Science Friday tomorrow – Monkey Girl, Flock of Dodos

| 116 Comments

Tomorrow, Talk of the Nation/Science Friday is doing a show with Edward Humes, author of Monkey Girl (blog, website), Randy Olson, director of Flock of Dodos, and yours truly, author of this spiffy blogpost.

We are in the second hour, so it should be on from 12-1 Pacific time. Apart from the radio, NPR is streamed live from many websites, and the Talk of the Nation archived shows are put online a few hours later.

116 Comments

From the Dover case:

arguments against evolution are not arguments for design.

ID does not argue against evolution, it argues against the theory that random mutations and natural selection can entirely account for the origin of new species. This is a valid objection to the currently accepted neo-Darwinist theory. ID does not have to propose an alternative theory for its argument to be valid.

just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow.

So it’s ok if neo-Darwinists don’t have an explanation – because they probably will some day. But ID theorists must have an explanation right now.

ID researchers are merely saying that no one knows what causes new species to originate. Scientists currently admit they do not know what caused life to originate. So why insist that they already understand the mechanism of evolution?

Darwin hypothesized that the origin of life could be explained as a series of accidental events, but his hypothesis has not been verified, and has not been supported by mathematics or evidence.

Similarly, Darwin’s hypothesis that new species originated by the mechanism of chance variations and natural selection has not been verified or supported by mathematics or evidence.

Yet Neo-Darwinism is accepted on faith, on the assumption that it will be verified some day.

This is not a controversy over whether evolution occurred or not, or whether the Christian bible is literally true. This is about whether the Neo-Darwinian explanation of evolution has been verified, or not. It has not been.

Darwin NEVER hypothesized that the origin of life was anything at all. Darwin never put forth ANY hypothesis about the origin of life. What Darwin actually said was that variability occurs in populations through an unknown mechanism, that species divide into sub-species and that sub-species were the basis of new species. Darwin made no arguments at all about the origin of life, only how living things came to be diverse.

The basis of variability has certainly been verified, but not by Darwin. Heritable variability is genetic. This is true in all living things that have ever been seen. We can phylogenetically trace backward through time to get an increasingly good idea of what descended from what ancestor. Again, this kind of work has certainly been verified with mathematical and increasing precision.

Modern evolutionary biology has a good, and growing, grasp on how biological systems evolve, and increasingly are working backward in time to extremely primitive organisms, this taking place through a number of different disciplines that consistently back each other up despite looking at rather diverse evidence. At no point in any of this cross-referencing has any necessity for design arisen. Are there gaps in the record? Sure. It’s a very big record and progress on reading it was very slow until the last 50 years or so, but there’s certainly heaps of evidence from numerous fields that either agree or force revisions in the specifics of particular lineages — but not one that has necessitated a complete overhaul of the principle.

Long story short, biological evolutionary theory has amassed tremendous volumes of corroborating data in its support. ID, on the other hand, seems to do nothing but handwave, make claims about conspiracies, and, apparently, get even the most basic facts about the history and scope of evolutionary theory wrong in order to advance what amounts to a political and religious agenda, never yet finding anything remotely testable or reproduceable to support its assertions.

Thanks for the heads up. I’ll be listening here in Florida!

arguments against evolution are not arguments for design.

ID does not argue against evolution, it argues against the theory that random mutations and natural selection can entirely account for the origin of new species. This is a valid objection to the currently accepted neo-Darwinist theory. ID does not have to propose an alternative theory for its argument to be valid.

Um, start over. Even the young-earth creationists accept that new species can evolve by microevolution.

just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow.

So it’s ok if neo-Darwinists don’t have an explanation — because they probably will some day. But ID theorists must have an explanation right now.

Did you actually read the decision? One of the topics was the well-studied evolutionary origin of the immune system, and the ID guys’ refusal to acknowledge that scientists had found (and tested and published) answers as how adaptive immunity evolved.

biological evolutionary theory has amassed tremendous volumes of corroborating data in its support.

Yes, there is a tremendous amount of evidence to support evolution. There is also plenty of evidence for random mutations, and for natural selection.

