Denial of evolution III

[786]

You supplied published experiments that questioned one aspect of evolution in one narrow arena. Do you seriously contend that rasing issues about one small aspect of evolution in one small arena is equivalent to falsifying the whole goddamn theory?
I mean really.:shrug:

Although I agree with what you said, but you do have to realize the implications that 'small arena' has on the overall theory. If the understanding of Jack is applied that changes a lot about how one understands Evolution at the most fundamental level- genetics. Like Dawkins said you don't need the 'fossil record' anymore the 'genetic code' is a the record we need- what would happen if its understanding is totally changed regarding 'new genetic information'? It has big implications.

Peace be you

 

[GeoffP]

There are only a dozen or two professional scientists on SciForums, and none of them is an evolutionary biologist.

Ahem.

Shall I endeavour to help?

 

[Ophiolite]

Although I agree with what you said, but you do have to realize the implications that 'small arena' has on the overall theory.

Absolutely, but the implications only are meaningful if the experiment is validated repeatedly. Galileo didn't time just one pendulum and other researchers repeated his observations before his conclusions were accepted. The experiment is interesting, even intriguing, but we would need to see more of the same before we give it serious attention.

If the understanding of Jack is applied that changes a lot about how one understands Evolution at the most fundamental level- genetics.

If the experiment is valid.

Look, I was checking out how our understanding of the presence of water vapour on Mars had changed over the years. There is very little material in the first half of the 20th century, but there was some spectrocsopic analysis carried out by Adams around 1925. He reported the clear presence of water vapour in the Martian atmosphere. But a decade later he is reporting that there is no water vapour detectable. Bless his heart, he didn't stick with his first hypothesis and observations, he let the data lead him to the truth.

In short, we don't yet know this experiment produced viable results. It certainly merits further investigation, but not a revolution.

Beyond that Jack seems to be taking an extreme interpretation of the results and he is doing it with all the appearance of an evangelist. I am suspicious of such an approach.

Like Dawkins said you don't need the 'fossil record' anymore the 'genetic code' is a the record we need-

My final two points are entirely personal, subjective and unscientific.
1. I despise Dawkins.
2. I'm a geologist. I believe we will always need the fossil record.

 

[GeoffP]

Jack, your argument appears to be seeemi-Lamarckian in nature; or at least you're interpreting the evidence that way. Let's deal with the first sample first.

In 1988, John Cairns at the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford, England, and a group of other scientists renewed the Lamarckian controversy (which by then had been a dead debate for many years).[18] The group took a mutated strain of E. coli that was unable to consume the sugar lactose and placed it in an environment where lactose was the only food source. They observed over time that mutations occurred within the colony at a rate that suggested the bacteria were overcoming their handicap by altering their own genes. Cairns, among others, dubbed the process adaptive mutation.If bacteria that had overcome their own inability to consume lactose passed on this "learned" trait to future generations, it could be argued as a form of Lamarckism; though Cairns later chose to distance himself from such a position.[19] More typically, it might be viewed as a form of ontogenic evolution.

Quite: it could be viewed as either of those things. It could also be viewed as simple lability in gene function; reactivation via unsurveyed polymorphic genes in the background. You'll note also that the strain was a no-function mutant.

There's also a problem with the characterization of the experiment as given: "learned to modify their own genes" is hugely speculative and inappropriate. Is this a behavioural modification? How?

But what you're driving at is room within our conception of evolutionary science to accomodate explanations outside TOE. Well, that all depends on whether you think reaction norms, possible epistasis, environmental activation of other genes (GxE, reaction norms, etc), redundant gene series and even my pet theory (which I'm publishing on and which you don't get to see, naughty naughty) is part of TOE. Are they? Or is it only additivity? What would Darwin do?

 

[Jack_]

Not the point.

Have these experiments been published in peer reviewed journals, have they been replicated? Do they have any implications to the theory of evolution? If so then there is once more no need for anyone (particularly here) to do anything.

Yes, the experiment I posted was published by this person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cairns_(biochemist)


Hugh) John Cairns FRS (1922- ) is a British physician and molecular biologist who made significant contributions to molecular genetics, cancer research, and public health.

Cairns received his M.D. from Oxford. He then worked as a virologist at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne, Australia and at the Virus Research Institute at Entebbe, Kenya. He returned to Australia to work at in the School of Microbiology at the John Curtin School of Medical Research. Cairns took a sabbatical to research at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory between 1960 and 1961, and returned there to serve as the director from 1963 to 1968. He remained a staff member at Cold Spring Harbor until 1972, when he was appointed head of the Mill Hill Laboratory of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund in Oxford. After he was appointed at Mill Hill he also worked at the Harvard School of Public Health. He retired in 1991.

