Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Principia · 04-17-2002, 10:48 AM

Hi all,

Over at <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000075" target="_blank">ARN</a>, the recently banned mturner is ranting about:

Quote:

As I so carefully pointed out, there is 'natural selection' as no more than the ecological facts of life and death, and there is 'natural selection' as Darwin's proposed mechanism for evolution, i.e., biological descent from one or a few common ancestors with modifications providing an observable increase in variation and complexity. Not- "any and all changes in allele frequency". It is Darwin's 'natural selection' evolutionary mechanism that we are discussing, and by his, and anybody's definition of evolution but yours, 'evolution' requires "newness", novelty, creativity. More or less of the same ol' same ol' is not evolution. If that is what Darwinian N.S. is about, then it is not a mechanism for organismic evolution, merely for ecological change or difference. Why are you still denying the obvious?

Ignoring for the moment that he is simply making up his own definition of evolution, I am wondering what is the current status on Cairns' theory of directed mutations? I believe the latest conclusion is that given certain environmental pressures, mutation rates can be altered. However, wouldn't a direct biochemical explanation of this phenomenon that still permits RM&NS, make EAM (mturner's pet theory) moot? Or has one not been found yet?

Thanks,
SC

Peez · 04-18-2002, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Scientiae:
Ignoring for the moment that he is simply making up his own definition of evolution, I am wondering what is the current status on Cairns' theory of directed mutations? I believe the latest conclusion is that given certain environmental pressures, mutation rates can be altered. However, wouldn't a direct biochemical explanation of this phenomenon that still permits RM&NS, make EAM (mturner's pet theory) moot? Or has one not been found yet?

That environmental conditions can influence mutation rates is not in doubt, of course (the simple application of gamma radiation should do the trick). It should not be surprising that a cell under stress may have a higher mutation rate, since the DNA replication (and repair) mechanisms may be negatively affected by the stress. There is also evidence that some parts of the genome (certain bits of DNA) have higher mutation rates than others, and may have their mutation rates influenced differently than others. However, there is no evidence (that I am aware of) that directed mutations (in the sense of mutations preferentially producing genes adaptive to the environment) occur. A general increase in mutation rates, or even an increase in the mutation rate at a particular gene, will increase the number of new neutral, deleterious, and adaptive genes appearing. I believe that Cairns has accepted that this explains his results, though I cannot swear to that.

Peez

pangloss · 04-18-2002, 10:14 AM

I posted about this in a thread that you participated in at the Gynne Joint:

<a href="http://pub17.ezboard.com/fquestempfrm8.showMessage?topicID=5.topic" target="_blank">http://pub17.ezboard.com/fquestempfrm8.showMessage?topicID=5.topic</a>

mturner is a self-righteous, self-proclaimed non-scientist and a victim of pseudocertainty. The first post in that thread is a lengthy cut-and-paste from another poster. I asked why turner was ignoring it (it basically debunks the whole notion) his grand reply was that he was ignoring ME, not the information, yet he did not/has not/would not even acknowledge it. I have, in fact, presented him with similar information on at least a few other occasions. He basically ignores it.

It was also presented to him on ARN on more than one occasion. He ignored it there, also. I am searching the archives for it.

pangloss · 04-18-2002, 10:18 AM

Here is one example, presenbted by 'Art':

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=58&SUBMIT=Go" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=58&SUBMIT=Go</a>

He didn't ignore it in this case, instead, he rants and raves with a bunch of half-baked ad hocisms...
A sampling of mel's acumen:

****************************************
Originally posted by Art:
Just so we maintain some perspective, it must be emphasized that the studies of adaptive mutation in bacteria are most definitely not empirical support for any sort of directed, intelligently-motivated mutation. In terms of genes, they are as random as other mutations. The key study that showed this was posted long ago on this forum; the abstract follows.
-----------------------------------------------

*
Hi Art,

The bottom line is that evolutionary change in bacteria, as well multi-celled organisms, simply takes far too little time to be randomly generated.

We've all seen the studies that, over the past 20 years, have claimed the end of non-random mutation; they are not as conclusive as you would like them to be. Directed mutation (aka, stationary-phase mutation) and cellular intelligence do have empirical support, whereas the notion of randomly generated _beneficial_ mutation has none.
******************************
Well, who can argue with that?

Jack the Bodiless · 04-18-2002, 10:32 AM

IIRC, the results of the Cairns experiment (and others like it) are consistent with the preferential selection of a "mutagenic mutation". In times of hardship, the required beneficial mutations are most likely to come from the most mutation-prone individuals in the population, leading to a burst of accelerated mutation.

In one such experiment (can't remember whether it was Cairns, or Hall, or somebody else) a specific "mutagenic mutation" was named as the likely culprit.

All of this was explained to mturner at the time. But he never was very good at absorbing information that contradicts his religion.

pangloss · 04-19-2002, 05:42 AM

Speaking of wasted information:

Originally posted by mturner:
You may be right, matt. But I'll bet that when EAM is finally accepted, the Nobel will go to some copycat with the proper initials after his/her name. Not even a mention of poor old mturner and bertvan. Siiiigggghhhhhh. sob sob sob.
m.

Principia · 04-19-2002, 06:34 AM

I love how mturner thinks science is about coming up with half-baked ideas. He has admitted more than once about just how little he has thought through his nonsense, like <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000091&p=3" target="_blank">here</a>:

Quote:

I was not considering 'communication' as synonymous with 'transmission', as I could not visualize transmission as an internal process. That was probably a mistake. My knowledge of cell biology is too limited go further with this line of enquiry. Obviously the intelligence and information in the parent cell is imparted to its two sub-divisions; call it transmission if you like. I should think the same applies to asexual reproduction, but again, I don't know enough about
it to discuss it, or even speculate about it.

or <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000058;p=2" target="_blank">here</a>:

Quote:

Well, I certainly appreciate your patience. I'm not entirely clear on where I'm going with this, either. What I've been trying to say is that lately, (that is, since the big entropy brouhaha), I've been thinking that it is impossible for a strictly mechanical system to overcome entropy and create novelty and complexity. But living systems must have done this repeatedly, as the evidence that they evolved from very simple protobacteria all the way up to cabbages and kings, (apologies to Louey) is pretty much established.
To me it is not sufficient to point out that certain biochemical reactions do, in fact, occur; nor simply to describe what physical interactions take place during these biochemical events. My question is, how is novelty and complexification and higher organization and greater efficiency possible, in a Mechanistic universe?

or ibid:

Quote:

In these posts I've been thinking out loud about that, (and perhps I shouldn't think out loud), because I believe that existence should mean something, and that evolution should mean something, and not be 'whatever just happens to happen, relative to a particular time and a certain place'. But that's just me, again. Always looking for meaning.

Expressing an opinion is forgivable. To claim that it is scientific fact in exclusion of the current body of scientific work is not. mturner is thus a troll. I wonder if someone should warn sfs, his latest victim, just how little he could accomplish from the discussion. Cambridge, MA (where sfs claims he comes from) tells me that he has a brighter future ahead of him than trying to understand EAM as explained by mturner.

Scientiae

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

Principia · 04-19-2002, 09:42 PM

Is mturner the next <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000058;p=2" target="_blank">Jeptha</a>?

Quote:

So what? Neither classical thermodynamics nor statistical mechanics, (whatever that's supposed to be), seem to apply to living organisms. Once again, how does my definition of biological entropy conflict with any other definition of biological entropy? Such as:

GardenWeb Glossary of Botanical Terms
entropy
The degradation of energy, a measure of the degree of disorder of a system

or

Entropy
The degree of randomness or disorder in a system.
<a href="http://www.pestmanagement.co.uk/library/gloss_e1.html" target="_blank">http://www.pestmanagement.co.uk/library/gloss_e1.html</a>

or

Entropy A measure of a system's degree of randomness or disorder.
<a href="http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/FLAOH/cbnhtml/glossary-E.html#entropy" target="_blank">http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/FLAOH/cbnhtml/glossary-E.html#entropy</a>

Plain and simple. No bafflegab.

So I again I ask you: How does the natural tendency towards the random disordering of biological complexity (entropy), result in the creation of higher orders of biological complexity (evolution)? How does random accident create higher orders of self-organization? These are contradictions in terms. Something *besides* raw mass/energy has to be input. You do not create a new and better steam engine simply by feeding the old one more water and coal, and hoping that as it falls apart, a better model will emerge out of the magic of 'time'. You use intelligence to combat entropy, both for repair and re-design. The same applies to biological complex dynamic systems.

LOVE it. At least Jeptha made an earnest effort to corrupt the scientific definition of entropy. What does mturner do? He makes up a whole NEW category of entropy: biological entropy. ROFLMAO

Wait, where are the cheerleaders for ARN? "Go mturner Go! You really bring up the level of scientific discourse, without snarling and being venomous like the Infidels."

Scientiae

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-18-2002, 10:14 AM	#3
pangloss Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,302	I posted about this in a thread that you participated in at the Gynne Joint: <a href="http://pub17.ezboard.com/fquestempfrm8.showMessage?topicID=5.topic" target="_blank">http://pub17.ezboard.com/fquestempfrm8.showMessage?topicID=5.topic</a> mturner is a self-righteous, self-proclaimed non-scientist and a victim of pseudocertainty. The first post in that thread is a lengthy cut-and-paste from another poster. I asked why turner was ignoring it (it basically debunks the whole notion) his grand reply was that he was ignoring ME, not the information, yet he did not/has not/would not even acknowledge it. I have, in fact, presented him with similar information on at least a few other occasions. He basically ignores it. It was also presented to him on ARN on more than one occasion. He ignored it there, also. I am searching the archives for it.

04-18-2002, 10:18 AM	#4
pangloss Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,302	Here is one example, presenbted by 'Art': <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=58&SUBMIT=Go" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=58&SUBMIT=Go</a> He didn't ignore it in this case, instead, he rants and raves with a bunch of half-baked ad hocisms... A sampling of mel's acumen: **************************************** Originally posted by Art: Just so we maintain some perspective, it must be emphasized that the studies of adaptive mutation in bacteria are most definitely not empirical support for any sort of directed, intelligently-motivated mutation. In terms of genes, they are as random as other mutations. The key study that showed this was posted long ago on this forum; the abstract follows. ----------------------------------------------- * Hi Art, The bottom line is that evolutionary change in bacteria, as well multi-celled organisms, simply takes far too little time to be randomly generated. We've all seen the studies that, over the past 20 years, have claimed the end of non-random mutation; they are not as conclusive as you would like them to be. Directed mutation (aka, stationary-phase mutation) and cellular intelligence do have empirical support, whereas the notion of randomly generated _beneficial_ mutation has none. ****************************** Well, who can argue with that?

04-18-2002, 10:32 AM	#5
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	IIRC, the results of the Cairns experiment (and others like it) are consistent with the preferential selection of a "mutagenic mutation". In times of hardship, the required beneficial mutations are most likely to come from the most mutation-prone individuals in the population, leading to a burst of accelerated mutation. In one such experiment (can't remember whether it was Cairns, or Hall, or somebody else) a specific "mutagenic mutation" was named as the likely culprit. All of this was explained to mturner at the time. But he never was very good at absorbing information that contradicts his religion.

04-19-2002, 05:42 AM	#6
pangloss Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,302	Speaking of wasted information: Originally posted by mturner: You may be right, matt. But I'll bet that when EAM is finally accepted, the Nobel will go to some copycat with the proper initials after his/her name. Not even a mention of poor old mturner and bertvan. Siiiigggghhhhhh. sob sob sob. m.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.