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

Re: Answer to Message #29937.

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.