So NDE advocates cite all that evidence as supporting NDE. But it doesn’t! You have NO evidence that a new species can be created merely by random mutations and natural selection. It is a matter of faith.

You have tons of evidence for evolution, none for your particular explanation for the cause of evolution. You have evidence for adaptive changes within a species, but NO evidence that NDE can create a new species.

Darwin NEVER hypothesized that the origin of life was anything at all. Darwin never put forth ANY hypothesis about the origin of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker of February 1 1871, Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a “warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, [so] that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes”.

ID does not have to propose an alternative theory for its argument to be valid.

“ID” is not a person, so “ID” cannot have an argument or propose a theory; “ID” supposedly is a theory. So your statement, like almost all the spew from creationists, is incoherent nonsense. Not to mention that there is no “argument”, merely ignorant and false claims.

Some common ID confusions are exemplified in realpc’s postings

arguments against evolution are not arguments for design.

ID does not argue against evolution, it argues against the theory that random mutations and natural selection can entirely account for the origin of new species. This is a valid objection to the currently accepted neo-Darwinist theory. ID does not have to propose an alternative theory for its argument to be valid.

In other words, arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. And yet this is the whole foundation of ID. If ID is just about criticisms of a particular mechanism of evolution then it fails to be really relevant since evolution itself accepts that natural selection and variation is not the only relevant mechanism.

just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow.

So it’s ok if neo-Darwinists don’t have an explanation — because they probably will some day. But ID theorists must have an explanation right now.

Nope, we can all accept “we don’t know”. But IDers want to replace the “we don’t know” position with “designed”.

Hope this clarifies

realpc said:

ID does not argue against evolution, it argues against the theory that random mutations and natural selection can entirely account for the origin of new species.

No, ID claims that because we cannot, today, entirely, mutation-by-mutation, account for various aspects of living organisms, that it must be God…er, the intelligent designer.

So it requires an entirely unrealistic level of confirmation, far above what is likely or possible, or even above the already massive documentation of evolutionary mechanisms and pathways, yet claims it does not have to provide any evidence for a much more… miraculous answer.

Must be nice.

Posted by realpc on February 22, 2007 4:26 PM (e)

Darwin NEVER hypothesized that the origin of life was anything at all. Darwin never put forth ANY hypothesis about the origin of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker of February 1 1871, Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a “warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, [so] that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes”.

So because Darwin made a suggestion in a letter to a colleague, he was an expert in the topic, IN THE 1870s? Far from a formal hypothesis, and never published as far as I know. Come on.

And parenthetically, pretty advanced for the day, considering the Miller/Urey experiments decades later.

So because Darwin made a suggestion in a letter to a colleague, he was an expert in the topic, IN THE 1870s?

Sounds like he meets the ID movement’s standards for “expertise”. As do we all.

Yet Neo-Darwinism is accepted on faith, on the assumption that it will be verified some day.

yawn.

Darwin NEVER hypothesized that the origin of life was anything at all. Darwin never put forth ANY hypothesis about the origin of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker of February 1 1871, Charles Darwin made the suggestion

leave it to the IDiots to keep refusing to understand the difference between a hypothesis and a suggestion.

or a theory and a concept, for that matter.

my only question is, is this a new troll, or a disguised one?

Must be nice.

yeah, insanity can be quite pleasant, I hear.

heck even the “leaders” of the ID movement sell it by showing up all us actual scientists with how easy it is. Hence, William Dembski is quoted as telling one scientist:

“We don’t need your pathetic level of detail.”

uh huh.

Nope, we can all accept “we don’t know”. But IDers want to replace the “we don’t know” position with “designed”. Hope this clarifies

Neo-Darwinists say they know how new species are created. They say, with certainty, that all genetic mutations are random errors. They say with certainty that evolution retults ENTIRELY from random mutations and natural selection.

Neo-Darwinism is a theory that claims to explain the mechanism of evolution.

ID is a mathematical criticism of Neo-Darwinism. ID does not claim to have an explanation of the cause of evolution.

Neo-Darwinists say they know how new species are created. They say, with certainty, that all genetic mutations are random errors. They say with certainty that evolution retults ENTIRELY from random mutations and natural selection.