In his 1963 paper "The bacterial chromosome and its manner of replication as seen by autoradiography", Cairns demonstrated by autoradiography that the DNA of the bacterium Escherichia coli was a single molecule that is replicated at a moving locus (the replicating fork) at which both new DNA strands are being synthesized. Subsequently, it was found that there were in fact two moving forks, traveling simultaneously in opposite directions around the chromosome.

In 1981, John Cairns received a MacArthur Foundation ("genius") Fellowship. He is the author of the 1978 book Cancer: Science and Society (now out of print) and the 1997 book, Matters of Life and Death: Perspectives on Public Health, Molecular Biology, Cancer, and the Prospects for the Human Race. Together with James Watson and Gunther Stent, Cairns also edited the collection of historical accounts Phage and the Origins of Molecular Biology.


Origin Post of the experiment

In 1988, John Cairns at the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford, England, and a group of other scientists renewed the Lamarckian controversy (which by then had been a dead debate for many years).[18] The group took a mutated strain of E. coli that was unable to consume the sugar lactose and placed it in an environment where lactose was the only food source. They observed over time that mutations occurred within the colony at a rate that suggested the bacteria were overcoming their handicap by altering their own genes. Cairns, among others, dubbed the process adaptive mutation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism


Looks like it is time to upgrade from the teachings of big-brother.

 

[Jack_]

Jack, your argument appears to be seeemi-Lamarckian in nature; or at least you're interpreting the evidence that way. Let's deal with the first sample first.



Quite: it could be viewed as either of those things. It could also be viewed as simple lability in gene function; reactivation via unsurveyed polymorphic genes in the background. You'll note also that the strain was a no-function mutant.

There's also a problem with the characterization of the experiment as given: "learned to modify their own genes" is hugely speculative and inappropriate. Is this a behavioural modification? How?

But what you're driving at is room within our conception of evolutionary science to accomodate explanations outside TOE. Well, that all depends on whether you think reaction norms, possible epistasis, environmental activation of other genes (GxE, reaction norms, etc), redundant gene series and even my pet theory (which I'm publishing on and which you don't get to see, naughty naughty) is part of TOE. Are they? Or is it only additivity? What would Darwin do?

These writings of yours do not explain the experiment and further you contradict the views of John Cairns.


I would think you would also explain the nature of creativity since that is in fact an adaptive form of evolution not requiring the components of TOE, i.e. reproduction and mutation.

Remember, TOE is a recursive form of logic, and the product is nothing more than the sum logic of the components. You cannot be more than your components or you imply emergence.

 

[Kennyc]

Yes, the experiment I posted was published by this person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cairns_(biochemist)

...

Origin Post of the experiment

In 1988, John Cairns at the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford, England, and a group of other scientists renewed the Lamarckian controversy (which by then had been a dead debate for many years).[18] The group took a mutated strain of E. coli that was unable to consume the sugar lactose and placed it in an environment where lactose was the only food source. They observed over time that mutations occurred within the colony at a rate that suggested the bacteria were overcoming their handicap by altering their own genes. Cairns, among others, dubbed the process adaptive mutation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism


Looks like it is time to upgrade from the teachings of big-brother.

You've posted some wiki links, but my question still stands:
Have these experiments been published in peer reviewed journals, have they been replicated? Do they have any implications to the theory of evolution? If so then there is once more no need for anyone (particularly here) to do anything.

 

[GeoffP]

These writings of yours do not explain the experiment

Well, they certainly do. Unless you have evidence that they've been checked and refuted? I'll list them out for you here:

i) epistasis from unlinked genes
ii) de novo mutation
iii) phenotypic plasticity / reaction norms / GxE (see Pigliucci, Bradshaw)

and further you contradict the views of John Cairns.

Egad! Do I? Do I contradict him? John Cairns? Do I contradict John Cairns? Do I?

...and?

I would think you would also explain the nature of creativity since that is in fact an adaptive form of evolution not requiring the components of TOE, i.e. reproduction and mutation.

You think I would explain it? Why don't you, since it is central to your hypothesis? Is there a reason it cannot be explained in the simpler theories of reaction norms, epistasis and so on? Clarify.

Remember, TOE is a recursive form of logic, and the product is nothing more than the sum logic of the components. You cannot be more than your components or you imply emergence.

I cannot 'remember' something that is not so. Why would you think the TOE is recursive? What evidence or views do you bring to bear on this supposition?

 

[Jack_]

Well, they certainly do. Unless you have evidence that they've been checked and refuted? I'll list them out for you here:

i) epistasis from unlinked genes
ii) de novo mutation
iii) phenotypic plasticity / reaction norms / GxE (see Pigliucci, Bradshaw)

OK, can you demonstrate an algorithm to show how these will produce the desired results of the experiments.

Next, since this would naturally be a superior method of evolution, can you explain why this is always not the case under the context of TOE?

Finally, can you apply your conclusions to the following.

Thanks.

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/120/4/887.pdf

A Comeback for Lamarckian Evolution?

The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring.

"The results are extremely surprising and unexpected," says Li-Huei Tsai, a neuroscientist at MIT who was not involved in the research. Indeed, one of the studies found that a boost in the brain's ability to rewire itself and a corresponding improvement in memory could be passed on. "This study is probably the first study to show there are transgenerational effects not only on behavior but on brain plasticity."

http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22061/?a=f

 

[Jack_]

You've posted some wiki links, but my question still stands:
Have these experiments been published in peer reviewed journals, have they been replicated? Do they have any implications to the theory of evolution? If so then there is once more no need for anyone (particularly here) to do anything.

Cairns, J., and P. L. Foster. 1991. Adaptive reversion of a frameshift mutation
in Escherichia coli. Genetics 128:695.
Cairns, J., J. Overbaugh, and S. Miller. 1988. The origin of mutants. Nature
(London) 335:142–145.

 

[Kennyc]

Cairns, J., and P. L. Foster. 1991. Adaptive reversion of a frameshift mutation
in Escherichia coli. Genetics 128:695.
Cairns, J., J. Overbaugh, and S. Miller. 1988. The origin of mutants. Nature
(London) 335:142–145.

You don't get it do you. :shrug: That's a partial answer (two publications in apparently legitimate pubs -- not sure who "Genetics Society of America" is though) to my question, but you continue to ignore the rest.

Has any of this been replicated and what implications for change or refutation does it have for Evolution?

Clearly these are quite old, if they were as devastating to Evolution as you seem to think why haven't they been replicated and brought into the fold.

What specifically is it you are getting at that is either wrong or incomplete with the current theory of evolution?

Looks like normal evolution to this neophyte. Mutation and selection...

 

[Jack_]

You don't get it do you. :shrug: That's a partial answer (two publications in apparently legitimate pubs -- not sure who "Genetics Society of America" is though) to my question, but you continue to ignore the rest.

Has any of this been replicated and what implications for change or refutation does it have for Evolution?

Clearly these are quite old, if they were as devastating to Evolution as you seem to think why haven't they been replicated and brought into the fold.

What specifically is it you are getting at that is either wrong or incomplete with the current theory of evolution?

Looks like normal evolution to this neophyte. Mutation and selection...

Yea, well the experiments exist.

I posted others also.

I am contending that TOE is not sufficient.

I never said it is false.

Perhaps you are having trouble understanding terms in logic.

 

[Neverfly]

Yea, well the experiments exist.

So do experiments with Spectroscopy. Just because they exist doesn't mean they support your leaped toward conclusions.

Try posting experiments that exist and DO support your conclusions, instead.

 

[Jack_]

So do experiments with Spectroscopy. Just because they exist doesn't mean they support your leaped toward conclusions.

Try posting experiments that exist and DO support your conclusions, instead.

This does not follow from anything I posted.

Perhaps you are downwind from something you do not like.

 

[Neverfly]

This does not follow from anything I posted.

Why is denial always your first tactic?
It absolutely follows what you posted.

You posted experiments that do NOT support your claim. Deal with it, already...

Perhaps you are downwind from something you do not like.

Perhaps.

 

[Kennyc]

....
I am contending that TOE is not sufficient.

I never said it is false.

Perhaps you are having trouble understanding terms in logic.

Perhaps you are having trouble understanding how science works.

You certainly have not convinced me that you even have a clue.

Saying something is not sufficient, says NOTHING. The Theory of Relativity is not sufficient to explain all of physics, nor is Quantum Theory.

Unless you are willing to state specifically where your examples contradict, expand or replace the Theory of Evolution -- and publish them in legitimate journals and get agreement from the scientific community it means nothing and as I've said repeatedly posting your opinions on an internet forum is not going to change anything.

State clearly and simply what you are trying to say and maybe we will have something to discuss, but when all you say is TOE is insufficient that is not worth anyone's time.

 

[Jack_]

Perhaps you are having trouble understanding how science works.

You certainly have not convinced me that you even have a clue.

Saying something is not sufficient, says NOTHING. The Theory of Relativity is not sufficient to explain all of physics, nor is Quantum Theory.

Unless you are willing to state specifically where your examples contradict, expand or replace the Theory of Evolution -- and publish them in legitimate journals and get agreement from the scientific community it means nothing and as I've said repeatedly posting your opinions on an internet forum is not going to change anything.

State clearly and simply what you are trying to say and maybe we will have something to discuss, but when all you say is TOE is insufficient that is not worth anyone's time.

Perhaps you do not understand logic.

Random mutation and enviromental selection are not sufficient to explain all the experiments and results in genetics.

Yet, folks like you claim it is.

Are you now ready to confess TOE cannot explain eveything?

Here is some more evidence that random mutations and enviromental selection cannot explain the evolution of humans.

Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution

http://www.anthro.utah.edu/PDFs/accel.pnas.smallpdf.pdf

You folks will now need to use genetics and natural selection to explain this acceleration of human evolution.

How do you explain acceleration in TOE? I want to see the math.

 

[Jack_]

Why is denial always your first tactic?
It absolutely follows what you posted.

You posted experiments that do NOT support your claim. Deal with it, already...



Perhaps.

You posted experiments that do NOT support your claim. Deal with it, already...

This is a statement that has no basis in reality.

Otherwise, prove your assertion.

 

[786]

Jack-

GeoffP is right in post 464.... There are other alternative probable explanations (which he listed) which have not been exhausted... There is no reason to assume that it is outside of TOE unless all other explanations, as pointed out by GeoffP, are exhausted...

Your claim, and perhaps Cairns conclusion are pre-mature...

You may be right in your hypothesis BUT at the moment there are other alternatives which must be tested to show that it is not because of other factors. Which by the way is not going to be soon because there is too much unknown about the genome and gene function. So even if the alternatives posed by GeoffP are refuted there is still other possible alternatives which are currently unknown... For example we don't understand introns too well- who knows if they are playing a role which we don't know they play....

There are simply too many possible alternatives that it is unscientific to assume that your conclusion is the only plausible explanation..

Peace be unto you

 

[Kennyc]

Perhaps you do not understand logic.

Random mutation and enviromental selection are not sufficient to explain all the experiments and results in genetics.

Yet, folks like you claim it is.

Are you now ready to confess TOE cannot explain eveything?

Here is some more evidence that random mutations and enviromental selection cannot explain the evolution of humans.

Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution

http://www.anthro.utah.edu/PDFs/accel.pnas.smallpdf.pdf

You folks will now need to use genetics and natural selection to explain this acceleration of human evolution.

How do you explain acceleration in TOE? I want to see the math.

I don't have to explain anything. As I said if you are so convinced you are right then you are talking to the wrong people. Go Publish. Point out where Evolution is wrong.

2+2=4

How's that for math? Work for you?

As I asked before and you still haven't answered, state simply and in plain English what your objection is to Evolution in terms that can be scientifically tested, replicated and validated. Then maybe we have something to discuss.

Nothing you've said so far indicates any reason to disbelieve or change the Theory of Evolution.

Here's the intro to the paper you link to:

"Genomic surveys in humans identify a large amount of recent positive
selection. Using the 3.9M HapMap SNP dataset, we found that
selection has accelerated greatly during the last 40,000 years. We
tested the null hypothesis that the observed age distribution of
recent positively selected linkage blocks is consistent with a constant
rate of adaptive substitution during human evolution. We
show that a constant rate high enough to explain the number of
recently selected variants would predict (1) site heterozygosity at
least tenfold lower than is observed in humans, (2) a strong relationship
of heterozygosity and local recombination rate, which
is not observed in humans, (3) an implausibly high number of
adaptive substitutions between humans and chimpanzees, and
(4) nearly 100 times the observed number of high-frequency LD
blocks. Larger populations generate more new selected mutations,
and we show the consistency of the observed data with the
historical pattern of human population growth. We consider human
demographic growth to be linked with past changes in human
cultures and ecologies. Both processes have contributed to the
extraordinarily rapid recent genetic evolution of our species."


There is no reason (except in your twisted mind) to believe that is anything but known evolution. :shrug: