April 3rd, 2012, 07:30 PM
Mainstream neo-Darwinism says mutations are random. But there appears to be some studies and observations showing direct mutation with are not random in evolution, it appears some scientists call this "Directed mutagenesis". Any opinions about this? What is the current scientific opinion on directed mutation in evolution?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...in.html?page=1
Which scientists? What is their area of study? what percentage of that area of study agrees with this claim?
That's very old work, and flawed. Cairns was sloppy and jumped the gun. The best explanation for the results is a straightforward one: Populations under stress will exhibit higher mutation rates than those not under stress. The clumpiness of mutations is also readily explained by the simple truth that not all parts of a chromosome have equal bond strengths. As with any mechanical structure, some parts are weaker than others. Under stress, those weak portions will exhibit higher breakage rates and thus generally higher mutation rates. That's all that Cairns showed.Originally Posted by forests
See the exciting exchange between Cairns and critics Lenski and Mittler, "The directed mutation controversy and neo-Darwinism," Science, 1993 Jan 8;259(5092):188-94.
How much longer are you going to keep up this "Gee whiz, I just happened to come across this paper...what do y'all think about it" theatre, Darryl? That spam method has long passed being tiresome.
Last edited by tk421; April 3rd, 2012 at 09:45 PM.
Somebody mentioned to me the theory of "directed mutation" the other day and I had never heard of the theory before, this is a science forum! Correct? This is a place to ask questions about scientific theories and discuss them, so I do not see how this is spam at all. I have only just browsed over this topic and directed mutation appears to be popular in Russia, indeed it was proposed as an alternative to Darwins theory - See Lev Berg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for example.That's very old work, and flawed. Cairns was sloppy and jumped the gun. The best explanation for the results is a straightforward one: Populations under stress will exhibit higher mutation rates than those not under stress. The clumpiness of mutations is also readily explained by the simple truth that not all parts of a chromosome have equal bond strengths. As with any mechanical structure, some parts are weaker than others. Under stress, those weak portions will exhibit higher breakage rates and thus generally higher mutation rates. That's all that Cairns showed.
See the exciting exchange between Cairns and critics Lenski and Mittler, "The directed mutation controversy and neo-Darwinism," Science, 1993 Jan 8;259(5092):188-94.
How much longer are you going to keep up this "Gee whiz, I just happened to come across this paper...what do y'all think about it" theatre, Darryl? That spam method has long passed being tiresome.
But you have not really been asking questions up to now, have you? Almost your entire stay here has been spent posting random links from your personal collection and then accusing everyone of dogmatism who doesn't agree with what they say. You have been on a consistent anti-natural selection crusade from the start. Are we supposed to believe you are suddenly innocently posting a link, again opposing current thinking, just out of curiosity? Besides, your link requires a subscription, so we couldn't even know what the basic proposed mechanisms are. Your Wiki link doesn't go into much detail either.This is a place to ask questions about scientific theories and discuss them, so I do not see how this is spam at all.
It was a form of Orthogenesis, which fell out of favour in the 50's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis
Two months ago, at Shaun's site, you posted (as Darryl) a list of works opposing "Darwinism." Directed mutation is among the topics you cite in that list. You did not just hear about this "the other day."
You are on a crusade, and you're willing to be dishonest about how you go about it. This is indeed a science forum and that's precisely why I am calling you on your anti-scientific behavior.
forests,
I have no problem with the following statement:
Evolution is soundly established as a fact and the derivatives of the Modern Synthesis provide good explanations for many of the observations and character of evolution. However, uncertainties do exist in many aspects of evolution. Vigorous research is underway in these areas and novel mechanisms and hypotheses are being proposed. Most scientists in the field see these as modifications of the current version of the Modern Synthesis, but some believe the insights are sufficiently different to undermine some of the core aspects of that synthesis. At the same time other scientists are revisiting the interpretation of existing data and proffering new paradigms. I lean to the view that the changes necessary are of such a magnitude as to merit a new view of evolution that will encompass some of these novel proposals and will represent a synthesis for the 21st century. Periodically I shall be putting forward some of these ideas for consideration and discussion by the forum members.
However, as tk421 has observed, this is not what you have done. Instead you have adopted a hysterical, dogmatic, patronising, aggressive assault, directed at strawmen, and conducted with emotion rather than logic. I could probably put my signature to the above statement, but I suspect it is just too damned reasonable to suit you. Teenage angst is a powerful motivator, but it's not much use for productive work.
Last edited by John Galt; April 4th, 2012 at 10:03 AM. Reason: too no to
The website that you talk about it only has one author and that is Shaun, I have sent my list of Non-Darwinian alternatives to 100s of scientists and others interested in the subject in the last year. I sent it to Shaun and he uploaded it on his website, like some other folk have - this does not mean I am part of their website/s or advocate everything on them. The list does not mention directed mutation, on one line it says "directed mass mutations" - I have to admit I have never pondered on this theory before until now mainly becuase Nomogenesis is an expensive book to buy and I have not read it yet, I had never heard of directed mutation which is actually called "directed mutagenesis" until the other day, sadly so far all I have seen on the topic is a very poor wikipedia article. This idea stems from when I was out the other day talking to someone and he told me he finds it absurd why Darwinists think mutations are random, he said that mutations are rare but that it makes much more sense that when they do happen it is the result directed by the organism and not random, other scientists have liked the idea of organisms being able to respond to evolution and direct their own evolution as opposed to being a mere blind puppet, instead organisms control their own evolution. You seem to reject this however? Even before looking at it?Two months ago, at Shaun's site, you posted (as Darryl) a list of works opposing "Darwinism." Directed mutation is among the topics you cite in that list. You did not just hear about this "the other day."
You are on a crusade, and you're willing to be dishonest about how you go about it. This is indeed a science forum and that's precisely why I am calling you on your anti-scientific behavior.
If you have no problem with that statement, and you are open to alternatives and ideas, then why so heavily oppose the non-Darwinian mechanism list? Becuase theres nothing else!! I covered pretty much all of them?? So which other mechanism/s are you advocating!?.forests,
I have no problem with the following statement:
Now I have asked this many times, but I get a blank response. You claim the modern synthesis is incomplete and you are open to new ideas to fill the gap, but whenever I list some of these theories, you reject them, make fun of them or go and attack the author or me instead? This does not add up. So which alternative mechanisms are you proposing or atleast open to? You know what the modern synthesis is and what it consists off, we do not need to debate those mechanisms, so which alternatives are you advocating?
I see that article as imcomplete personally. I am the author of down to the bottom of the origins section, then after that someone else has written the rest to try and discredit the theory, but note how very little refs are used in that case they don't seem to have many, I guess if I get the time this will be something to sort out. You might be suprised to hear Othogenesis is still supported in Russia today! And theres still a handful of American scientists supporting it. But yes I agree it did fall out of favour in the early 50's due to the modern synthesis. The modern synthesis spoils all the fun.It was a form of Orthogenesis, which fell out of favour in the 50's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis
I have two problems with this:
1. It is totally indiscriminate. You throw in clowns like Sheldrake, cosmologists with their own pet theories and assorted others in with real evolutionary biologists. Either you lack critical thinking skills or you are deliberately wasting peoples time.
2. You seem to think that any vaguely plausible hypothesis that could extend our understanding of evolution proves that "Darwin was a pervert and a plagiarist who knew nothing and everything he said was wrong and dogmatic Darwinists worship him and they lied to me at school and I want my mummy ... ".
Just grow up, try and develop an open mind, learn some science and some critical thinking skills. Then maybe you can have an intelligent discussion instead of your usual closed-minded quasi-religious rants.
Does it matter what they study or what degrees they have? One of the best ecologist books that I have ever read was written by a non ecologist, the man has no degrees whatsoever but spent years in nature doing observations. Sheldrake is well qualified... and I see no cosmologists except maybe Hoyle? on my list. Have you read the list?It is totally indiscriminate. You throw in clowns like Sheldrake, cosmologists with their own pet theories and assorted others in with real evolutionary biologists.
Non-Darwinian mechanisms of evolution and their authors
Lots of well qualified scientists.
You have still not explained why Darwin is taught in schools though have you? Stumped on that one I guess. They don't teach evolution in schools or colleges, instead we have to learn about Darwin. The modern synthesis is not even taught in schools.Darwin was a pervert and a plagiarist who knew nothing and everything he said was wrong and dogmatic Darwinists worship him and they lied to me at school and I want my mummy ... ".
That is coming from someone who rejects 100s of theories before even looking at them?develop an open mind
Of course not. It matters whether they are scientific or not.
As you say, qualifications aren't important. The fact that he makes up fantastical hypothesis and then pretends that they are supported by experiment makes all his claims laughable.Sheldrake is well qualified...
I thought Wickramasinghe was on there. And Paul Davies? But I have lost track. You have posted so many random lists.and I see no cosmologists except maybe Hoyle? on my list. Have you read the list?
As you say, qualifications aren't important.Lots of well qualified scientists.
I am not going to comment on something I know nothing about. You were taught about Darwin? So what. I expect people are taught about Newton and Brunel as well. Why should I care? Presumably it is an attempt to make history/science more personal. But, as I say, I know nothing about what is taught in schools and why.You have still not explained why Darwin is taught in schools though have you? Stumped on that one I guess. They don't teach evolution in schools or colleges, instead we have to learn about Darwin. The modern synthesis is not even taught in schools.
Educational background does matter. It's not sufficient, but it's necessary to have studied the field. If you disagree with that idea, then you show yourself to be even more foolish than you've demonstrated thus far. Would you trust a dentist's proclamations on how to play football (either American or European) without checking their bona fides?
You are fighting a strawman (again). I see nothing in Strange's statement that resembles the windmill that you are tilting at here. You really seem fundamentally incapable of processing a logical argument. As more proof of that, one need only read your next assertion:One of the best ecologist books that I have ever read was written by a non ecologist, the man has no degrees whatsoever but spent years in nature doing observations.
I'm sure he knows how to do certain things well. But he also does other things not at all well. Being good at one thing does not automatically confer expertise at another. A good physicist may be a lousy biologist, despite the former's assertion that biology is derivable (in principle) from physics. Einstein was good at mathematics (despite popular accounts to the contrary), but had great difficulty keeping rhythm when playing the violin.Sheldrake is well qualified
You seem to make no distinction.
You mean "lists." You spam us with unfiltered lists. No one has enough free time to search through the dung heap in search of the proverbial pony.... and I see no cosmologists except maybe Hoyle? on my list. Have you read the list?
Didn't know that this was a mystery to you. You see, there are things called "schools," in which many seekers of knowledge gather to learn about concepts and their history. Perhaps you should attend one.You have still not explained why Darwin is taught in schools though have you?
Ah, yes. Yet another assertion without basis. You don't like to learn actual facts. It's much more comforting to envelop yourself in a cocoon of ignorance.Stumped on that one I guess. They don't teach evolution in schools or colleges, instead we have to learn about Darwin. The modern synthesis is not even taught in schools.
Yes; maybe even thousands: Leprechauns, poltergeists, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, pink unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (although the FSM theory admittedly has great explanatory power), the Great Pumpkin, the Tooth Fairy, the Olympian gods, the powers of Odin, Elvis-is-not-dead... the list goes on and on. Again, an "open mind" is not the same thing as a gullible one. You haven't developed the ability to discern the difference. Skepticism is at the heart of the scientific method. And by the way "comming" is actually spelled "coming." (Helpful hint: words that might be misspelled are highlighted with a red squiggly line as you type here. It doesn't always get things right, but it does alert you to the possibility of a problem.)That is comming from someone who rejects 100s of theories?
No, theres one list. Non-Darwinian mechanisms of evolution and their authorsYou spam us with unfiltered lists
Is it that hard to read? Theres no other lists, on one thread I used the scientist names instead of the books, still the same list of about 150 scientists. You have compared these evolutionary theories to "Leprechauns, poltergeists, Santa Claus". Great Im gonna email that to Stuart Pivar, James A. Shapiro and Gabriel Dover - these scientists have peer reviewed papers of their non-Darwinian mechanisms, and you compare them to Leprechauns?
That is totally unfiltered in that you include things like Sheldrake, quantum fields, vitalism, theosophy, creationsim, and various other nonsense along with some good (and some less good) science.
