Jump to content


the nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis (NREH


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
10 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 March 2005 - 03:22 PM

I've been reading Not by Chance! by Dr. Lee Spectner, and his nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis is very interesting.

Moreover, it would be consistent with my speculation of the nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis (NREH). The capacity of an organism to change to adapt to a new environment, I have suggested, is built in to the organism. In microorganisms, in which the reproduction rate is high, and therefore whose mutation rate per population is high, random mutations could work because selection could take care of choosing the right one out of the many that occur. In larger organisms, an environmental cue would trigger the single mutation that will turn on the adaptive battery of genes.


http://members.tripo...lodge/id133.htm

This seems to make alot of sense.

Terry

#2 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 16 March 2005 - 06:23 PM

This seems to make alot of sense.


Any evidence for it?

#3 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 March 2005 - 07:35 PM

I've been reading Not by Chance! by Dr. Lee Spectner, and his nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis is very interesting.
http://members.tripo...lodge/id133.htm

This seems to make alot of sense.

Terry

View Post


I have read something similar and seen a short documentary on this, the objection is in mutations bridging the <something> gap (memory fails me). The ‘gap’ is something to do with the DNA and cell division for s@x cells.

#4 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 March 2005 - 04:32 PM

Any evidence for it?


This is a good place to start as far as Non-Random Evolution is concerned.

There Are Nonrandom Mutations That Can Lead To Evolution

I have indicated that it is highly improbable for random variation in the form of DNA replication errors to lead to any sizable amount of information getting into the global genome of life. I have also declared that I know of no example of mutations that have been alleged to add such information. In each case, even though the mutation is beneficial to the organism under special circumstances, I have shown that it actually leads to a loss of information from the genome. The important feature of these examples is that even though they can offer the organism a selective advantage, they cannot serve as prototypes of the mutations called for by the neo-Darwinian theory.


http://bex.nsstc.uah...tner_evol1.html

The whole article seems to be a good summary of the book.

Terry

#5 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 18 March 2005 - 11:54 AM

From Spetner:

In each case, even though the mutation is beneficial to the organism under special circumstances, I have shown that it actually leads to a loss of information from the genome.


Well, Spetner has just argued himself out of the debate. All evolution requires is the creation of benefical alleles. Evolution DOES NOT require an increase in information. This is a requirement that Spetner has forced onto evolution, and done so through assertion alone. If beneficial mutations cause loss of information, so be it, evolution will continue on.

#6 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 March 2005 - 07:39 PM

Well, Spetner has just argued himself out of the debate.  All evolution requires is the creation of benefical alleles.  Evolution DOES NOT require an increase in information.  This is a requirement that Spetner has forced onto evolution, and done so through assertion alone.  If beneficial mutations cause loss of information, so be it, evolution will continue on.


Spetner's not an idiot...

I think what he's saying is that mutations cannot account for increasing the complexity of the genome in a fashion that can convert and microbe into a Method..... :)

Given that he's already demonstrate that, then the question becomes how does Natural Selection really work?

He believes that DNA was setup to mutate in certain fashions due to environmental cues to enable living beings to adapt to their environment. Its an interesting thought....

Terry

#7 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 21 March 2005 - 03:36 PM

Spetner's not an idiot...

I think what he's saying is that mutations cannot account for increasing the complexity of the genome in a fashion that can convert and microbe into a Method..... :)

Given that he's already demonstrate that, then the question becomes how does Natural Selection really work?


Where has he demonstrated that mutations can not account for increases in information? All of his attempts that I have seen have been fully falsified.

He believes that DNA was setup to mutate in certain fashions due to environmental cues to enable living beings to adapt to their environment. Its an interesting thought....

Terry

View Post


I don't care what Spetner BELIEVES. I want to see what Spetner can SUPPORT with empirical evidence. It is an interesting idea, but one that has been falsified by observation. If DNA were built to mutate, then more than 1% of the population would get the same mutation in the same generation to adapt to a new environment. What we observe is that beneficial mutations occur at a much lower rate. A much, much, much lower rate. Populations of organisms with a common beneficial mutation are created through common ancestory, not through pre-programmed mutations.

#8 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 March 2005 - 04:43 PM

I want to see what Spetner can SUPPORT with empirical evidence.  It is an interesting idea, but one that has been falsified by observation.



But there is a large and ever-growing body of evidence that heritable changes do occur in living organisms that adapt them to their environments, and that these changes do not stem from simple errors in DNA replication. In the last decade and a half, we have seen mounting evidence on the molecular level of large genomic changes that confer selective advantage and occur just when they are needed. These observations have so far been made only on bacteria. Directed mutations are also known to occur in plants, and there is evidence that they occur in animals as well. These mutations are not random, but are apparently induced by the environment. They are not merely errors in DNA replication, but seem to be mutations of a totally different kind.

In 1982 Barry Hall reported on an experiment in which he prepared a strain of E. coli bacteria lacking the beta-galactosidase gene lacZ, which normally hydrolyzes lactose. When these bacteria grew and multiplied on another nutrient, but in the presence of lactose, they gained the ability to metabolize lactose, an ability that proved to be heritable. The gained ability was found to be due to the presence of a new gene. The new gene encodes a new enzyme that can perform the function of the beta-galactosidase, enabling the mutant bacteria to metabolize lactose. The gene was present all the time, but in a dormant state. It was turned ON by two mutations that occur in the presence of lactose and do not appear in its absence. Hall declared that the "normal function" of this gene is unknown, and he called it a "cryptic" gene.

Neither of these two mutations alone gives the bacterium any advantage, so there could not have been any selection for them separately. For the cryptic gene to become active, both mutations have to occur. In the absence of lactose, these two mutations are independent. They can occur together only by chance, and will do so with a probability of only about 10-18 per replication. If they occur at random and independently, the expected waiting time for one of these double mutations to occur in Hall's population would be about 100,000 years. But in the presence of lactose, he detected about 40 of them in just a few days! One can conclude that the lactose in the environment was inducing these mutations.


If DNA were built to mutate, then more than 1% of the population would get the same mutation in the same generation to adapt to a new environment.    What we observe is that beneficial mutations occur at a much lower rate.  A much, much, much lower rate.


You don't know what mutation rate might be designed into DNA. Perhaps its low for a reason.

Anyway, Spetner admitts that he's speculating at this time, but its still seems to make sense.

Terry

#9 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 22 March 2005 - 11:38 AM

In 1982 Barry Hall reported on an experiment in which he prepared a strain of E. coli bacteria lacking the beta-galactosidase gene lacZ, which normally hydrolyzes lactose. When these bacteria grew and multiplied on another nutrient, but in the presence of lactose, they gained the ability to metabolize lactose, an ability that proved to be heritable. The gained ability was found to be due to the presence of a new gene.


And why is it impossible that this new gene was produced through a random mutation? Hall had to screen millions of different clones before he found a few that passed. If these mutations were preprogrammed, why don't we see the same mutant with the same mutation 50% of the time instead of less than 0.01% of the time? It is like saying that some one was pre-destined to win the lottery because they won the lottery.

Anyway, Spetner admitts that he's speculating at this time, but its still seems to make sense.

Terry

View Post


It doesn't make sense once you look at the evidence. More importantly, how does one falsify pre-programmed mutations? This is the most important part of the hypothesis and one you haven't touched on.

#10 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 March 2005 - 05:09 PM

And why is it impossible that this new gene was produced through a random mutation?


They can occur together only by chance, and will do so with a probability of only about 10-18 per replication. If they occur at random and independently, the expected waiting time for one of these double mutations to occur in Hall's population would be about 100,000 years.


How lucky are you???

More importantly, how does one falsify pre-programmed mutations?  This is the most important part of the hypothesis and one you haven't touched on.


If something is true, then it can not be falsified.

Terry

#11 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 23 March 2005 - 12:59 PM

They can occur together only by chance, and will do so with a probability of only about 10-18 per replication. If they occur at random and independently, the expected waiting time for one of these double mutations to occur in Hall's population would be about 100,000 years

How lucky are you???


Firstly, all of the mutations were not selected for at once. Each step was selected for separately. The lactose enzymae was selected for first, then the operon gene, etc. Therefore, not all of them had to happen at once.


If something is true, then it can not be falsified.

Terry

View Post


Nothing can be shown to be true unless it is potentially falsifiable.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users