And at the same time it has the means within it to produce random variation. That is even more wonderful, when you think of it.
How does this affect the evolutionary time line? Is there enough life permitting time on earth to allow for enough random mutations given the natural tendency of life to greatly counteract those mutations? I wonder if anyone has done the calculations.
Does it? One of the problems which arises with the careless habit of referring to the theory as evolution by mutation and natural selection is that it misrepresents the role of genetic mutations in the process. Natural selection acts on random variation--to which mutations contribute but are not the sole cause. One can easily form the mistaken impression by this careless use that species morphology is static until a mutation strikes a single individual. Even worse, I have seen creationists argue that random heritable variation is distinct from mutation as a source of selectable variants.
Nothing is random.
There is no such thing as random anything (outside of quantum physics).
The Lederberg plate replica experiment and the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation experiment demonstrate that mutations are random with respect to fitness.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.174.1674&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Luria–Delbrück experiment - Wikipedia
There is no meaningful connection between the mutations an organism needs in a specific environment and the mutations that actually occur. The chances of getting a mutation that confers antibiotic resistance is the same whether the antibiotic is present or not.
-_- everyone has some confirmation bias; being aware of one's own biases is the first step to limiting how much said biases influence perspective. For example, I have an extreme bias in FAVOR of evidence of any afterlife, due to my extreme fear of death resulting in the cessation of existence. So, I have to fight that constantly to keep it from clouding my judgement.I liked the second more general article but as for the first if I (or any other) were to use this type of article in support of a contrary view, we would be ridiculed because the references used to support the view were all from the 40s and 50s (we would be slammed with the "way to old" default myth) but I still got good information from this article and appreciated the earlier work so thanks...
I guess what sticks out is how (for extreme Darwinians and YECs) when it supports their view we are supposed to allow it, but if it questions it must be discredited (acceptance by convenience)...it is a kind of confirmation bias that clouds objectivity.
Which is why so much attention has shifted within biology to the study of systems, networks and development.Carl Woese has written about what he views as “the challenge of biology in the coming century.” He said, in A New Biology...
“Molecular biology's success over the last century has come solely from looking at certain ones of the problems biology poses (the gene and the nature of the cell) and looking at them from a purely reductionist point of view. It has produced an astounding harvest. The other problems, evolution and the nature of biological form, molecular biology chose to ignore, either failing outright to recognize them or dismissing them as inconsequential, as historical accidents, fundamentally inexplicable and irrelevant to our understanding of biology. Now, this should be cause for pause.” (A New Biology for a New Century)
If by "many biological researchers" he means "one or two"(*), then yeah. Otherwise, no.Many Biological researchers today are beginning to realize that beneficial mutations in the cell are largely not the result of random mutation (though some may be), but rather “cell directed mutations” (an insight now used in site-directed mutagenesis methods).
Which is why so much attention has shifted within biology to the study of systems, networks and development.
If by "many biological researchers" he means "one or two"(*), then yeah. Otherwise, no.
(*) A slight exaggeration, but not much of one.
We also have the undemonstrated pat tale about them all being created by a deity out of nothing, and this deity later slaughtering all but a pair (or depending on which biblical authority you read, up to 7 pairs for the 'clean' kinds), and from that pair, getting some 1000 species in less than 4500 years with nobody noticing the tremendous numbers of new bat sub-kinds popping up every year or so.Bats are an excellent example. There are none at a certain point and then they are there (the actual observable data we have)...now I know the undemonstrated pat story of how they evolved from tiny shrew-like creatures that fell out of or jumped out of trees for 1000s of generations eventually evolving wings but there is no evidence to such that s true.
Many means more than a few. Even out of a million scientists one or two thousand constitutes many. Many does not equal the majority by any means. New ideas always start slow and then grow. In this "many" some mutations may arise randomly but not all, and some that appear to have been used have been chosen by the cell (a form of selection which these no longer consider "random")
As for shifting attention and re-thinking formerly held opinions this is a good thing. it means people are looking at the data free of the dogmas once thought of as "established". It is as if we are discovering that the cell's are expressing a degree of self-interest in self-preservation and development and are not the mere victims of random mutation we once thought.
We also have the undemonstrated pat tale about them all being created by a deity out of nothing, and this deity later slaughtering all but a pair (or depending on which biblical authority you read, up to 7 pairs for the 'clean' kinds), and from that pair, getting some 1000 species in less than 4500 years with nobody noticing the tremendous numbers of new bat sub-kinds popping up every year or so.
There is no evidence that this story is true. Yet there are those on this very forum that believe this.
If one is not a YEC, but an OEC, the problem still exists, but the timeline is more favorable. What is the mechanism of post-flood diversification according to your supernatural beliefs?
If you believe this thread is the wrong place to lay out your fact-filled train of evidence for creation and post-creation, non-evolution based diversification, byu all means, I will start a new thread just for you to lay out your evidence.
I liked the second more general article but as for the first if I (or any other) were to use this type of article in support of a contrary view, we would be ridiculed because the references used to support the view were all from the 40s and 50s (we would be slammed with the "way to old" default myth) but I still got good information from this article and appreciated the earlier work so thanks...
I guess what sticks out is how (for extreme Darwinians and YECs) when it supports their view we are supposed to allow it, but if it questions it must be discredited (acceptance by convenience)...it is a kind of confirmation bias that clouds objectivity.
Many Biological researchers today are beginning to realize that beneficial mutations in the cell are largely not the result of random mutation (though some may be), but rather “cell directed mutations” (an insight now used in site-directed mutagenesis methods).
Physiology and the revolution in Evolutionary Biology
Oh I agree totally except with the notion that "the undemonstrated pat tale about them all being created by a deity out of nothing" is what is said in the Bible.
Despite this being an attempt to derail what we are discussing,
Now let us return to the OP. Does DNA preserve the integrity of its program?
And if so, does this support or negate the story attached that says one earlier creature becomes the other over time?
Hello?Then surely you can present a list of, say, 100 scientists that think "directed mutations" - and NOT those employed in experimental settings via directed mutagenesis - is the mechanism for evolution?
Yes indeed some do accumulate and this adds to variation in the organisms and to disease.
That is your opinion which I respect, but no such transformations have been validated after 150 years of research so I will agree to disagree.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?