A list of scientific papers that extends our understanding of evolution could be useful. But your indiscriminate lumping together of all these different things just wastes peoples time and reflects very poorly on you.
I'm including here your many unedited, unfiltered lists of authors, papers, books, statements in bullets, etc. You know, lists.
At least you are consistent in your inability to process logic.Is it that hard to read? Theres no other lists, on one thread I used the scientist names instead of the books, still the same list of about 150 scientists. You have compared these evolutionary theories to "Leprechauns, poltergeists, Santa Claus".
Feel free to spam away; it's not as if anyone can hope to stop you. They can all read the exchange here and see for themselves who has done violence to their reputations.Great Im gonna email that to Stuart Pivar, James A. Shapiro and Gabriel Dover - these scientists have peer reviewed papers of their non-Darwinian mechanisms, and you compare them to Leprechauns?
ok. and i see no problem? I have quoted from some very scientific papers? Whats the problem with that?I'm including here your many unedited, unfiltered lists of authors, papers, books, statements in bullets, etc. You know, lists.
really? most of the stuff i have quoted come straight out of their books or papers, so i see no problem at all, infact they may thank me for the promotion.!They can all read the exchange here and see for themselves who has done violence to their reputations.
You have just tried to cherry pick far out ideas from the mostly not ones. Theres nothing far out about Sheldrake, he is a scientist and his field theory is scientific, you may claim it is wrong, but he still has a scientific theory. Quantum fields - is scientific see work of Mcfadden for example. Yes vitalism is a scientific hypothesis - was taken seriously by Bergson and has recently been defended by Fanu it may not be popular but still is a scientific hypothesis. Theres no creationism on the list, Pitman was a biologist doing archtypes. Theosophy? Yes there was a handful of those but all published by mostly scientists of course. Remember the list is non-Darwinian mechanisms - not all have to be scientific.That is totally unfiltered in that you include things like Sheldrake, quantum fields, vitalism, theosophy, creationsim, and various other nonsense along with some good (and some less good) science.
I am not "cherry picking," I am pointing out your complete lack of critical thinking. You are willing to accept any old stuff as long as it can be labelled "anti Darwin". Would you like me to set up a website explaining that evolution is driven by invisible pink unicorns? Then you can add that to the list. It is just as credible as some of the others.
You have, what, half a dozen evolutionary biologists? The rest are irrelevant.
I don't "claim" Sheldrake is wrong. Experimental evidence shows him to be wrong.
No creationism?
The list is to compile non-Darwinian alternatives, of course, yes lots of old stuff will be there, the point was to create a complete list of both old and new theories.You are willing to accept any old stuff as long as it can be labelled "anti Darwin".
yes but none of the scientists on the list are doing that, some of their ideas may of been metaphysical, but none of their ideas are stupid. these men/women have spent years of their life proposing alternative mechanisms.Would you like me to set up a website explaining that evolution is driven by invisible pink unicorns? Then you can add that to the list
So you have to be an evolutionary biologist to know about or propose an evolutionary theory do you? I knew you thought this way and you can not deny it now. Your hereo Darwin had no biology degree though. Always the contradiction with you Darwinists isnt it?. You are obsessed with qualifications and that "only evolutionary biologists know about evolution, and if they don't have a phd in evolutionary biology then im not listening" but evolution itself was developed by total non scientists, men who usually started their careers in mathematica, philosophy or art, for example Wallace, Matthews, Blyth, Buffon, Goethe, Chambers, Butler etc etc never started off as scientists but without them there would probably be no to little evolutionary theory today.You have, what, half a dozen evolutionary biologists? The rest are irrelevant.
Michael Pitman had a Phd in Botany and evolutionary biology, he was a very well respected australian scientist, so by your classification you really should be reading his ideas. He accepted evolution, he just claimed the first few forms of life had developed from something like a mind field and used the archtype of Goethe.Michael Pitman Adam and Evolution: A Scientific Critique of neo-Darwinism Archetype creationism
W. T. S. Thackara Evolution and Creation: A Theosophic Synthesis Theosophy, Spiritual evolution
Dorothy Allford Instant creation--not evolution Creationism
Friedrich Salomon Rothschild Creation and Evolution: A Biosemiotic Approach Semiotic Biology
W. T. S. Thackara? Was a biologist and Theosophist, if you had bothered to read his book (or booklet rather it is small) you would read it rejects creation and supports evolution, he accepts common descent of all life, he does not support any form of creationism, just becuase a book has creation in the title does not mean it is a creationist book. Theosophists are well known for their opposition to religious creationism.
Dorathy Alford? Was a biologist and Doctor, - Again by qualifications perhaps you should be reading her book. Probably the only creationist book on the list., but she was non-religious.
Friedrich Salomon Rothschild Creation and Evolution: A Biosemiotic Approach Semiotic Biology - The title is the clue on this one, the book is about semiotic biology, the author was a strong critic of creationism, I think he was a qualifed psychologist, infact the book debunks creationism. Again just becuase the book has "creation" in it, you suddenly seem to think it is creationism. You have read none of these books, so you are typing from ignorance.
All silent about Self-Organization, Symbiosis, Niche construction or molecular drive though I take it?
"Man, it's hard to move these heavy goalposts (huff, puff, bleat)."
I wasn't complaining about the age, but the fact you are including stuff that isn't science. You can believe that spirits (or unicorns) guide evolution if you want, just don't claim it is science.
April 4th, 2012, 05:46 PM
Thanks for inviting me here, i'll add some sources.
Recent experiments on bacteria and yeast are showing that some mutations are not at all random, but directed. The idea all mutations are strickly random is outdated and wrong, based entirely on the Lederberg experiment (1952). The Darwinists are like 60 years behind. Recent findings have proven self-directed mutations, the following are some peer-reviewed sources which have discovered this:
Cairns J, Overbaugh J, Miller S. 1988. ''The Origin of Mutants''. Nature. 335: 142-45.
Drake JW. 1991. ''Spontaneous Mutation''. Annu. Rev. Genet. 25: 125-46.
Foster PL. 1993. ''Adaptive Mutation: the uses of adversity''. Ann. Rev. Microbiol. 47: 467-504.
Furthermore a study was published by Barry Hall in 1990 showing non-random mutation in escherichia coli.
You seem to suffer from the same problem with logic as dear forests. Finding new mechanisms does not invalidate the old ones.
On the other hand, more recent findings...Recent findings have proven self-directed mutations, the following are some peer-reviewed sources which have discovered this:
Cairns J, Overbaugh J, Miller S. 1988. ''The Origin of Mutants''. Nature. 335: 142-45.
Patricia L. Foster, "Adaptive Mutation in Escherichia coli", J. Bacteriol. August 2004 vol. 186 no. 15 4846-4852Fairly early on in our studies, Cairns and I eliminated the hypothesis that mutations were “directed” toward a useful goal.
So maybe it is not so simple after all.
Thank you for this, but sadly the Darwinists on this thread are not interested in any evidence which condradicts their world view! I would like to know their opinions about these peer reviews. I have sent them many which contradict the modern synthesis, but they never comment, they ignore the papers instead.Thanks for inviting me here, i'll add some sources.
Recent experiments on bacteria and yeast are showing that some mutations are not at all random, but directed. The idea all mutations are strickly random is outdated and wrong, based entirely on the Lederberg experiment (1952). The Darwinists are like 60 years behind. Recent findings have proven self-directed mutations, the following are some peer-reviewed sources which have discovered this:
Cairns J, Overbaugh J, Miller S. 1988. ''The Origin of Mutants''. Nature. 335: 142-45.
Drake JW. 1991. ''Spontaneous Mutation''. Annu. Rev. Genet. 25: 125-46.
Foster PL. 1993. ''Adaptive Mutation: the uses of adversity''. Ann. Rev. Microbiol. 47: 467-504.
Furthermore a study was published by Barry Hall in 1990 showing non-random mutation in escherichia coli.
Yes but if directed mutation was indeed proven, this would automatically invalidate the modern synthesis. As the modern synthesis claims such a thing can not happen!Finding new mechanisms does not invalidate the old ones.
Resorting to lies now?
Many of the papers you have cited have been commented on. Some have interesting science. Some appear flawed.some aren't worth commenting on. We don't have all the answers yet. I don't think anyone has denied there is more to evolution than your caricature of "mutation and natural selection is WRONG (and Darwin was a pedo)".
Your one-sided, illogical, incoherent, offensive and generally ignorant style of presentation just serves to irritate people. You might get a better response if you took a more rational approach. But, as with your dark matter thread, you have demonstrated that that is beyond you.
What is wrong with you. Have you considered counselling?
If directed, adaptive or any other form of mutation or any other mechanisms are demonstrated to take place, then that will extend the model of evolution. Presumably a "post modern synthesis". Great.
oh really? no not at all. the reality is that any alternative theory of evolution is shunned, denied etc from the darwinist crowd, that can even be seen here on this very forum, I have presented over 100 alternative evolution theories, and you have denied them all, even resorted to attacking these authors themselves calling them cranks etc. When lynn margulis published her symbiotic theory of evolution as opposed to random mutation, darwinist jerry coyne called her a creationist and a mad women! there are many cases of such abuse. The modern synthesis is darwinian dogma. Real truth seekers should stay away from such filth. If you open your mind to alternative ideas you would see that science is not always static and there are many ideas which do not fit into a Darwinian synthesis box of natural selection. Theres strong evidence which contradicts natural selection for example, but you are not interested in hearing about it, it is brushed under the carpet by the Darwinists, this is dishonesty!If directed, adaptive or any other form of mutation or any other mechanisms are demonstrated to take place, then that will extend the model of evolution.
What are you basing this assertion on Forests? What direct evidence can you provide to support it?
I can't tell if you are deliberately dishonest or you really have defect in your ability to undertake rational thought.
No one has "denied them all." Some of the people on your list are serious scientists doing serious science. And, as a result getting published in peer reviewed journals. Which of course doesn't mean they are right but does mean their ideas have the possibility of being right. And may be more widely confirmed and accepted in time.
The trouble is, you are unable to distinguish between science and fantasy, between fact and opinion. And so you also include various clowns, crackpots and charlatans.
This has nothing to do with "dogma" or a "Darwinian synthesis box of natural selection"; it is to do with credible evidence.
You think that if anyone at all says "I have an alternative to natural selection; it is orgone powered quantum mirror matter" you will wet yourself with excitement, ignoring the fact that there is no evidence.
You an embarrassment to a science forum.
I am suspending both him and his "brother" for a few days while their fates are discussed in the mod section. This is getting out of control. Hopefully they'll go and moan on some other site about how they got booted off by the big bad dogmatic Darwinists and leave us in peace.
I would be opposed to banning of forests at this point. An open minded individual reading this thread would readily perceive the dogmatic and emotional aspects of forests' posts. The thread contains a lot of useful overviews of both the scientific method and the history of the development of evolutionary theory.
As a means of educating and informing laypersons on the subject I think the thread has been valuable and can continue to be so. forests has provided a platform on which this can occur. As long as forests is willing to show himself to be a fool, with weak arguments and well stoked angst, then we should take advantage of this to communicate with lurkers about the nature of evolutionary theory and the scientific method.
If you are still around forests, even though I think you are as mad as a hatter, I dug this one up just for you.
Zhongge Zhang, Ming Ren Yen, Milton H. Saier Jr. (2011)
A new direction for directed mutation?
Trends in Evolutionary Biology 2011; 3:e3
The above link points to an interesting review article on directed mutation. While it discounts the observations of Cairns (mentioned earlier in the thread) it does provide some potential evidence of directed mutation - in this case mediated by the IS5 transposon - at the promoter of the glpFK operon (involved in glycerol metabolism). Interesting because a mechanism and supporing model is highlighted that does appear, at this stage, to be specific to this particular operon under very specific nutritional conditions.
If the work stands the test of time it would be a genuine example of directed mutation.
What is this "neo-Darwinism" everyone is calling the Theory of Evolution? It sound like "some new fad people are following". I don't see people referring to Christianity as "Neo-Christianity" just because Christianity is a very new religion with its' own theories on how we came to be here.
I have noticed that every thread containing the term "Neo-Darwinism" in the OP is bound for epic failure.
For those who missed it, I am a "Neo-Darwinist". *shows off his armband insignia and makes the Neo-Darwin salute*
| « Take On Darwin | spirits ( ghosts ) - are they more than a field of energy ? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
3Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