Once again, no.

ID is a mathematical criticism of Neo-Darwinism. ID does not claim to have an explanation of the cause of evolution.

As such, it’s a piss-poor one, lacking any rigor whatsoever. The nice thing about math is that there really is no way that a theorem is partially right. ID unfortunately has not demonstrated mathematical rigor, so as a mathematical theory it’s not even wrong.

Actually, if you think ID is a proper mathematical critique, I suggest you demonstrate it. Rigorously. Without any waving of hand, obfuscating of math, overloading of terms, and misrepresenting evolution. You’ve already failed on this last criterion.

Hubert Yockey, a physicist has used information theory to show that life could not have originated by chance. His argument is not very different from what ID theorists are claiming – new information is not created by chance.

Humans have been creating new breeds of domestic species for thousands of years, but this never involves an increase in information. A new, more complex, species is never created from an existing species through artificial selection.

Similarly, the creation of a new species by natural selection has never been observed. Only variations of existing species.

That is because random accidents do not create meaningful information.

Hubert Yockey, a physicist has used information theory to show that life could not have originated by chance.

What Yockey actually showed was that cytochrome C was very unlikely to have formed by just the right atoms slamming together in just the right way all at once. In other words, he demonstrated that a tornado in the primordial soup wouldn’t have produced cytochrome C.

He’s correct, there is essentially no chance cytochrome C formed that way. So what? Maybe we can conclude that physicists don’t seem to know how to approach issues in biology.

But since this isn’t the first time I’ve seen Yockey’s work extended to “life”, I’m guessing this was quote-mined from a creationist site, which quote-mined it from some larger work.

What this quote DOES illustrate very well, however, is how incredibly gullible people are when told even the most obvious idiocy if that’s what they WANT to hear. Even a few seconds of checking would have shown this claim to be false, but the claim is so damn congenial!

ID is a mathematical criticism of Neo-Darwinism.

Are you talking about the tornado in a junkyard argument, which demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the theory of evolution, or specifed complexity, in which Dembski is unable to clearly define his terms? Not surprisingly, he has also been unable to apply it to any real-life situation.

ID does not claim to have an explanation of the cause of evolution.

IDers are not even publicly speculating on whether there is one designer, a group working together or a hundred of them all at odds with each other, except when they forget they are supposed to be mum on the subject and talk about God.

So where do you consider ID goes from here? What hypotheses should be tested and which experiments should be done? If you come up with any, the professional IDers would be glad to here from you as they seem to be completely out of ideas.

Whether “realpc” is a liar or indeed believes what he (she) has posted here, does not matter. He (she)is a troll who has hijacked the thread which originally was about a different topic. I can understand why several commenters felt a need to respond to realpc’s arrogant fallacies, but doing so they just played his (her) game. Please stop feeding the troll -let him (her) spew the dreck on the ID’s sites. Thanks.

Neo-Darwinists say they know how new species are created.

no, we say we’ve SEEN how species can evolve from selection and mutations. considering you cannnot say you’ve seen a species “poof” into existence, we win.

They say, with certainty, that all genetic mutations are random errors.

no, we say that point mutations are non-deterministic, and essentially unpredictable, but some areas of the genome are more likely to suffer some types of point mutations than other. Moreover, there is a lot more to “mutation” than just point mutations. translocations, insertions, deletions, horizontal transfers, etc. etc.

They say with certainty that evolution retults ENTIRELY from random mutations and natural selection

wrong again. I though you creobots were up on at least spinning the neutral mutation hypothesis, for example? I guess you hadn’t gotten that far yet.

keep working, you get up to speed with the rest of your inane creobot bretheren soon enough.

then you can shake your fist with pride!

ID is a mathematical criticism of Neo-Darwinism.

wrong again.

do show me where even WD40 says ID is a mathematical criticism of evolutionary theory.

and then, when you next lie about it, would you like me to show you where dembski’s “math” falls completely flat? let alone his base assumptions?

idiot.

Sir Toe writes…

my only question is, is this a new troll, or a disguised one?

Maybe a new one methinks. This one seems to use complete sentences and punctuation.

Maybe trolls are evolving.

