Has Darwin been disproved or amended?

Forums: Evolution, Darwin, Adaptation, Mutation
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I have debated for many, many years that mutations are not all random, but some are inspired, or, at the very least, built upon previous mutations. I believe I have been proven correct by some recent research. The results directly conflict the idea that ALL mutations are random. Of course, Im looking for thoughts and opinion.

"Evolution is presumed to proceed by random mutations, which increase an individual’s fitness. Increased fitness produces a higher survival rate for those individuals within populations and drives the variants to fixation over large timescales to produce new species. We recently identified positively selected sites in mitochondrial complex I in numerous, diverse taxa. In one taxon, a simple sequence repeat (SSR) encompassed the positively selected sites. We hypothesized a model in which (1) slip-strand mispairing during replication due to the SSR increases the mutation rate at these sites and (2) a functional constraint at the protein level that maintains the SSR and therefore a higher mutation rate at this site over large time scales to drive evolution. We tested this model by identifying SSRs in mitochondrial-encoded proteins of species from our previous work and determined that nearly all of the positively selected sites encompass an SSR. Furthermore, we show that our proposed model accounts for most of the mutations at neutral sites but it is likely the predominant mechanism at positively selected sites. This suggests that evolution does not proceed by simple random processes, but is guided by physical properties of the DNA itself and functional constraint of the proteins encoded by the DNA."

Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 5 • Views: 6,216 • Replies: 42

@JGEnbach,

1. Darwin is a human being who had many ideas and said many things throughout his life. You disprove a theory. You don't disprove a human being.

2. Scientific terms must be well-defined, that is "testable" in order to have any meaning. When you say "random"... what exactly do you mean? Does random mean that any outcome is possible (I doubt any scientist would say this)?

3. I don't even think scientists use the word "random mutations" in a scientific way, accept to the popular press to mean "something that can't be predicted". I am trained in Physics rather than evolutionary biology (so you will ask them).

4. I don't know what the term "inspired" means in this context. As a human being, I can look back at previous human beings and think to myself l "wow, that guy was great, I want to be like him.". That is what it means for me to be "inspired".

Are you saying that a "mutation" is able to think to itself as it ponders previous mutations? If you aren't saying that, then what do you mean?

There may be some processes that make some mutations more likely than others. I will let an expert in evolutionary biology speak on that.

As someone trained in science, I will state that it is very important to precisely define your terminology. When you start assigning human cognition to inanimate objects, you are almost certainly failing to do that.

0 Replies

@JGEnbach,

There several points here.
Darwin has been appended AND amended over the last 160 years or so. His book hs been edited by him, 6 times. Each with a newer sense of discovery. Id suggest, if Darwin is your point, to read Peckhams "Origin of Species ...-A VARIORUM of Darwins 6 editions"
Darwin began to realize that he had no explanation for the retention of heritable traits, even though one of his major requirements for transmutation , was time. Yes , hes been amended and appended and hes mainly been right ( although many times for the wrong reasons)>
However, anything that speaks of NEO Darwinism (that which enfolds genetics) IS REALLY NOT one of his points since, as you know, He was silent about a subject (genetics) which had only been developed afew years after Darwin published his first two editions,and of which he was remarkably ignorant for most all of his life. He is silent about anything Mendelian or genetics related in ANY of his 6 editions of the "Origin..."

As far as your second point, I need to read a bit more on the model. Although several workers have stated that natural selection at the gene level has been evidenced clearly (especially now with the findings of heritability of epigenetic " environmentally Acquired characteristics'

0 Replies

@JGEnbach,

Darwin behaved like a processing robot.You need factor in cognition like maxdancona says.Darwin didn’t do this.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

please provide some evidence that Darwin bwhaved in a way as you say. Many people think they understand what may have been the most insightful and important thought of the millennium but they cannot provide anything but opinion without any evidence.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

What is this obsession people have with Darwin? And why do people with minimal experience in evolutionary biology think their own theory is going to revolutionize our understanding of the process?

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Darwinian philosophy leads on to 0,1...1,0 logic...as in good is bad and bad is good...What more evidence do you need than that.0,0...1,1 logic carries equal credence.Throw all four reasoning outputs into the pot rather than just half.

0 Replies

@hightor,

I don’t believe in evolution...it’s a load of nonsense embraced by people who require it to bolster their belief systems.People who have no understanding of consciousness processes.Consciousness processes carry greater authority to evolutionary theories.Darwin never took this into account.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

People who have no understanding of consciousness processes.Consciousness processes carry greater authority to evolutionary theories.

See what I mean?

1 Reply

@hightor,

I am only stating FACT regarding the logic processes.

Evolution relies totally on 0,1..1,0 philosophy logic.

Introduce 0,0...0,1...1,0...1,1 philosophy logic which is perfectly reasonable and evolutionist put their fingers in their ears and do the la..la..la’s..

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

Stay in denial on how the robotic mind works if you wish or take on board fully what it is telling you.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

Ok I will take that advice.
Are you even mildly familiar with the name of Charles Darwin???

0 Replies

@Jasper10,

Code:

        

I don’t believe in evolution...it’s a load of nonsense embraced by people who require it to bolster their belief systems

So instead you sustain a "belief" ystem that presnts NO evidence in the slightest EH?
Aoun like most of our GOP members.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

What is this obsession people have with Darwin? And why do people with minimal experience in evolutionary biology think their own theory is going to revolutionize our understanding of the process?

Almot all of the non acceptance of Darwin coms from very small contingent of Fundamental Christians and Muslims.

They maintain a belief system that requires no evidence nd, in fct, the Fundamentalists will try to find fault (not Falsify) science with wacko anti-science.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Farmerman,please explain why the philosophical logics of 0,1...1,0 is the only logic that we should seriously consider.On what basis have you come to this conclusion?

Why should we deny 0,0..1,1 philosophical logics?

Hot is Hot and Cold is Cold in the cognitive EXPERIENCE.

Hot and Cold are different.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I would say that over 95% of scientists say they believe in evolution....but only on the basis that they don’t want to lose their jobs...so ingrained is 0,1...1,0 philosophical logic....which even LOGIC itself says is only half the possible outputs.

The % of the general public that believe in evolution in America is just over 50% I would say ...so once again...your statements are based upon your own belief systems.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong and without a basis in reality.

1 Reply

@Ragman,

You HOPE......that is all you have...all any of us have...because you absolutely cannot prove your statement to be true...FACT...the 4 off LOGIC outputs confirm this...they supersede carnal proof one way or the other...get used to it.

% probability of evidence is meaningless if you don’t have an end point to measure against....which you absolutely do not have.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

your "knowledge" of scientists is rather poor. Scientists dont "believe: in evolution. It is a fact that has tons of evidence (evidence that, Im afraid youre apparently not smart enough to understand).

Scientists recognize several areas within Darwins thinking , in which he was dead wrong in his reasons but right in his theory.
For example, since Darwin didnt even know about genetics or molecular chemitry. He was confounded in all his 6 editions of "The Origin..." as to how his heritable traits can last for generations and actually drive changes to species.

Discussing this with you is like trying to explain molecular chemistry with a chipmunk. Maybe you should just continue hiding your nuts.

0 Replies

@Jasper10,

Fundamentalism (Christian) IS dead wrong when it comes to anything its saying about the origins and continuation of life on earth. Its a cult belief, and its never been based upon strong science

0 Replies

Has Darwin been disproved or amended?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know