsus differing dramatically in their songs.
Due to a slight difference in plummage and a slight change in song, members of these two varieties do not see each other as potential mates, and thus are reproductively isolated: speciation.
I am talking about the point when the appearance changes in morphology that defines them as another species. Note that in this case, the individual birds define themselves as different species, not the observing biologists: it is not a matter of opinion here on whether speciation has occurred. So to answer your question: very little change is needed to be able to produce reproductive isolation. This, however, does not mean that reproductive isolation always occurs when we see this amount of variation, as we can look at dogs as a contrary example. Dogs have experienced a lot of variation in a short time, but this has not produced reproductive isolation (as far as I know). I would take one as a minimum amount and the other as a maximum amount, and say that on average the answer lies in between. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : ..
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 606 by barbara, posted 01-25-2011 4:03 PM | | barbara has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 727 of 968 (603123)
02-02-2011 8:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 726 by shadow71
02-02-2011 7:41 PM
|
|
Have you emailed Shapiro yet?
Hi shadow71, I've been following this. Have you sent your questions to Shapiro yet?
I believe that Shapiro in "Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21st century", Mobile DNA 2010, 1:4 has stated that that biasing retrovirus insertion upstream of coding regions has shown that certain changes are non-random. Non-random in respect to location, yes, but not non-random in respect to effect on the organism. The effect is unknown until after the mutation occurs, whereupon it is subject to selective pressures. It is entirely possible that these locations are less liable to produce lethal mutations, and that natural selection in the past has thus operated to make these locations more accessible for such mutations by lowering resistance to mutations in these areas, especially during times of stress. That's a trial and error learned response not a decision making evaluated response. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 726 by shadow71, posted 02-02-2011 7:41 PM | | shadow71 has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 738 of 968 (603444)
02-04-2011 1:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 737 by Percy
02-03-2011 2:50 PM
|
|
Re: Cite
Hi Percy
You received the answers we pretty much expected you would. We were pretty sure his responses would use the term non-random in the same misleading way as in his other writings. His response was pretty much bang-on for what I expected from the questions. I disagree somewhat with your comment re non-random - as he does clarify that by saying rather emphatically that it is not deterministic, which is shadow71's interpretation. If it were non-random then his comment re purifying selection would not be necessary -- there would be no need to weed out deleterious mutations, and "purify" the population to have beneficial and neutral mutations. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 737 by Percy, posted 02-03-2011 2:50 PM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 741 by Taq, posted 02-04-2011 3:14 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