I know you would prefer everyone to be in agreement. Anyone who questions the accepted Neo-Darwinist theory of evolution is considered a troll.

But I think you owe it to yourselve to hear another view, because it might clarify your thinking in some areas.

IDers are as guilty as anyone of muddled thinking. I am as unwelcome at an ID blog as I am here, because I question them also.

People like to belong somewhere, and they like to have their ideas confirmed. So they form homogeneous groups to congratulate and reinforce each other. This leads to intellectual inbreeding, and people with differing views can no longer communicate at all.

This is especially true in the evolution debate, because it has such great philosophical significance for humanity. That’s why I care about the subject, and have followed it for 30 years.

A big mistake made by IDers is when they start criticizing aspects of evolution theory that are unrelated to Darwinism. Evolution theory in general, is beyond question, as is natural selecction.

The mistakes made by NDers are when they claim the evidence for evolution and for natural selection supports their theory. It does not.

The ND theory says that the genetic mutations which will be selected from are errors. Of course nothing is really random, because everything must have a cause. But it is essential to the ND theory that these variations are errors, accidents, without purpose. That is the central message of Darwin’s hypothesis, and of the currently accepted theory.

Other theories of evolution, such as Lamarckianism, assumed that evolution is in some way driven by some kind of purpose. Only Darwin’s theory suggested a way for species to evolve by a combination of accident and competition for survival.

Neo-Darwinism, the currently accepted theory, appeals to many scientists because it attempts to explain evolution without relying on non-material forces or intentions. Naturalism, or materialism, tends to be popular among scientists and they have welcomed ND enthusiastically.

The debate is highly charged emotionally. And, as I said, communication between opponents is amost impossible. Partly because of the intellectual inbreeding, and because so much is at stake. But also because the arguments are highly technical and confusing to everyone, even to the experts.

Neither side has a conclusive argument, and we will have to wait, maybe forever, to for the decision.

My goal is merely to point out what I see as obviously illogical and misleading statements – claiming evidence for evolution is evidence for ND evoluion, for example.

I don’t think the deception is intentional. People have strong feelings on this subject, if they care about it at all. They become more concerned with supporting their side than with looking for truth.

There is emotion involved, but for different reasons:

Fundamentalists of all stripes react emotionally to evolutionary theory because it undermines their sense that humans have some “purpose”.

Scientists, evolutionary biologists especially, react emotionally (frustration and anger) when the theory is misrepresented by people who have no clue what they are talking about, or who lie to promote their narrow religious views, or undermine scientific education to placate parents who are themselves ignorant about how science works. “Science” doesn’t give a rat’s ass about how people “react emotionally” to scientific evidence or the theories developed to organize and explain said evidence.

But it is essential to the ND theory that these variations are errors, accidents, without purpose.

No it isn’t. In fact, many people who believe in theistic evolution consider this is precisely where the hand of God intervenes. However, I think most would agree that there is, at present, no evidence that the direction of any variation is anything but random. For example, if the environment changes to favour birds with longer bills, hatchling birds will have the same variation in bill length as they would if the environment had changed in the opposite direction. If it were discovered that this was not so, it would cause a flurry of excitement but it would not cause the theory of evolution to come crashing down.

Lamarckism is no longer in favour, not because it relied on non-material forces or intentions, but because it does not fit the evidence.

If you are going to make sweeping statements about motives and attitudes, at least make sure you have your information correct.

Neo-Darwinism, the currently accepted theory, appeals to many scientists because it attempts to explain evolution without relying on non-material forces or intentions. Naturalism, or materialism, tends to be popular among scientists and they have welcomed ND enthusiastically.

Still not bothering to hold my breath waiting for you or anyone else to tell us how we might predict, detect, or reproduce non-material forces or intentions at work, and how a scientific theory of anything could–even in principle–be based on these forces and intentions.

“Neo-Darwinism” ‘appeals’ to scientists because it’s the best (and only workable) theory out there to explain the origins of biological diversity, not because it fulfills any preexisting bias toward non-supernatural explanations. As soon as you figure out a way to detect your spooks, goblins, fairies, and deities exerting their forces and intentions upon biological reproduction–or anything else, ever, anywhere–I’m sure those hidebound, materilaistic scientists will begin getting around to including them in their theories. I know you’re bursting at the seams with verifiable evidence of the supernatural, so fire away so the scientists can get to work on rewriting their theories. Your Nobel awaits.

Maybe trolls are evolving.

I say it’s frontloading. 4.5 billion years ago, jebus baal zeus rev. moon FSM waved his hand and brought into being the first self-replicating molecule, which contained within it the genetic information necessary to not only evolve every single species of organism ever to eventually exist, but even (far more incredibly) one day gave internet fake concern trolls the ability to spell properly and use correct punctuation.

It remains to be seen if FSM invested the replicator with the genetic info needed for them to learn to think clearly.

At some unspecified time, some unspecified deity performed some unspecified miracle.

No, that is not the essence of ID…

True. The essence of ID is that God did it sometime in the early Bronze age. (see Wedge Document, V1, 1996, Discovery Inst et al, Pandas & People, Printings 1-5, 1996-2000, Kitzmiller V Dover, 2005 etc)

But ID is supposed to be science, and is therefore supposed to stick with observations.

Again, true. Id is supposed to stick with science and observations. It doesn’t, though, since objective observations invariably tend to produce a lot of inconvenient evidence that points to natural causes, and away from the big “poof”.

ID questions the central assumption of neo-Darwinism, and that assumption is that nature has no intelligence.

Again, no. ID claims to question Darwinian evolution by offering a reasonable alternative. The do, however, regulary and reliably fail to put anything at all on the table that we can actually pick up and examine.

Am I wrong here? Please, feel free to correct me and point me to one tiny little scrap of positive evidence that points anywhere except Darwinian evolution.

There may be sexual selection, genetic drift, you name it. But there is no intelligence or purpose in nature, according to NDE.

Again, no. The ingenious and devious position that “NDE” has craftily staked out is that there is no demonstrable intelligence or purpose in nature, cunningly capitalizing on the fallback position that there’s a natural cause at work, simply because, no intelligence or purpose in nature has ever been observed, any time, anywhere, for any purpose, over the entire documented history of the entire human race.

But aside from that, hey - who knows, maybe God is out there right now snookering us all.

Realpc galloped thusly:

No human being knows the cause of evolution. Neo-Darwinism is a theory, and it cannot be demonstrated with replicable experiments. ID is a theory which is skeptical of Neo-Darwinism. Neither one is proven — it may never be possible to prove either.

Neo-Darwinists are not being scientific when they claim to have proof for their theory, because they do not. As I said, they show their proof of evolution and natural selecton as if it were evidence for their theory, but it is not.

Duane would be proud my boy. You just keep chanting those mantras, and the scientists will keep doing the work that illustrates your ignorance. But for the record:

Many human beings know of many causes of evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning it is far more than idle speculation. It has been demonstrated through replicable experiments for 150 years without a single refutation. ID is not a theory, it is poorly defined speculation, a complicated argument from ignorance. It is not even wrong. All of these facts are easily available to anyone who wants them. But again, one cannot wake a man pretending to sleep.

You may reassume the ostrich position.

disclaimer anybody who doesn’t want to have anything to do with me,please say so or please stop naming names. if the owners,the administrators etc of this site think that I’m unwelcome here, please have me banned. I have no problem with neither of the above. ok?

moving on

Anton Mates Wrote:

And that is exactly the case in biology—events on the quantum scale impact large-scale reality, whereas they don’t in, say, celestial mechanics.

in physics there is no real way how to go from the low level quantum mechanic level logic to the macrocosmic logic. the “leap” from non-determinism to determinism is a mystery.the principle of equivalence doesn’t explain it.The theory that will truely unite the microcosmos with the macrocosmos is still in research. It’s every physicist’s dream. In general “a magic wand”,an acceptance of ignorance but constant research, is used, stating that somewhere in the way there is a statistical summation and somehow ,”poof”,quantum superposition is lost and we come to have locality and common logic. The problem -at least as I see it,I guess I may be stupid- in biology, is in a way more serious than in physics ,if the biologists start to use freely terms such as “non-deterministic randomness or impredictability” because contrast to systems usually examined in physics there is no leap,no gap,no poof from small to big but a full intemediate chain.what am I saying? in which point of the chain ,do locality and determinism die,in which point do they come back to life?

that’s my problem and was asking for feedback from experts in this discipline -accepting my poor gnosis of biology,I didn’t hide it- in order to examine matters deeper, so this

Sir_Toejam Wrote:

biology,by the small-general knowledge I’ve got on this discipline, is classical-physics based.

go actually read a bit about probability and statistics, and i won’t need to clarify for you.

In short, you should stop throwing about terms you haven’t the slightest clue as to their meaning.

isn’t neither representive of what I said nor very polite nor correct nor true

and certainly this

Sir_Toejam Wrote:

in another thread, Thanatos admits, in a post to Glen:

I’m Plato’s reincarnation gone mad.

is BS.

This was my sarcastic-humoristic answer to Glen who was ultimatelly ,if you follow the relevant thread here saying that only people believing in scientific positivism are right and all the followers of other scientific philosophies such as scientific realism,scientific idealism or scientific platonism are ignorants and should (more or less) shut up. Note that I did nowhere attack scientific positivism contrary to glen’s passion and hatred since I believe that is a respectable scientific philosophy nor did I clearly swore allegance to scientific platonism.I only defended it as it came along,against only-positivism-is-true benevolant or dogmatic attacks.

Glen I just give up. Obviously you’re the speaking voice of what all scientists have in mind ,you’re the speaking voice of Truth and I’m Plato’s reincarnation gone mad.Sorry.next time I’ll try to be Heracleitus. OK all matters and problems solved. Glen said so. I just give up.

As for the “trolls” .If by any chance was pointing to me I’m redirecting it back.If not forget it.

Some of you seem to lack not only manners but also a sense of humor.And you thus treat people that are on your side ,an ocean afar. We greatly fear and hate your religious fanatics(as you are The Superpower and you tend to play in jesus name around with the world). Should we also fear and hate you,seculars too?

It has been demonstrated through replicable experiments for 150 years without a single refutation.

You cannot show me a reference to one single experiment ever done that demonstrated neo-Darwinist evolution.

You cannot show me a reference to one single experiment ever done that demonstrated neo-Darwinist evolution.

what will you bet that I can?

c’mon, put your money where that thing you spew your ignorance from is.

I’ll put up 100.00 RIGHT NOW that I can, within 5 minutes of seeing your acceptance of this little wager, show you a paper published within the last year that demonstrates exactly what you call “neodarwinism”, that is, a new species arising through mutation and selection.

put up or shut up, idiot.

tick tock.

as i thought.

here, for you general edification, and just to show you i could easily live up to my side of the wager:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?h[…]s+polyploidy

heck, there’s a lot more if we just consider new species arising from polyploidy alone, let alone other mutations, and if we extend it back, you get lists like what talk origins posts in response to your inanity:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq[…]ciation.html

do note that even that list merely scratches the surface.

give me a week and I’ll put together a list that is larger, and contains a lot of accessible articles like this one.

realpc Wrote:

Anyone who believes there is some kind of creativity beyond, or underlying, our sensory world is not a Darwinist. The essence of Darwinism (and neo-Darwinism) is the assmption that nature creates without being creative. That design in nature is an illusion.

Then Darwin, at the time he came up with Darwinism, was not a Darwinist.

Doesn’t that suggest to you that you’re using the word wrong? Doesn’t it suggest that maybe you should ask the “Darwinists” what they believe, rather than telling them?

Or would you like me to declare that the essence of ID is the assumption that barbecuing babies is the noblest activity of man? How dare you ID advocates support such a terrible thing!

yeah! damn ID baby-eatin scumbags.

where’s my flamethrower!

Amazingly enough, realpc never answered any of my questions. Such as, what the definition of “life energy” is, or any examples where “non-orthodox science” produced successful results, but was kept out of the mainstream journals.

SHOCKED, I am.

realpc Wrote:

No human being knows the cause of evolution. Neo-Darwinism is a theory, and it cannot be demonstrated with replicable experiments. ID is a theory which is skeptical of Neo-Darwinism. Neither one is proven — it may never be possible to prove either.

OK, whenever anyone says this kind of idiotic drivel, they simply display (as if there were any doubt) that they just don’t know what they’re talking about.

Perhaps it’s time to quit feeding the troll.

Oh yes, it’s a “new” species as long as it can’t reproduce with the parent species. No increase in complexity is required.

And where are the controlled experiments?

How can you falsify it? (since you materialists are always demanding theories that can be falsified).

Anytime a variation is observed, you can say the variation was an accident, and was selected because of its usefulness. You can always deny that intention motivated the variation.

Suppose a species has genetic options which can be turned on or off, depending on environmental conditions.

Anytime a variation is observed, you can say the variation was an accident, and was selected because of its usefulness. You can always deny that intention motivated the variation. Suppose a species has genetic options which can be turned on or off, depending on environmental conditions.

Hmmm… you mean like every single organism on the planet? Every single living thing has such “genetic options” and turn them on and off all the time. Did you manage to get through freshman biology class without hearing of the lac operon?

What’s more, we certainly see lots of pseudogenes out there, which are essentially genes that have been turned off at one point in evolutionary history and never switched on again, although they continue to be replicated. These are an incredibly powerful demonstration of how a chance mutation leads to rather deterministic outcomes.

This is basic stuff, and if you don’t know that much about the way living things actually work, then there’s no point in arguing evidence with you. I can’t imagine this is the first time you’ve ever heard of these things, but you certainly don’t seem to be aware of them to ask this kind of question. I can only conclude that you refuse to look at anything that refutes your viewpoint.

If you do indeed have a PhD, I find it a sad commentary on the state of higher education. How anyone can get a doctorate without ever learning how to consider ideas and evidence is beyond me, but you appear to have done it. Me, I haven’t been allowed that luxury to date in my own ongoing education.

Kit said: Amazingly enough, realpc never answered any of my questions. Such as, what the definition of “life energy” is, or any examples where “non-orthodox science” produced successful results, but was kept out of the mainstream journals.

SHOCKED, I am.

Indeed. He seems to be the master of the Assert-and-Run technique. For a change up, he does Rhetorical-question-and-run.

Realpc said: Oh yes, it’s a “new” species as long as it can’t reproduce with the parent species. No increase in complexity is required.

Science requires terms with clear definitions. When I say “A new species is formed when succesful interbreeding between groups is no longer possible”, all English speakers understand what I mean. By contrast, when someone says “A new species occurs when there is an increase in complexity”, no one knows what thay means, because “complexity” here is a nonsense term.

Don’t like the standard defintion of “species”? Fine, come up with a better one. Just be sure to use words with clear meaning.

No increase in complexity is required.

bwahahahaha!

do you even know what polyploidy IS?

if you’re so convinced, why didn’t you take me up on my wager?

you’re not only a moron, you’re a chickenshit too.

are you absolutely sure you wish to continue?

If you do indeed have a PhD

no way. if he said that, he was lying.

which of course shouldn’t be any kind of surprise.

Suppose a species has genetic options which can be turned on or off, depending on environmental conditions.

And suppose they don’t.

How would I know the difference, other than to observe that every population of fruit fly ever put under stress in a lab mutated into some other form of fruit fly, and that absolutely none of them activated their primordial rhinoceros genes and used their new abilities to escape from their torment?

I waited for some days for a biologist to answer my questions.No answer. Any way, here for any future reference is a banch of thoughts that I think may come handy and useful to biologists when dealing with foundamental issues and terms of physics. The central issue is a phaenomenon as opposed to a second level phaenomenon upon phaenomena and their erroneous ambiguity in common language when not careful. Expressions aren’t of strict mathematical sense and essence,but try to understand what they mean,it’s quite easy(I think).I expressed my thoughts thus ,trying to be laconical.If someone doesn’t understand them,I can help explain.

After completing reading I ask you to consider,to think of the chaotical character of mutagents such as the Concentration of chemical mutagents and the dependence of Intensity of UV Rays on spacetime,habits-properties of individual organism (such as nocturnal or not,depth of water when sea creature,heavily fured or not),geographical latitude,etc.

Have ,statistical functions-probabilities of both microfactors and macrofactors across evolution(or not), affecting point mutations ,been calculated-estimated and therefrom, the latter have been found unimportand and insignificant compared to the former(meaning quantum mechanical (qm-ical) factors)? If not how can you say that point mutations ,especially in evolutionary terms, are non deterministic?

Intuitionally ,in my opinion, the abundance of macrofactors seems to eliminate the microfactors,therefore chaos rules and not qm.Therefore in the context of what I mean,point mutations are of a deterministic nature.

I would be grateful if you clarified.

(If in my line of thinking you see any errors please show them to me.)

Here it goes …

Can you understand the difference between :

A.A Phaenomenon A that is a function of (some) variables and/or has a function- property with respect to (some) variables. A=A(variables),A has a property , A=A(property) or A = property

examples : A=A(x,y,z,t), A= point mutations = Non deterministic , or A= point mutations = Deterministic

and

B.The Phaenomenon of Phaenomena B= Metaphaenomenon(A) = (A of A)=MetaA where A=A(variables) and/or A = property ,and MetaA=MetaA(A,other variables) and MetaA = MetaA(variables,other variables) and/or MetaA=MetaA(another property)=another property=function of property=MetaProperty MetaA=another property of property

B1.B=MetaA=property of a (specific) A with respect to other variables example : the consequences of a (specific) point mutation of a (specific) individual organism across scales(from micro to macro)

B2.B=MetaA= a function or a Metaproperty of a collection of As with respect to other variables example : a statistical function of point mutations across evolution and/or with respect to macrofactors such as space,time,systems,different cells of an individual,individuals,habits of them,generations,species, phyla

Can you understand the ambiguity in common language ,of the usage of Phaenomenon A as both A and MetaA and the problems derived from it? Problems such as Metaproperty=Property ->Wrong (=not in general correct)

examples: every specific point mutation has a non deterministic qm-ical chemical creation mechanism,so point mutations in general across scales, generations and spacetime have a non deterministic statistical character a specific point mutation on an individual has a non deterministic qm-ical chemical creation mechanism therefore cross-scale the produced phaenotypical effect is of non deterministic nature. a point mutation of DNA of qm-ical mechanism = the point mutant- mutated DNA in action finally an ad nauseam simplification in order to understand the basic ambiguity- expressions X=X(T)=T^2=MetaT, V=dX/dT=V(X,T)=V(T)=2T=MetaT=MetaX , A=dV/dT=A(V,X,T)=A(X,T)=A(T)=A(trivial)=2=MetaV=MetaX=MetaT

Feedback, critical or not, is welcome. Chairein!

realpc Wrote:

How can you falsify it? (since you materialists are always demanding theories that can be falsified).

Anytime a variation is observed, you can say the variation was an accident, and was selected because of its usefulness. You can always deny that intention motivated the variation.

Luria and Delbrück got a Nobel Prize for figuring out how to distinguish between randomly-occurring variations and variations which occur in response to selective pressures. You might want to read about it.

oops depth of water when sea creature

oops depth of water when sea creature

oops depth of water when sea creature

sorry for the triple entry but I just couldn’t see my comment even after refreshing again and again,exiting, refreshing,…

Anton if this

Luria and Delbrück got a Nobel Prize for figuring out how to distinguish between randomly-occurring variations and variations which occur in response to selective pressures. You might want to read about it.

was besides a reply to realpc ,a reply to me also,reread what I wrote,it’s irrelevant since I never mentioned selective pressures. If not then sorry. :-)

Ciao

Anton If this

Luria and Delbrück got a Nobel Prize for figuring out how to distinguish between randomly-occurring variations and variations which occur in response to selective pressures. You might want to read about it.

is besides a reply to realpc ,a reply also to me,it’s simply irrelevant,read again.If not never mind. :-)

ciao

sorry again for multiple entries,

Error 500 for hours

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on February 22, 2007 2:32 PM.

Professor Steve Steve does AAAS was the previous entry in this blog.

“Cheshire Cat” Creationism in New Mexico is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter