Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Answer to Message #29937.

Expand Messages
  • Charles Palm
    Gluadys: Thank you. For the first time you have admitted that you do not understand the basic theory of evolution and how it works through time. How othen can
    Message 1 of 13 , Nov 8, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Gluadys: Thank you. For the first time you have admitted that you do not
      understand the basic theory of evolution and how it works through time. How
      othen can you possibly identify what evidence supports the theory and what
      evidence would not support it?

      Charles P: No ad hominem fallacy statements, please. You are jumping to
      vast conclusions with half-vast data. I probably understand the basic
      theory of evolution better than you do, but that is not important. We can
      all learn something from each other. The empirical and verifiable evidence
      is the same for all of us; we only differ in our interpretations of that
      evidence. The description for the origin and diversity of life is about
      empirical and verifiable evidence. You have not presented any empirical
      and verifiable evidence that contradicts natural genetic engineering.

      Gluadys: Explaining it fully and providing the evidence would effectively
      mean explaining the whole theory of evolution, what evidence is needed to
      support it and why, and cataloguing the massive amount of evidence that
      does support it. If you really want to know all this, sign up for a course
      on biological evolution. However, if you are prepared to start small, here
      are some initial ideas. Tell me if you agree that these are observed
      events. DNA is contained in every living cell. DNA is replicated in a
      parent cell and inherited by a daughter cell. DNA is not always replicated
      with absolute faithfulness. Therefore, replication sometimes produces
      alternate versions of a DNA sequence. Therefore, as a population of cells
      reproduces, the DNA sequences in the population of daughter cells vary from
      one individual to another.

      Charles P: I agree that these are observed events. The discussion is
      supposed to be about natural genetic engineering. My guess is that you
      have not bothered to read the book. That's OK. You have a lot of other
      more important things to do, I am sure.

      Gluadys: That's enough to start with. It is not enough yet to show why
      Moran is right and Axe is wrong. But if you see nothing problematical in
      this set of statements, we can move closer to that explanation in the next
      post.

      Charles P: Why should we care about whether Moran is right and Axe is
      wrong? Neither of them had anything to do with writing the book
      "Evolution: A View From The 21st Century", by James A Shapiro.

      Gluadys: That still doesn't explain why you saw it as an appropriate
      response. My question was about how you relate Shapiro's ideas to natural
      selection. Axe cannot answer that. Especially when he mentions neither
      Shapiro nor natural selection. It seems to me you depend too much on the
      rest of us being mind readers. We need you to explain what is in your mind
      when you post something. Perhaps you can begin by answering the question
      above.

      Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 My
      Message #29,246 explains the nine basic principles of natural genetic
      engineering. Here are some important conclusions reached from 1,162
      references clearly documented in his book.

      1 Organisms behave purposefully.

      2 Organisms evolve themselves.

      3 Selection acts as a purifying but not a creative force.

      4 Organisms evolve by intentionally modifying their own DNA in response to
      environmental pressure.

      5 The genome is a read-write (RW) storage system with the organism itself
      deciding when and where to modify its DNA.

      Charles P: Beginning on page 66, Shapiro describes the mammalian adaptive
      immune system as an example of how the read-write storage system modifies
      its DNA. Much of the basic concept originated with Barbara McClintock, for
      which she received a Nobel Prize. She was a personal friend of Shapiro for
      the last 12 years of her life.

      Barbara McClintock:
      http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1983/mcclintock-lecture.pdf
      THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RESPONSES OF THE GENOME TO CHALLENGE. The purpose of
      this discussion has been to outline several simple experiments conducted in
      my laboratory that revealed how a genome may react to conditions for which
      it is unprepared, but to which it responds in a totally unexpected manner.

      Perry Marshall: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/video4/ Part 18. Error
      Corrections in DNA pt 2: Barbra McClintock’s Corn (Maize) Experiments.

      Charles P: I suggest that you find a copy of Shapiro's book in your local
      library and read it before we continue our discussions about natural
      genetic engineering.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • gluadys
      ... Not an ad hominem and not a fallacy. A conclusion from the evidence. ... If you did, you would understand Axe s error. ... OK, then. Let us start with a
      Message 2 of 13 , Nov 9, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
        >
        > Gluadys: Thank you. For the first time you have admitted that you do not
        > understand the basic theory of evolution and how it works through time. How
        > othen can you possibly identify what evidence supports the theory and what
        > evidence would not support it?
        >
        > Charles P: No ad hominem fallacy statements, please.
        >

        Not an ad hominem and not a fallacy. A conclusion from the evidence.



        >I probably understand the basic
        > theory of evolution better than you do, but that is not important.
        >

        If you did, you would understand Axe's error.


        > Gluadys: Explaining it fully and providing the evidence would effectively
        > mean explaining the whole theory of evolution, what evidence is needed to
        > support it and why, and cataloguing the massive amount of evidence that
        > does support it. If you really want to know all this, sign up for a course
        > on biological evolution.
        >
        >However, if you are prepared to start small, here
        > are some initial ideas. Tell me if you agree that these are observed
        > events.
        >DNA is contained in every living cell.
        >DNA is replicated in a
        > parent cell and inherited by a daughter cell.
        >DNA is not always replicated
        > with absolute faithfulness.
        >Therefore, replication sometimes produces
        > alternate versions of a DNA sequence.
        >Therefore, as a population of cells
        > reproduces, the DNA sequences in the population of daughter cells vary from
        > one individual to another.
        >
        > Charles P: I agree that these are observed events.
        >

        OK, then. Let us start with a single cell dividing and reproducing.
        Let us suppose one mutation in one gene as it is replicated.

        Call the daughter cells A and Z. A has exactly the same DNA sequence in this gene as its parent. Z has one difference in the DNA sequence of this gene from its parent cell and its sister cell.

        Suppose this scenario is played out again and again over 20 generations in both the A and the Z lineages.

        How many differences could exist between a 20th generation gene in the A lineage and the same 20th generation gene in the Z lineage?






        >
        >The discussion is
        > supposed to be about natural genetic engineering.
        >

        Well, the ball is in your court on that one. I asked whether you see Shapiro's natural genetic engineering as supportine of natural selection or the reverse.

        I haven't seen you answer yet. Can't have a discussion unless you hold up your end of it.


        >
        > Charles P: Why should we care about whether Moran is right and Axe is
        > wrong?
        >

        For your enlightenment, and that of other readers.



        >
        > Gluadys: That still doesn't explain why you saw it as an appropriate
        > response. My question was about how you relate Shapiro's ideas to natural
        > selection. Axe cannot answer that. Especially when he mentions neither
        > Shapiro nor natural selection. It seems to me you depend too much on the
        > rest of us being mind readers. We need you to explain what is in your mind
        > when you post something. Perhaps you can begin by answering the question
        > above.
        >
        > Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 My
        > Message #29,246 explains the nine basic principles of natural genetic
        > engineering.
        >

        So what? You are still not answering my question about natural genetic engineering.
      • Charles Palm
        Charles P: The discussion is supposed to be about natural genetic engineering. Gluadys: Well, the ball is in your court on that one. I asked whether you see
        Message 3 of 13 , Nov 10, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Charles P: The discussion is supposed to be about natural genetic
          engineering.

          Gluadys: Well, the ball is in your court on that one. I asked whether you
          see Shapiro's natural genetic engineering as supporting of natural
          selection or the reverse. I haven't seen you answer yet. Can't have a
          discussion unless you hold up your end of it.

          Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 This
          was answered on August 11, 2012, and I apologize for repeating it so many
          times. James A Shapiro and natural genetic engineering and I support
          natural selection. Even the creationists support natural selection.

          Natural selection: http://creationwiki.org/Natural_selection It is an
          observable effect of nature and is considered a verifiable mechanism
          responsible for biological evolution.

          Natural selection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection Natural
          selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits
          become either more or less common in a population as a function of
          differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of
          evolution. The term "natural selection" was popularized by Charles Darwin
          who intended it to be compared with artificial selection, what we now call
          selective breeding.

          Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/28915 I do
          not know of anyone who has any empirical and verifiable evidence to the
          contrary.

          Charles P (July 5, 2012): I do believe in natural selection. However,
          because there is no list of undisputed facts of The Theory of Evolution,
          both D R Lindberg and you seemed to think that I was disputing natural
          selection. Natural selection should be number one on the list so that we
          don't have to keep discussing the same old ideas over and over.

          Charles P: Why should we care about whether Moran is right and Axe
          is wrong?

          Gluadys: For your enlightenment, and that of other readers.

          Charles P: I accept it as axiomatic. Please enlighten us with "why" and
          "how".

          Gluadys: So what? You are still not answering my question about natural
          genetic engineering.

          Natural genetic engineering:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 Selection
          operates as a purifying but not creative force. Evolutionary inventions
          that survive purifying selection and prove useful are subject to
          microevolutionary refinement, perhaps by the kind of processes envisaged in
          conventional theories.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • gluadys
          ... No, there is no answer to my question in that post. You can t repeat what you have never said in the first place (unless you are playing Mad Hatter to my
          Message 4 of 13 , Nov 10, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
            >
            > Charles P: The discussion is supposed to be about natural genetic
            > engineering.
            >
            > Gluadys: Well, the ball is in your court on that one. I asked whether you
            > see Shapiro's natural genetic engineering as supporting of natural
            > selection or the reverse. I haven't seen you answer yet. Can't have a
            > discussion unless you hold up your end of it.
            >
            > Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 This
            > was answered on August 11, 2012, and I apologize for repeating it so many
            > times.


            No, there is no answer to my question in that post. You can't repeat what you have never said in the first place (unless you are playing Mad Hatter to my Alice.)



            >
            > James A Shapiro and natural genetic engineering and I support
            > natural selection. Even the creationists support natural selection.
            >


            If you and Shapiro "support" natural selection as creationists do, that is equivalent to not supporting natural selection at all. Most creationists I have conversed with don't understand how natural selection works, and they certainly don't consider it the driver of evolutionary change.



            >
            > Charles P (July 5, 2012):
            > because there is no list of undisputed facts of The Theory of Evolution,
            > both D R Lindberg and you seemed to think that I was disputing natural
            > selection. Natural selection should be number one on the list so that we
            > don't have to keep discussing the same old ideas over and over.
            >

            Provided we are on the same page as to what natural selection is and what it can do ever time. Natural selection in a dinosaur family produced birds. Natural selection in a terrestrial arteriodactyl family produced whales.If you don't agree, then you do dispute natural selection.


            > Charles P: Why should we care about whether Moran is right and Axe
            > is wrong?
            >
            > Gluadys: For your enlightenment, and that of other readers.
            >
            > Charles P: I accept it as axiomatic. Please enlighten us with "why" and
            > "how".
            >


            I told you it would take time and patience. Part of the how was in the first section of my post about the A and Z lineages. When you respond to that, we can move on.


            >
            > Natural genetic engineering:
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 Selection
            > operates as a purifying but not creative force. Evolutionary inventions
            > that survive purifying selection and prove useful are subject to
            > microevolutionary refinement, perhaps by the kind of processes envisaged in
            > conventional theories.
            >
            >
            >

            Is this your view or Shapiro's view or Axe's view?

            I can tell you for sure that it is diametrically the opposite of the views of Carroll, Moran and all scientists who agree with the "conventional" theories.

            So your earlier comment that Shapiro, Carroll, Axe, etc. are all saying the same thing is dead wrong. In The Making of the Fittest, Carroll gives many examples of the creativity of natural selection.





            I can add a little to Stewart's responses here.

            --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "stewart8724" <art1st@...> wrote:
            >
            > High altitude adaptations:
            > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/huertasanchez_01 In this
            > research profile, we will explore these key questions:
            >
            > 1 What is the difference between acclimatization and adaptation?
            > (The first can be achieved by individuals and the second is acquired by the evolution of a population. An example would be that humans can acclimatise to live more comfortably in the desert by adjusting their activity and in turn their body temperature, thereby reducing water loss. Camels have evolved (adapted) to recycle water from their urine directly into their blood stream, eliminating water loss almost completely).
            >
            > 2 How are allele frequencies used to identify cases of recent natural
            > selection?
            > (I don't know)

            When allele frequencies deviate significantly from the Hardy-Weinberg averages, and/or from the average rate of neutral change, it is a signal that natural selection is active.


            >
            > 3 How can mathematical modeling be used to learn about evolutionary
            > history?
            > (I don't know)
            >

            Can't add much here either, but mathematical modelling can run several evolutionary scenarios on a computer and the computer results can then be compared to observational evidence. This would obviously tell scientists which mathematical scenario is nearest to the actual history of evolutionary change. And that is very helpful in understanding it.



            >
            > 4 How can changes in non-coding DNA lead to evolutionary change?
            > (I don't know)
            >

            Just as changes in coding DNA can be inherited, so can changes in non-coding DNA. Changes in coding DNA can lead directly to a change in a protein and its effect. Changes in non-coding DNA can lead to changes in when, where, how and whether a gene is expressed. This can have just as significant an effect on the traits exhibited by an organism as a direct change in a protein.

            Any inheritable change can propel evolutionary change through the effect of natural selection.

            Sean Carroll explains a lot of this with examples in The Making of the Fittest.
          • Charles Palm
            Gluadys: No, there is no answer to my question in that post. You can t repeat what you have never said in the first place (unless you are playing Mad Hatter
            Message 5 of 13 , Nov 11, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Gluadys: No, there is no answer to my question in that post. You can't
              repeat what you have never said in the first place (unless you are playing
              Mad Hatter to my Alice.)

              Charles P: Whatever. I am finished discussing Message #29,937. Thank you
              for sharing your ideas. Please read Evolution: A View From The 21st
              Century by James A Shapiro.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • stewart8724
              ... Stewart: This is something I posted a couple of days ago. It makes me appear positively psychic. (This is an example of your talent for avoiding
              Message 6 of 13 , Nov 11, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
                >
                > Gluadys: No, there is no answer to my question in that post. You can't
                > repeat what you have never said in the first place (unless you are playing
                > Mad Hatter to my Alice.)
                >
                > Charles P: Whatever. I am finished discussing Message #29,937. Thank you
                > for sharing your ideas. Please read Evolution: A View From The 21st
                > Century by James A Shapiro.
                >

                Stewart: This is something I posted a couple of days ago. It makes me appear positively psychic.
                (This is an example of your talent for avoiding discussion. Glaudys asks very straightforward and succinct questions on the very subject you claim you want to discuss.
                End of discussion).


                .
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.