Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,627 Year: 4,884/9,624 Month: 232/427 Week: 42/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2726 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 932 of 968 (605040)
02-16-2011 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 930 by shadow71
02-16-2011 3:19 PM


Highly nondeterministic
I would think Shapiro's talk of Natural Genetic Engineering, sentience in cells etc. that this would lead to a Designer.
How? How does NGE = designer?
btw.
Just because you ignore the fact that Shapiro said "highly nondeterministic" doesn't make it go away. Just because you ignore Percy reminding you that Shapiro said "highly nondeterministic" doesn't make it go away. Just because you ignore me reminding you that Shapiro said "highly nondeterministic" doesn't make it go away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 930 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 3:19 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 933 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 4:13 PM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 950 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-17-2011 1:14 AM molbiogirl has not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 933 of 968 (605043)
02-16-2011 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 932 by molbiogirl
02-16-2011 4:01 PM


Re: Highly nondeterministic
molbiogirl writes;
How? How does NGE = designer?
btw.
Just because you ignore the fact that Shapiro said "highly nondeterministic" doesn't make it go away. Just because you ignore Percy reminding you that Shapiro said "highly nondeterministic" doesn't make it go away. Just because you ignore me reminding you that Shapiro said "highly nondeterministic" doesn't make it go away.
NGE does not, I repeat does not equal DESIGNER. I was giving my opinion that perhaps the ID supporters would pick up on the "Engineering" part of the theory and that means to many design. If something is Engineered wouldn't you agree it is probably not random?
In re "Highly nondeterministic." I guess the statement that there is no possible chance it could be determinsitic would be more final. But who would be able to say that with certainity, except for...?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 932 by molbiogirl, posted 02-16-2011 4:01 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 937 by Taq, posted 02-16-2011 4:28 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 939 by molbiogirl, posted 02-16-2011 4:41 PM shadow71 has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34059
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 934 of 968 (605045)
02-16-2011 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 927 by shadow71
02-16-2011 3:00 PM


Re: Simplified Explanation of Shapiro's Views
shadow71 writes:
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.
No, that is NOT the understanding of science, it is the reality.
Fitness is whether or not something lives long enough to reproduce. It is totally and completely separate, disconnected from and unrelated to any mutations.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 927 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 3:00 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 935 of 968 (605046)
02-16-2011 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 931 by DBlevins
02-16-2011 3:46 PM


Re: Simplified Explanation of Shapiro's Views
DBlevins writes;
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?
That ability may have been given to the bacteria as part of its makeup. Is there something aboult nylon that makes it unique?
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 931 by DBlevins, posted 02-16-2011 3:46 PM DBlevins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 938 by Taq, posted 02-16-2011 4:31 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 940 by jar, posted 02-16-2011 4:43 PM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 936 of 968 (605047)
02-16-2011 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 918 by molbiogirl
02-16-2011 2:09 PM


Re: Just stop it
Shadow wrote;
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.
Molbiogirl wrote;
Those are your words!!!
Jeezlooweez. Are you that thick?
I assume that your position is that mutations have no effect on fitness is a closed case. Do no more research, Molbiogirl has closed out that option?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 918 by molbiogirl, posted 02-16-2011 2:09 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 941 by molbiogirl, posted 02-16-2011 4:43 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 937 of 968 (605049)
02-16-2011 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 933 by shadow71
02-16-2011 4:13 PM


Re: Highly nondeterministic
I was giving my opinion that perhaps the ID supporters would pick up on the "Engineering" part of the theory and that means to many design.
I can see that. We often see ID supporters jump to conclusions like this.
If something is Engineered wouldn't you agree it is probably not random?
The lottery is engineered and it is random. I have used an engineered transposon for random mutagenesis before.
In re "Highly nondeterministic." I guess the statement that there is no possible chance it could be determinsitic would be more final.
It would also be outside the realm of the scientific method. Scientific conclusions do not make absolute statements of truth. Conclusions are always tentative and based on the evidence at hand. So far, all of the evidence is consistent with random mutations with respect to fitness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 933 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 4:13 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 944 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 7:30 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 938 of 968 (605050)
02-16-2011 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 935 by shadow71
02-16-2011 4:19 PM


Re: Simplified Explanation of Shapiro's Views
That ability may have been given to the bacteria as part of its makeup.
It wasn't. The emergence of the nylonase enzyme (nylC) was the product of an insertion mutation in a plasmid carried by the bacteria. We know this because we have the parent populations and daughter populations.
Is there something aboult nylon that makes it unique?
The nylon oligmers that the bacteria are now able to utilize as a food source did not exist until the 20th century, well after the flavobacterium existed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 935 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 4:19 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2726 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 939 of 968 (605052)
02-16-2011 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 933 by shadow71
02-16-2011 4:13 PM


Re: Highly nondeterministic
You said and I quote:
That the scientists on this board should keep an open mind and be prepared to accept that evolution may not be non-random, even in regards to fitness. I am not saying evolution has not and is not happening, but that it may in fact be directed.
You said and I quote:
I take it that you believe that the complexity of such a single cell came about by random accident? Would you agree that it also may have come about by a directed plan?
You said and I quote:
That in my opinion will lead to what I beleive, that evolution is in fact a created phenemon. I reallly don't care if ID is recognized as a science or not, to me it is irrevelant.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ...
From wiki:
Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Also from wiki:
It is neo-creationism, a form of creationism restated in non-religious terms.
Capiche?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 933 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 4:13 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 943 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 7:11 PM molbiogirl has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34059
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 940 of 968 (605053)
02-16-2011 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 935 by shadow71
02-16-2011 4:19 PM


More slow steps.
shadow71 writes:
DBlevins writes;
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?
That ability may have been given to the bacteria as part of its makeup. Is there something aboult nylon that makes it unique?
Let's try a whole different path and see if it helps you.
Do you understand that when folk talk about mutations in evolutionary biology they are talking about changes passed on during reproduction.
With me so far?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 935 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 4:19 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 945 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 7:41 PM jar has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2726 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 941 of 968 (605054)
02-16-2011 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 936 by shadow71
02-16-2011 4:26 PM


Mutations have no effect on fitness?
I assume that your position is that mutations have no effect on fitness is a closed case.
I'm going to give you a mulligan on this one.
Why don't you try rephrasing that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 936 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 4:26 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 942 of 968 (605060)
02-16-2011 6:23 PM


I just found a paper by Shapiro that should help illuminate the subject at hand. It actually ties together several things that I have been talking about, including the Lederberg paper that I mention in previous posts. Shapiro uses the plate replica method to demonstrate that DNA fusions resulting in beneficial adaptations are unrelated to specific selective pressures. They specifically looked at the appearance of reverse lacZ mutants that were capable of digesting lactose.
quote:
Our results unambigously demonstrate the formation of araB-lacZ cistron fusions encoding active hybrid B-galactosidase molecules in the absence of arabinose and lactose substrates. The fusions were obtained by the sib selection technique [my note: this is the Lederberg plate replica method] (Cavalli-Sforza and Lederberg, 1956) and characterized by PCR analysis and B-galactosidase assay (Table V). This demonstration means that there was no requirement for selective substrates (arabinose and lactose), and that the sharp transition (observed by three different laboratories) from normal growth conditions, where no fusion formation by MCS2 was detectable, to selection conditions, where fusion formation was observed at surprisingly high frequencies, was a response to carbon source depletion. . .
This view of how selection-induced mutations are triggered in the araB-lacZ system is an example of what we have described previously as the operation of natural genetic engineering systems (Shapiro, 1992, 1993b).
[this was transcribed from the .pdf so any spelling or grammatical mistakes are mine and should be assumed to be random with respect to spelling ]
The paper can be found here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...95473/pdf/emboj00069-0222.pdf
So the same randomness of mutations established by the Lederberg and Luria-Delbruck experiments is the same randomness seen in the genetic engineering systems that Shapiro actually studies. The paper also goes on to mention that the same results are produced by the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation method.
In addition, this paper really spells out how Shapiro views "random" mutations and genetic engineering systems. A perfect example is this quote:
quote:
In other words, much genetic change is not a stochastic ongoing process, controlled at the level of selection or mutation fixation (reference deleted), but instead involves the regulated assembly of specific cellular complexes. The physical and biochemical events needed to produce an araB-lacZ fusion are too elaborate to occur by an accidental breakdown in the normal replication process (reference deleted).
So Shapiro sees two different sources for random mutations: the breakdown of the normal replication process and specific cellular complexes. IMO, he does a disservice in other papers referring to the former as random and the latter as non-random, even though both are random according to the standard assays used to determine the randomness of mutations with respect to fitness.

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 943 of 968 (605064)
02-16-2011 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 939 by molbiogirl
02-16-2011 4:41 PM


Re: Highly nondeterministic
Molbiogirl writes inter alia;
Capiche?
So what is your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 939 by molbiogirl, posted 02-16-2011 4:41 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 947 by Percy, posted 02-16-2011 8:02 PM shadow71 has not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 944 of 968 (605065)
02-16-2011 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 937 by Taq
02-16-2011 4:28 PM


Re: Highly nondeterministic
Shadow writes;
In re "Highly nondeterministic." I guess the statement that there is no possible chance it could be determinsitic would be more final.
Taq writes;
It would also be outside the realm of the scientific method. Scientific conclusions do not make absolute statements of truth. Conclusions are always tentative and based on the evidence at hand. So far, all of the evidence is consistent with random mutations with respect to fitness.
My point exactly. There are papers out there, and I will be citing them in the future, that appear to raise the possibility that non-random mutations are deterministic as to fitness .
I think at this point we don't know that and cannot say, as Molbiogirl states, that there is no way that non-random mutations can be deterministic as regards to fitness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 937 by Taq, posted 02-16-2011 4:28 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 948 by Taq, posted 02-17-2011 12:20 AM shadow71 has not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 945 of 968 (605066)
02-16-2011 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 940 by jar
02-16-2011 4:43 PM


Re: More slow steps.
jar writes;
Do you understand that when folk talk about mutations in evolutionary biology they are talking about changes passed on during reproduction.
With me so far?
Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 940 by jar, posted 02-16-2011 4:43 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 946 by jar, posted 02-16-2011 7:54 PM shadow71 has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34059
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 946 of 968 (605070)
02-16-2011 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 945 by shadow71
02-16-2011 7:41 PM


Re: More slow steps.
shadow71 writes:
jar writes;
Do you understand that when folk talk about mutations in evolutionary biology they are talking about changes passed on during reproduction.
With me so far?
Yes.
Okay.
So we are talking about mutations in the "parent" of the offspring (in the case of sexual reproducing critters) or the critter itself before before it splits in asexual critters.
Still with me?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 945 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 7:41 PM shadow71 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024