|
Author
|
Topic: Two Elegant Falsifications of RM&NS
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 19. June 2002 12:09
TWO ELEGANT FALSIFICATIONS OF NDG AND RM&NS
I propose for discussion two arguments which falsify two of the essential features of Neo-Darwinian genetics and RM&NS models and theories. The first demonstration will show that Darwinian Natural Selection can not possibly be the only type of selection operating on genes. The second argument will demonstrate that, contrary to NDG, genetic mechanisms are purposeful. Both arguments are based on research and information that is well known and widely accepted.
BACKGROUND
To begin, it should be noted that it is not particularly difficult from a technical perspective to identify and/or develop arguments which demonstrate the inadequacy, incompleteness, or inconsistency of NDG as an explanation of genetic change. Dembski has provided an argument which has not been refuted. The well known Punctuated Equilibrium developed by Eldridge and Gould is an argument for the inadequacy of NDG. The difficulty is not in demonstrating the inadequacy of NDG, but in getting these demonstrations recognized as falsification.
As James and many others have suggested, Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian theory does not appear to be subject to rigorous scientific standards for testing and validation. Specifically, the peer review process used in evolutionary biology appears to have changed the standard applicable to Darwinian theory from 1) "explicitly state theory then perform independent testing which either supports the validity of the theory or falsifies it " to 2)"perform testing then determine if there is a form of the model or theory which can explain the individual components of the test". Put in other terms, peer review standards in evolutionary biology do not require that the RM&NS theory or model be explicitly stated in a testable format while at the same time permitting claims that a valid theory exists. [The existence of ‘bias in peer review processes’ is needed to explain how it is possible to discover new falsification arguments based on information that has been known and accepted for decades. ]
Two final preliminary notes. In textbook examples, falsification of an existing theory is the lead in for the introduction of an alternative theory. However, because of the bias or resistance which at least appears to exist, it is useful to consider falsification as a independent subject. Only after the existing theory or model has been discredited, will there be a general willingness to seriously evaluate alternative theories. Second, despite bias and artificial constraints, NDG and RM&NS do appear testable. Unfortunately, most of the tests which demonstrate inadequacy involve moderately complex mathematical arguments (Dembski’s argument is a good example). In the presence of bias and confusion, it is difficult to make such arguments convincing. The ‘elegance’ of the falsification arguments to be presented here, is that the mathematics/logic involved is relatively simple.
FALSIFICATION ARGUMENT 1: DARWINIAN NATURAL SELECTION CAN NOT BE THE ONLY FORM OF SELECTION OPERATING
NDG is based on the assertion or hypothesis that the genetic composition of a population is changed by 1)mutation, 2)natural selection, and 3)(maybe)statistical fluctuations. All these are ‘once per life time’ operations. NDG therefore hypothesizes or predicts that the genetic composition of a population changes only once per life time.
However, we now know, and have known for quite some time, that this is not true. It is well known that there are many ‘within life time’ genetic changes. Specifically, it is known that the active/inactive status of a gene can change many times within the lifetime of a cell and within the lifetime of complex organisms. [The possibility exists that there are more than just active and inactive statuses.]
It is further known that these changes in status or state are at least partially adaptive and not random. This suggests the existence of within life time selection mechanisms.
Since NDG provides no mechanism capable of explaining this type of genetic change, NDG and RM&NS is inadequate, and incomplete. The NDG as a theory/model of genetic change has been falsified.
FALSIFICATION ARGUMENT 2: GENETIC MECHANISMS ARE PURPOSEFUL OR GOAL-ORIENTED
A basic premise, arguably ‘the’ basic premise of NDG is that genetics and genetic mechanisms are or can be explained as purposeless. Genetic mechanisms, the theory suggests, simply exist and the changes produced can be explained as the natural result of mechanical actions of genetic mechanisms. A purpose or goal does not need to be evoked to explain the functioning of genetic mechanisms.
The question of purpose in genetic change has often focused on issues such as increases in complexity or ‘the purpose of genetics was to create complex life forms such as man’. As is generally recognized, it is difficult if not impossible to demonstrate that genetic mechanism operate or function to achieve such goals.
Many biological systems clearly perform functions, serve a purpose, or are goal-oriented. Typically, the goal or purpose of such biological systems can be described in terms of ‘maintaining equilibrium’. The changes produced by such biological systems are generally not random, but changes which are directed toward maintaining equilibrium. It is therefore reasonable to speculate that if genetic processes and mechanisms have a goal or purpose, that goal or purpose involves maintaining some type of equilibrium.
There are two general types of evidence that suggest that genetic processes or mechanisms perform non-random, purposeful, equilibrium maintaining processes. The first type of evidence for equilibrium maintenance comes from attempts at genetic cloning. There appears to be clear evidence that it is not possible to produce viable offspring from DNA, if the DNA is not in appropriate state (appropriate combination of active and inactive states). The ability to reproduce, it appears, depends on the existence of purposeful processes or mechanisms to maintain or return DNA to states appropriate to reproduction. The existence of such purposeful mechanisms is contrary to the purposeless assumption and therefore falsifies NDG. Put another way, it does not appear possible to explain the operation of genetic mechanisms without reference to these equilibrium maintaining goals.
The second example of equilibrium maintenance in genetic mechanisms involves what I call ‘maintaining species identity’. Unlike the cloning example, this argument involves moderately complex mathematics. Given what is known about mutation rates and developmental processes, the viability of complex organisms would appear to be mathematically highly unlikely. Consider a gene that is inactive until late in the development process. In order to available in a viable form, the gene would have had to survived many cell divisions without experiencing a mutation which corrupted the functionality of the gene. Over a period of years, it seems that only a very large portion of cells would have a corrupted form of the gene. There is no evidence this occurs, therefore there is evidence for the existence of purposeful mechanisms to eliminate corrupted genes and maintain properly functioning forms. The existence of such mechanisms is inconsistent with and falsifies NDG and RM&NS. [There appears to be a widely held belief or misconception that if a phenomena has been observed, given a name, and published in peer reviewed literature, then such mechanism must logically be part of and logically consistent with NDG theory. Even though their existence has been known for a long time, the explanation of gene repair mechanisms suggest a purpose or goal which is not compatible with basic NDG principles.]
SUMMARY
It seems likely that the claim could be made that the above demonstrations don’t reflect a proper scientific understanding of NDG and RM&NS. The arguments presented, it could be argued, falsify something other than what is really meant by NDG. However, as viewed here and as stated at the beginning, such views represent a flawed standard for evaluating Darwinian theories.
"Natural Selection is the only form of selection recognized in the NDG theory of genetic change" and "genetic change processes are purposeless and non-teleological" are, by any reasonable interpretation, central tenants or principles of NDG. If these tenets are wrong, and the evidence clearly suggests they are wrong, then NDG has been falsified.
If NDG has been falsified, whether based on the arguments presented here, or on any of a multitude of other falsification demonstrations, then the next step is the search for an alternative model or theory. As suggested by the demonstrations presented here, such a model must incorporate a wide range of non-Darwinian phenomena life ‘purposeful genetic processes’ and ‘selection other than Darwin’s Natural Selection’. It should be obvious, the alternative model will not and can not be a simple modification of the NDG or Darwinian models.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 19. June 2002 13:22
Interesting posting but there seem to be some assumptions and premises that I believe need some additional work.
For instance
quote:
I propose for discussion two arguments which falsify two of the essential features of Neo-Darwinian genetics and RM&NS models and theories. The first demonstration will show that Darwinian Natural Selection can not possibly be the only type of selection operating on genes. The second argument will demonstrate that, contrary to NDG, genetic mechanisms are purposeful. Both arguments are based on research and information that is well known and widely accepted.
NDG does not claim that genetic mechanisms cannot be purposeful, in fact gene repair seems to be an excellent adaptation that will affect the likelihood of survival. Perhaps Warren could point us to the relevant literature that shows that NDG claims that genetic mechanisms cannot be purposeful. Secondly the claim that 'natural selection can not possibly be the only type of selection operating on genes' hardly falsifies natural selection, it merely proposes that there are additional selection mechanisms. I would be interested to hear from Warren what these mechanisms may be?
Warren would be correct if it could be shown that new mutations or adaptations arise 'purposeful' that is mutations are directed (by the organism or externally) to produce only adaptive solutions. There have been some instances (Cairns) in which directed or adaptive mutations were suggested, but more careful research has shown that what happened was that the organism under stress reached a state of hypermutations, generating lots of mutations (beneficial, neutral and detrimental) in various areas of the genome. What was shown is that mutations remained random to their selective value but that they were not random wrt to their location in the genome.
quote:
To begin, it should be noted that it is not particularly difficult from a technical perspective to identify and/or develop arguments which demonstrate the inadequacy, incompleteness, or inconsistency of NDG as an explanation of genetic change.
I encourage Warren to pursue such a path but I do not believe that his present arguments do much to show inadequacy or inconsistency. Of course incompleteness has been known for quite some while, in fact if one allows only natural selection as a mechanism (RM&NS), in fact NDG includes additional mechanism such as neutral drift.
quote:
Dembski has provided an argument which has not been refuted.
I would argue that Dembski's arguments may not have been fully refuted but there have been various people who have identified many problems with the scenarios. Before basing one's hopes on Dembski's thesis, I believe that it is important to realize that the NFL theorems may likely not even applicable to evolution as shown by recent work by Toussaint.
Undeniably, Dembski has spent much effort formalizing his ideas about intelligent design but I would not argue (yet?) that his ideas have shown the inadequacy of NDG. In fact despite some initial attemtps at calculations of probabilities (the chance calculations of the flagellum for instance) few of the calculations address the probabilities of the various hypotheses (chance or regularity) relevant to natural selection. Not surprisingly because such calculations would require an understanding of the causal history of the flagellum.
quote:
The well known Punctuated Equilibrium developed by Eldridge and Gould is an argument for the inadequacy of NDG.
Is it? What mechanism do they support? In fact they do not provide for any particular genetic mechanism, so what do they do?
Let me give some references that suggest otherwise
quote:
This last point is critical - P.E. in no way denies the importance of natural selection. The mechanism of speciation proposed in P.E. is the peripatric speciation process described by Ernst Mayr, one of the founders of the Modern Synthesis (aka Neodarwinism). The idea here is that the reorganization of the genome in a way that produces reproductive isolation is most likely to occur in small, isolated population near the periphery of the range of the parent species. Since genetic drift and selection can both act rapidly and efficiently in a small population, this process probably occurs in a geologically short period of time.
Or check out the talkorigins website. PE is not a replacement of NDG but tries to explain the existance of fast changes in the fossil record. That is it proposed an alternative to phyletic gradualism by expanding it.
Perhaps Warren can quote from the work of the authors of PE to show that PE was proposed as an inadequacy of NDG? Certainly PE is an expansive theory that took the idea of gradualism and expanded upon it. At most PE could be argued as an example of incompleteness of NDG but that depends on how one defines NDG.
quote:
The difficulty is not in demonstrating the inadequacy of NDG, but in getting these demonstrations recognized as falsification.
On the contrary, I would say that the major problem still remains demonstrating inadequacy of NDG. Once such a demonstration is made, the recognition will easily follow. I will address more of Warren's posting later but I argue that Warren's premises about what NDG does and does not do are incomplete or need additional work. Before one sets out to falsify it is important to first determine what needs to be falsified.
It would be helpful to define NDG, preferably with references to the literature to avoid incomplete premises or assumptions.
I appreciate Warren's initial attempt at falsifying NDG and I hope that my contributions will help in solidifying such an approach.
The discussion also seems to have reached ARN
Charlie comments may be quite helpful here so I will quote them:
quote:
Considering that gene regulation is accomplished through proteins (such as transcription factors) binding to specific DNA sequences in regulatory elements of their target genes, gene expression regulation is in fact very much subject to darwinian evolutionary mechanisms, both by mutation of transcription factor genes, and of regulatory elements, followed by selection.
[ 19 June 2002, 15:19: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 19. June 2002 15:32
Frances,
Thank you for your detailed review of my proposal. To address the issues you raise:
QUOTE: NDG does not claim that genetic mechanisms cannot be purposeful,… Secondly the claim that 'natural selection can not possibly be the only type of selection operating on genes' hardly falsifies natural selection, it merely proposes that there are additional selection mechanisms.
I think a number of individuals would be surprised at your claim that characterizes genetic mechanisms as purposeful or teleological is part of NDG or that NDG suggests that genetic change involves many different processes and mechanisms including but not limited to natural selection and mutation. But to answer your question.
In my view, and the basis on which this proposal is presented, a ‘scientific theory is a precisely and explicitly formulated, testable expression of causal relationship’. I claimed, and continue to claim, that such an explicit formulation would include the ‘purposelessness’ and ‘selection only by natural selection’. I will gladly entertain any explicit formulation of NDG which may include different assertions, but I will not address general, unsubstantiated claims about what may or may not be included in NDG.
As stated in my original post, the challenge in falsifying NDG is not the evidence, but finding the explicitly, formulated scientific theory to falsify. The purpose of the proposal here is to falsify the NDG ‘scientific theory’. Someone could make the argument that no such theory exists, and therefore there is nothing to falsify.
QUOTE: Warren would be correct if it could be shown that new mutations or adaptations arise 'purposeful' that is mutations are directed (by the organism or externally) to produce only adaptive solutions.
The statement is not relevant since that is not the demonstration I am presenting.
QUOTE: I would argue that Dembski's arguments may not have been fully refuted but there have been various people who have identified many problems with the scenarios.
I presented Dembski and Gould simply to note that I don’t claim to be the only one to have discovered inadequacies in NDG. Those comments are not directly relevant to the falsification arguments presented.
QUOTE: It would be helpful to define NDG, preferably with references to the literature to avoid incomplete premises or assumptions. I appreciate Warren's initial attempt at falsifying NDG and I hope that my contributions will help in solidifying such an approach.
I agree that it would indeed be helpful if NDG or RM&NS were actually defined as a scientific theory. As far as I have been able to determine, no such theory has actually been formulated since the early simplistic forms which I have used in the above falsification demonstrations. If the current forms of NDG and RM&NS are a scientific reality rather than a myth, someone should be able to produce them. My responsibility in demonstrating falsification does not include "formulating the modern version of NDG"
Again I thank you for your comments, although I can’t see that you have countered, or even addressed any of the substantive features of the arguments presented.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 19. June 2002 16:17
quote:
Warren: Thank you for your detailed review of my proposal. To address the issues you raise:
QUOTE: NDG does not claim that genetic mechanisms cannot be purposeful,… Secondly the claim that 'natural selection can not possibly be the only type of selection operating on genes' hardly falsifies natural selection, it merely proposes that there are additional selection mechanisms.
Warren: I think a number of individuals would be surprised at your claim that characterizes genetic mechanisms as purposeful or teleological is part of NDG or that NDG suggests that genetic change involves many different processes and mechanisms including but not limited to natural selection and mutation. But to answer your question.
Let me address both issues here 1) Genetic mechanisms are purposeful: you were refering here to genetic repair mechanisms which 'purpose' is to improve the fitness of the organism, why would NDG preclude such mechanisms from arising. That's like saying that NDG cannot explain 'deep freeze' proteins from arising since their purpose is to prevent the blood from freezing. 2) NDG includes many different processes not limited to natural selection and mutation.
Let me quote form Talkorigins
quote:
After Darwin, some biologists distorted the theory of natural selection into the doctrine of "strict adaptionism", in which every feature of every organism was held to be produced by natural selection (and thus some explanation of why the feature is adaptive was required.) But Darwin didn't say that all selection is natural (adaptive) selection -- only that natural selection is the source of some change, and can explain why adaptive change occurs. Modern biologists have proposed other mechanisms for change -- neutral selection, genetic drift, the "founder effect", etc. -- and Darwin himself thought that sexual selection could be important. None of these contradict the idea of natural selection; as additional mechanisms for genetic change over time, they augment it.
quote:
In my view, and the basis on which this proposal is presented, a ‘scientific theory is a precisely and explicitly formulated, testable expression of causal relationship’. I claimed, and continue to claim, that such an explicit formulation would include the ‘purposelessness’ and ‘selection only by natural selection’.
But in this case the 'purposefulnes' of the resulting genetic system is unrelated to the idea of natural selection/mutation being purposeful. Perhaps the only 'purpose' that one could assign to RM&NS is optimizing fitness. But RM&NS are not purposeful in the creation of new ways to achieve this which does not preclude resulting systems from having an 'apparant' purpose. If your argument is that RM&NS cannot result in systems which are beneficial for survival then we have a problem here.
quote:
I will gladly entertain any explicit formulation of NDG which may include different assertions, but I will not address general, unsubstantiated claims about what may or may not be included in NDG.
And yet you seem to do exactly that, you are presuming what NDG includes and not. I am pointing out to you that your premise is faulty
quote:
As stated in my original post, the challenge in falsifying NDG is not the evidence, but finding the explicitly, formulated scientific theory to falsify.
Perhaps it would be helpful for you to formulate the explicit hypothesis of NDG that you are trying to falsify and provide for references to papers to support the validity of the hypothesis.
quote:
Warren: The purpose of the proposal here is to falsify the NDG ‘scientific theory’. Someone could make the argument that no such theory exists, and therefore there is nothing to falsify.
Or someone could make the argument that your interpretation of NDG may be incomplete or faulty? I am proposing the latter.
quote:
QUOTE: Warren would be correct if it could be shown that new mutations or adaptations arise 'purposeful' that is mutations are directed (by the organism or externally) to produce only adaptive solutions.
Warren: The statement is not relevant since that is not the demonstration I am presenting.
I know but I am providing you with a way that would put some problems on NDG namely showing that mutations are purposeful.
quote:
QUOTE: I would argue that Dembski's arguments may not have been fully refuted but there have been various people who have identified many problems with the scenarios.
Warren: I presented Dembski and Gould simply to note that I don’t claim to be the only one to have discovered inadequacies in NDG. Those comments are not directly relevant to the falsification arguments presented.
And I am pointing out that 1) Gould's PE is not meant to falsify NDG but to supplement it with an additional component 2) Dembski's arguments are still being discussed and given the recent knowledge on NFL theorems and rebuttals should not be seen as 'having discovered inadequacies in NDG'.
quote:
QUOTE: It would be helpful to define NDG, preferably with references to the literature to avoid incomplete premises or assumptions. I appreciate Warren's initial attempt at falsifying NDG and I hope that my contributions will help in solidifying such an approach.
Warren: I agree that it would indeed be helpful if NDG or RM&NS were actually defined as a scientific theory. As far as I have been able to determine, no such theory has actually been formulated since the early simplistic forms which I have used in the above falsification demonstrations.
I would agree that these forms are simplistic in fact they are too simplistic since they do not capture the NDG theory. Certainly if you are interested in theories of natural selection I would refer you to the excellent work of John A. Endler "Natural selection in the Wild"
quote:
Warren: If the current forms of NDG and RM&NS are a
scientific reality rather than a myth, someone should be able to produce them.
I am arguing that NDG and RM&NS have been formulated but that is irrelevant to the fact that your formulation appears to be incomplete or lacking.
quote:
Warren: My responsibility in demonstrating falsification does not include "formulating the modern version of NDG"
How can you falsify something if you do not formulate it? What are you then falsifying? There is a risk that you are working on a strawman fallacy.
quote:
Warren: Again I thank you for your comments, although I can’t see that you have countered, or even addressed any of the substantive features of the arguments presented
I have done my best to show that if you want to falsify NDG then you first need to present the hypothesis and show that the hypothesis is accurate and not a 'simplistic form'. Otherwise there is the risk and in this case I believe more than a risk, that you are creating and defeating a strawman. You may very well argue that you believe that no scientific hypothesis of NDG exists but then your attempt at falsification seems meaningless since there is no way to falsify something which does not exist
Let me see if I can help with formulation of the NDG hypothesis I will point towards a paper which I believe can be quite helpful
A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution by Barbara E. Wright
quote:
By the neo-Darwinian definition, a mutation is random if it is unrelated to the metabolic function of the gene and if it occurs at a rate that is undirected by specific selective conditions of the environment.
For an algorithm of evolution check out Figure 3.
quote:
In contrast, hypermutation that is the consequence of starvation-induced derepression and transcriptional activation represents a very rapid and specific response to each adverse circumstance. The extent to which normal background mutations in nature are due to derepression mechanisms is difficult to estimate, but the location of most C-to-T transitions on the nontranscribed strand suggest that it may be significant. Regardless, a mechanism that limits an increase in mutation rates to genes that must mutate in order to overcome prevailing conditions of stress would surely be beneficial and therefore selected during evolution.
Let me add another paper here Amplification-mutagenesis: Evidence that "directed" adaptive mutation and general hypermutability result from growth with a selected gene amplification
quote:
When a particular lac mutant of Escherichia coli starves in the presence of lactose, nongrowing cells appear to direct mutations preferentially to sites that allow growth (adaptive mutation). This observation suggested that growth limitation stimulates mutability. Evidence is provided here that this behavior is actually caused by a standard Darwinian process in which natural selection acts in three sequential steps. First, growth limitation favors growth of a subpopulation with an amplification of the mutant lac gene; next, it favors cells with a lac+ revertant allele within the amplified array. Finally, it favors loss of mutant copies until a stable haploid lac+ revertant arises and overgrows the colony. By increasing the lac copy number, selection enhances the likelihood of reversion within each developing clone. This sequence of events appears to direct mutations to useful sites. General mutagenesis is a side-effect of growth with an amplification (SOS induction). The F' plasmid, which carries lac, contributes by stimulating gene duplication and amplification. Selective stress has no direct effect on mutation rate or target specificity, but acts to favor a succession of cell types with progressively improved growth on lactose. The sequence of events---amplification, mutation, segregation---may help to explain both the origins of some cancers and the evolution of new genes under selection.
[ 19 June 2002, 17:02: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 20. June 2002 06:50
Frances,
To clarify a couple of points. The purpose of my proposal was to demonstrate falsification the scientific theory referred to as RM&NS which is, or at least was, the basis for NDG. We are attempting to discuss science and real, testable, scientific theories. The basic RM&NS, for whatever faults it has, is, or can be formulated as a real, testable, scientific theory of genetic change.
A great deal of additional knowledge of genetics has been accumulated since RM&NS was formulated, but no one to my knowledge has ever formulated a viable alternative to RM&NS. If you, or anyone else can produce, an explicitly formulated scientific theory of genetic change to replace RM&NS then we can discuss it. Science, real science, does not deal in implicit or imaginary theories.
It can be argued that you can not falsify NDG because there is no viable scientific NDG theory of genetics. The evidence is consistent with either the ‘NDG theory has been falsified’ or ‘there is no viable NDG scientific theory’.
TELEOLOGICAL THEORIES
The developers of NDG were rather specific in their opposition to teleological theories so, IMO, recognizing ‘purpose’ in describing NDG represents a significant departure from the original theory. It can be argued that both evolution and genetic change (they are not necessarily the same thing) are teleological or purposeful processes and should be expressed as teleological theories. In one form or another, this is the basic position of most supporters of ID.
If you accept that genetic change should be viewed as teleological then you have to address (at least ) three basic issues-1)how do you formulate a scientific theory of a teleological causal relationship?- 2)what is the goal or purpose to be used in formulating a teleological theory of genetic change? and -3)what are the processes or mechanisms responsible for making genetic change teleological? The two falsifications of RM&NS I proposed are based in part on the answers to questions 2) and 3) . The goal of genetic change is ‘maintaining equilibrium’ not ‘optimizing fittest’ (the goal which might be attributed to RM&NS (In Darwinian terms, the goal of evolution is survival, a form of equilibrium, not survival of the fittest, a form of optimization). The second falsification was based on demonstrating the mechanisms of teleological genetic change are more extensive than mutation and natural selection.
QUOTE WB: I will gladly entertain any explicit formulation of NDG which may include different assertions, but I will not address general, unsubstantiated claims about what may or may not be included in NDG.
QUOTE: And yet you seem to do exactly that, you are presuming what NDG includes and not. I am pointing out to you that your premise is faulty
To clarify my earlier position. I will accept either ‘there is no viable NDG RM&NS theory’ or ‘any explicitly formulated, testable form of RM&NS’. You can view my interpretations of RM&NS as either 1)reasonable interpretations based on the literature or 2)a starting point for discussion. If concede I may be falsifying a non-existent scientific theory. My conclusion, however, remains valid unless someone can demonstrate the existence of the scientific theory I should be falsifying. As I noted in my original post, falsifying RM&NS is more about applying appropriate scientific standards, then about the technical aspects of falsification.
You list a number of references which suggest would help me formulate an NDG theory. If these references would be useful in formulating a theory, why wouldn’t someone who actually believes an NDG theory is possible have used the sources and constructed a theory? If the people working in the field have been unable to formulate a testable scientific NDG theory why would you think I would want to?
QUOTE: I have done my best to show that if you want to falsify NDG then you first need to present the hypothesis and show that the hypothesis is accurate and not a 'simplistic form'. Otherwise there is the risk and in this case I believe more than a risk, that you are creating and defeating a strawman. You may very well argue that you believe that no scientific hypothesis of NDG exists but then your attempt at falsification seems meaningless since there is no way to falsify something which does not exist
To paraphrase your argument is 1)we won’t allow you to falsify our theory unless you play by our rules, and 2)if you play by our rules we won’t allow you to falsify our theory. A reasonable argument can be made that these are in fact the peer review standards used by some individuals within the profession of biological evolution. As should be obvious, such standards are not the same as scientific standards, and in fact are not even minimally acceptable as scientific standards. A profession allowing such blatant bias should not and would not qualify as a real science.
Falsification of RM&NS inevitably raises two critical issues:
1. Is there a valid scientific theory of genetic change? and
2. Are the professional standards used to test and valid such theories consistent with and/or compatible with scientific standards?
At least initially, the answer to both questions appears to be no.
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 20. June 2002 10:25
Frances:
Many thanks for the link to the great paper by Wright. I found it fascinating and very instructive.
I do not really have the level of expertise to discuss its contents in detail, but there is a particular issue raised by her article that I am very interested in, and which I wonder if you (or others) would be willing to weigh in on, for my benefit.
What I would really like is to listen in on a discussion between those who believe that the new "metabolic" view of genetic mutations can be simply incorporated into the standard neo-Darwinian framework (which I gather is Wright's position) and those who believe that it seriously undermines that framework (which, if I understand them correctly, is the view of James Shapiro, Lynn Caporale, Nina Fedoroff, Werner Arber, Richard von Sternberg, Evelyn Fox Keller, and others).
Let me elaborate a little bit on what I have in mind.
Now, obviously, it is extremely important to know all of the mechanistic details that Wright discusses, and the more knowledge we have of this sort, the better. But at the end of the day, I still wonder how this helps to solve the fundamental mystery of the purposive or teleological organization of the cell. The basic mechanism she discusses for explaining the increase in mutation rates is "starvation-driven derepression and transcription." Again, I don't want to slight the importance of this mechanism, but after all is said and done, it is just one more teleological function. I mean by that that it is really no different in status from any other purposive mechanism in the cell (and they are ALL purposive, although some may be more efficient than others).
Knowing how mutation rates are increased as needed is certainly very interesting, but it still presupposes the fundamental fact that the cell is somehow responding as a whole in an intelligent fashion to its own needs. What we must explain is how a mere material system can have NEEDS in the first place!
Just one example of how I see this buried problem subtly shaping her discussion. In Figure 3, which you draw to Warren's attention, Wright depicts an "algorithm for evolution" leading from environmental stress via a series of steps to hypermutation, increased availability of variants most likely to survive the stress, and the final step, "selects the fittest."
Now, from my point of view, it is misleading to invoke the concept of "alrgorithm" because an "algorithm" must be instantiated in hardware, and so we are begging the very question at issue: how a physical system can have needs and be intelligent. Our computers don't have needs of their own, they serve OUR needs. So who or what is determining what the cellular "computer's" needs are? (See, also, the thread discussing Jaron Lanier's article on this point.)
But leaving aside the terminology of "algorithms," the implication is that this diagram is some sort of justification for the neo-Darwinian view, suitably expanded to include these new details. But from my point of view, the diagram does no such thing. Rather, the overall process as a whole is what leads to differential reproduction. So, the process as a whole explains "natural selection," not the other way around. Neo-Darwinism has the causal direction, and hence the explanatory logic, exactly backwards.
So, keeping in mind that the issue is not whether natural causal links exist, but how they are to be understood within a larger explanatory framework, could you please comment on how you view the fact that mutation rates in the genome are under the metabolic control of the cell as impacting on neo-Darwinian theory (if you think it does)?
Thanks very much.
(P.S. I can't resist noting in passing, a propos of a certain other thread that shall remain nameless, that Wright herself says: "It is noteworthy that the experiments described above . . . are all examples of specifically directed mutations. However, none of the researchers come to that conclusion or challenge the assumptions and implications inherent in the experiments of Luria and Delbruck which reinforce neo-Darwinism. This situation may be due to the dominance of current dogma . . ." (p. 2996) )
[ 20 June 2002, 10:47: Message edited by: James A. Barham ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 20. June 2002 13:12
I will be answering more of the issues raised by Warren later but I would like to point out that the threat started as 'two elegant falsifications of RM&NS'. Now Warren argues:
quote:
Falsification of RM&NS inevitably raises two critical issues:
1. Is there a valid scientific theory of genetic change? and
2. Are the professional standards used to test and valid such theories consistent with and/or compatible with scientific standards?
At least initially, the answer to both questions appears to be no.
So my immediate question would be is how one intends to falsify a theory if one is under the initial impression that there is no valid scientific theory? As far as 2) is concerned, I would argue that if Warren is under the impression that 1) is correct, then 2) has no relevance.
Warren also states
quote:
You list a number of references which suggest would help me formulate an NDG theory. If these references would be useful in formulating a theory, why wouldn’t someone who actually believes an NDG theory is possible have used the sources and constructed a theory? If the people working in the field have been unable to formulate a testable scientific NDG theory why would you think I would want to?
I would argue that Warren's conclusion that people working in the field have been able to formulate a testable NDG theory would require some supporting evidence since I have pointed to some papers that imho would suggest otherwise. As to the question why Warren would want to, I would argue that in order to falsify NDG as Warren claims he has provide two elegant examples of, it is inevitably a requirement that one has a theory of NDG and that this theory of NDG reflects the current knowledge and thinking. Otherwise one runs the risk of disproving a theory which has little relationship to the actual NDG.
If Warren's claim is that no valid scientific theory of NDG exists then the issue of falsification seems to be very moot. So then my question would be, what's the relevance of the original posting.
I would say that the original posting did start of with formulating NDG, I pointed out that it seemed incomplete, perhaps the best thing to do is to expand on Warren's posting and see if we can define a viable theory of NDG based on the work and publications that are available to us?
James wrote in a separate posting
quote:
Knowing how mutation rates are increased as needed is certainly very interesting, but it still presupposes the fundamental fact that the cell is somehow responding as a whole in an intelligent fashion to its own needs. What we must explain is how a mere material system can have NEEDS in the first place!
I think we need to be careful to assign 'human' characteristics or intelligence to this response. What if the response is merely resulting from the organism under stress 'shutting down'. Does water have the 'need' to freeze when it reaches its freezing point?
quote:
Now, from my point of view, it is misleading to invoke the concept of "alrgorithm" because an "algorithm" must be instantiated in hardware, and so we are begging the very question at issue: how a physical system can have needs and be intelligent.
First of all an algorithm merely describes a process, for instance the Fibonacci series is an algorithm and yet it is found in nature all around us. Does this mean that this the algorithm is instantiated in 'hardware'. Unless of course hardware is meant to include far more than just computers and electronics etc.
How can a system have needs depends on how one defines needs and even intelligence. A flashlight 'needs' a battery.
Actually perhaps more relevant, it seems that prime numbers may have natural origins as well
Goles, E., Schulz, A.B. & M., A.B.Prime number selection of cycles in a predator-prey model. Complexity, 6, 33 - 38, (2001).
Would the detection of prime numbers in nature suggest intelligent design?
quote:
Our computers don't have needs of their own, they serve OUR needs. So who or what is determining what the cellular "computer's" needs are? (See, also, the thread discussing Jaron Lanier's article on this point.)
Surely computers have 'needs' of their owns. The software should not generate unrecoverable errors, if the disk space for the swap disk runs out and the operating system starts to shut down processes, is this a need? When the phone rings, is there a need by the computer to 'answer the phone'?
quote:
But leaving aside the terminology of "algorithms," the implication is that this diagram is some sort of justification for the neo-Darwinian view, suitably expanded to include these new details. But from my point of view, the diagram does no such thing. Rather, the overall process as a whole is what leads to differential reproduction. So, the process as a whole explains "natural selection," not the other way around. Neo-Darwinism has the causal direction, and hence the explanatory logic, exactly backwards.
So, keeping in mind that the issue is not whether natural causal links exist, but how they are to be understood within a larger explanatory framework, could you please comment on how you view the fact that mutation rates in the genome are under the metabolic control of the cell as impacting on neo-Darwinian theory (if you think it does)?
My quick response would be that it is not surprising to find that the ability to control mutation rates in the genome may have co-evolved since it may increase the survival rates. Evolving evolvability I believe it's called.
Another paper from Nature
And many [url=Welcome to Tom Ray's Evolvability page ]more resources[/url]
An interesting paper that seems relevant here as well
quote:
The problem of complex adaptations is studied in two largely disconnected research traditions: evolutionary biology and evolutionary computer science. This paper summarizes the results from both areas and compares their implications. In evolutionary computer science it was found that the Darwinian process of mutation, recombination and selection is not universally effective in improving complex systems like computer programs or chip designs. For adaptation to occur, these systems must possess "evolvability", i.e. the ability of random variations to sometimes produce improvement. It was found that evolvability critically depends on the way genetic variation maps onto phenotypic variation, an issue known as the representation problem. The genotype-phenotype map determines the variability of characters, which is the propensity to vary. Variability needs to be distinguished from variation, which are the actually realized differences between individuals. The genotype-phenotype map is the common theme underlying such varied biological phenomena as genetic canalization, developmental constraints, biological versatility, developmental dissociability, morphological integration, and many more. For evolutionary biology the representation problem has important implications: how is it that extant species acquired a genotype-phenotype map which allows improvement by mutation and selection? Is the genotype-phenotype map able to change in evolution? What are the selective forces, if any, that shape the genotype-phenotype map? We propose that the genotype-phenotype map can evolve by two main routes: epistatic mutations, or the creation of new genes. A common result for organismic design is modularity. By modularity we mean a genotype-phenotype map in which there are few pleiotropic effects among characters serving different functions, with pleiotropic effects falling mainly among characters that are part of a single functional complex. Such a design is expected to improve evolvability by limiting the interference between the adaptation of different functions. Several population genetic models are reviewed that are intended to explain the evolutionary origin of a modular design. While our current knowledge is insufficient to assess the plausibility of these models, they form the beginning of a framework for understanding the evolution of the genotype-phenotype map.
And in my searches this one may seem relevant to ID
Reverse Engineering of Biological Complexity
Marie E. Csete and John C. Doyle
The discuss the simple feedback loop.
Can Organisms Speed Their Own Evolution? by Marina Chicurel
And finally Evolvability
Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart]
[ 20 June 2002, 21:33: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 20. June 2002 15:37
Frances,
Under ideal or what I might hope were normal conditions, falsification of an existing theory is a rather simple process. An existing theory generates a prediction, and observed results are inconsistent with the theory. The interesting and resource consuming part of the process is analyzing the new theory being presented to replace the falsified theory. With respect to Darwinian and NDG theories the process is far from ideal or normal.
The basic source of the problem, is the differences between the ‘soft’ life sciences and the ‘hard’ physical sciences. Science has had great success in formulating ‘hard’, predictive, mathematical theories in the physical sciences. Science has had far less, arguably no success, at formulating such theories in the life sciences. The question of why these differences arise and what to do about them has been debated, and not resolved, for centuries.
When Darwin developed the theory of evolution, it was beyond a doubt a major scientific discovery. But for all its importance, it didn’t measure up to the mathematical, predictive hard science standards. NDG was an attempt to make evolutionary theory into a hard science theory. Despite a number of problems, the original RM&NS theory probably did qualify as a testable, hard science theory.
Over time, additional knowledge was acquired that was not strictly consistent with the original theory. It was clear the new information was inconsistent with the original hard science theory, but no one was able to propose a method of modifying the hard science model to fit the accumulating facts. Based, apparently, on the principle that one theory is not rejected until a replacement has been offered, RM&NS was allowed to be treated as a valid theory despite the existence of a fairly extensive body of falsifying information. Eventually, apparently, it became accepted the RM&NS plus all the information inconsistent with RM&NS constituted a valid theory.
Based on work in an other area, I developed a model/theory which appeared to offer a more complete explanation of evolutionary change. The initial reactions to my proposal were of the general form ‘we don’t need or want a new model because we already have a complete scientific theory of evolution which explains all the facts’. When I attempted to demonstrate that the existing models didn’t work I got the ever popular ‘you don’t understand how evolutionary biology works". (My response was I understand how it works, I just don’t understand why it works that way.)
In preparing the falsification arguments presented here, I went back to the only explicit hard science form of RM&NS that, to my knowledge, exists or has ever existed. As I stated, I am well aware this theory was in effect falsified a long, long time ago. I am also aware that there probably is currently no valid hard science replacement for the original
RM&NS theory. Falsifying the original RM&NS, and thus essentially the non-existent set of replacement theories, effectively falsifies all explicitly stated hard science theories of genetic and evolutionary change.
This is, I’ll admit, a somewhat round about way to accomplish what should be obvious and trivial, but it is the only strategy I have been able to develop. The observation that peer review standards in evolutionary biology seem to have departed dramatically from scientific standards, is a natural byproduct of complex approach to a simple end.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 20. June 2002 18:08
quote:
wARREN:Under ideal or what I might hope were normal conditions, falsification of an existing theory is a rather simple process. An existing theory generates a prediction, and observed results are inconsistent with the theory.
I would argue that the falsification of a theory is hardly that simplistic. In fact there are a variety of possible outcomes, 1) the observation can be shown to be erroneous 2) the observation can be absorbed into the theory. Your view of falsification is also known as the 'naive falsification', the idea that a single contrary result is enough to undermine a theory. Especially when a large body of supporting evidence already exists.
quote:
Warren:
The interesting and resource consuming part of the process is analyzing the new theory being presented to replace the falsified theory. With respect to Darwinian and NDG theories the process is far from ideal or normal.
An interesting thesis worth pursuing. Perhaps you could expand on this idea and provide some supporting evidence?
quote:
The basic source of the problem, is the differences between the ‘soft’ life sciences and the ‘hard’ physical sciences. Science has had great success in formulating ‘hard’, predictive, mathematical theories in the physical sciences. Science has had far less, arguably no success, at formulating such theories in the life sciences.
Natural selection seems to have been a good one but yes, the 'laws of life sciences' tend to be a bit harder to study due to the many interactions. But I do not believe that your claim is compeltely accurate. But then the question of course remains, are 'hard mathematical theories' the only valid form?
quote:
Warren: The question of why these differences arise and what to do about them has been debated, and not resolved, for centuries.
Could you provide me with some references to these debates, I would be interested in learning more about this.
quote:
When Darwin developed the theory of evolution, it was beyond a doubt a major scientific discovery. But for all its importance, it didn’t measure up to the mathematical, predictive hard science standards.
Does this make the theory more or less 'scientific'?
quote:
NDG was an attempt to make evolutionary theory into a hard science theory.
I would say that NDG combined Darwinian theory with the expanding knowledge of genetic inheritance. As such it did provide for interesting models of selection for instance.
quote:
Despite a number of problems, the original RM&NS theory probably did qualify as a testable, hard science theory.
Over time, additional knowledge was acquired that was not strictly consistent with the original theory. It was clear the new information was inconsistent with the original hard science theory, but no one was able to propose a method of modifying the hard science model to fit the accumulating facts.
I am not sure that this is correct, NDG has been expanded to include many new knowledge, such as for instance the extending theory of PE.
quote:
Based, apparently, on the principle that one theory is not rejected until a replacement has been offered, RM&NS was allowed to be treated as a valid theory despite the existence of a fairly extensive body of falsifying information.
I believe that you are using the naive falsification idea here. Indeed, for instance PE deals with the observation that not all processes are gradual or at least that not all fossil records are gradual. But PE was not a falsifying theory but an expanding theory since evidence of gradual evolution was also found. It seemed that different mechanisms could account for the various observations but there was no need to reject Darwinian theory.
quote:
Eventually, apparently, it became accepted the RM&NS plus all the information inconsistent with RM&NS constituted a valid theory.
Perhaps a better term would be all the information expanding on RM&NS. It's common in science to expand the theory when new data are found. You say that these data are inconsistent, I would like to see an example of inconsistent data. Perhaps this will allows us to discuss the validity of your claim.
quote:
Based on work in an other area, I developed a model/theory which appeared to offer a more complete explanation of evolutionary change.
That's an interesting claim. Could you provide us with a comparison?
quote:
In preparing the falsification arguments presented here, I went back to the only explicit hard science form of RM&NS that, to my knowledge, exists or has ever existed.
Could you present us with this one since that would at least deal with the claim of the existance of a formulated theory for NDG?
quote:
As I stated, I am well aware this theory was in effect falsified a long, long time ago.
A fascinating claim, I would really like to see this formulation and the falsification thereof.
quote:
I am also aware that there probably is currently no valid hard science replacement for the original
RM&NS theory. Falsifying the original RM&NS, and thus essentially the non-existent set of replacement theories, effectively falsifies all explicitly stated hard science theories of genetic and evolutionary change.
I would say that your premise may need to be shown to be supported by the evidence. So far I am not convinced thus my request for the details.
quote:
This is, I’ll admit, a somewhat round about way to accomplish what should be obvious and trivial, but it is the only strategy I have been able to develop. The observation that peer review standards in evolutionary biology seem to have departed dramatically from scientific standards, is a natural byproduct of complex approach to a simple end.
Could you support this observation? I see a lot of claims but I am not convinced of their validity. Remember that any conclusions are only as valid as their premises.
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 21. June 2002 13:47
Frances,
This is a kind warning. Please do not make "quote for quote" responses. From now on, I will have to delete your posts when you do so.
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 21. June 2002 14:36
Warren writes, "Based on work in an other area, I developed a model/theory which appeared to offer a more complete explanation of evolutionary change."
Warren, is this model/theory available on the internet or published form?
Your statements about both the "falsifiability" of RM&NS and your claim to have a better alternative theory are both quite vague and lacking in detail.
So where could an interested party see the details (including the mildly complicated math of which you have spoken) of your model/theory?
Thanks.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 21. June 2002 15:34
Frances,
To answer your questions, it may be useful to back up and take a more technical approach to falsifying the NDG RM&NS theory. I will start with your question regarding hard mathematical scientific theories.
QUOTE: Natural selection seems to have been a good one but yes, the 'laws of life sciences' tend to be a bit harder to study due to the many interactions. But I do not believe that your claim is compeltely accurate. But then the question of course remains, are 'hard mathematical theories' the only valid form?
It is generally agreed(I believe) that hard mathematical theories are preferable. Such theories provide 1)precise definitions of term and values, 2)permit one-test falsification, 3)produce highly reliable predictions, and 4)can be combined with other related and logically consistent theories to solve very complex practical problems (engineering applications). IMO, human scientific behavior developed or evolved as a technique to produce highly reliable predictions which could be used to solve complex problems like those involved with constructing Stonehege. A divergence from precise, mathematical theories subject to one test falsification, result in substantial reductions in the reliability and usefulness of predictions, and thus substantial reductions in the usefulness of scientific theories in solving problems.
While hard mathematical theories are preferable, there are areas(the life sciences) where no one has yet developed a reliable method of constructing mathematical theories. I have heard some people use the term ‘pre-science’ to refer to such areas. It can be argued that much of the debate in the philosophy of science involves rationalizing calling ‘pre-science’ real science.
My view on the subject is that "if" you can construct valid hard sciences theories, then all pre-science formulations must be rejected and replaced. Pre-science in effect becomes ‘pseudo science’ once it becomes feasible to construct hard science theories. I believe this view was at one time widely accepted. Apparently, in recent times, the importance of the ‘pre-science’/ hard science distinction has been de-emphasized.
My work has produced what I believe are solutions to some of the technical problems associated with constructing hard science theories in the life sciences. Rather than starting from scratch, I believe it will be easier to introduce these techniques by falsifying and replacing an existing attempt at a hard science theory. The theory to be falsified and replaced is the NDG RM&NS. RM&NS, was, or can be described as, a serious(although also, IMO, a seriously flawed) attempt to construction a hard science theory in the life sciences.
It is relatively easy to provide a general description of RM&NS as a mathematical theory, if you ignore the details. The details of the RM&NS mathematical model are not particularly important since they are being replaced. [Anyone who thinks they can actually make RM&NS work as a hard science theory are welcome to try.]
A hard science mathematical theory is a model or algorithm F such that for a starting point g0, F can predict an endpoint g1 by F(g0)=g1. The NDG provided what was believed to be a logically precise definition of g0 and g1 in terms of the ‘distribution of alleles in a population’. Two or possibly three processes mutation (M), natural selection (N), and drift or statistical fluctuations(D) operating on g0 would, the RM&NS model asserts produce g1. This can be denoted as:
(g1-g0)= M(g0)+N(g0)+D(g0)
It will be noted that NDG asserts that M,N, and D are too complex to actually allow predicting specific changes in g.
The genetic algorithm or GA computer program provid a practical method of actually expressing the RM&NS model. The GA model makes it possible to simulate genetic changes. In very general terms, a GA program might be described as:
GA program
1. g0
2. M(g0)=ga
3. N(ga)=gb
4. D(gb)= gc
…
n . g1
Falsification of RM&NS as hard science theory involves three key features. First, the NDG definition of a ‘genetic state’ and thus the NDG definition of genetic change is wrong. Second, the NDG list of required functions is incomplete. Finally, the NDG assertion that genetic change is too complex to be predictive is wrong. When the falsification and replacement process has been completed, there is nothing left of RM&NS other than the very general claim of ‘mechanistic processes producing genetic change’.
FALSIFICATION PART 1:THE DEFINITION OF GENOYTPE AND GENETIC CHANGE
NDG was based on the either 1)the assumption that genetic material only changed materially ‘once per lifetime’ or 2)the assumption that genetic change could be modeled and analyzed in terms of once per life time changes. We have available today clear evidence that neither of these assumptions is valid. I am proposing as alternative that a separate genotype be defined for each cell for each small unit of time. [See my post on defining genotypes for details]
FALSIFICATION 2: MECHANISMS OF GENETIC CHANGE-
NDG lists three types or classes of process or function required to produce genetic change- random mutation, natural selection, and drift. Even the most elementary GA simulation will involve operations, processes or functionality which do not fit nicely into the three defined categories. If you use the basic ‘solve for one adaptive solution’ GA model as the starting point, and make the simulation more complex, by making the environment dynamic for example, then you will have to add code or functionality.
A hard science theory can not be open ended with respect to variable and functionality. A theory can not for example say "F=m*a*(whatever is convenient at the moment)". Demonstrating that additional operations or functionality is needed to model or simulate genetic change constitutes falsification and replacement of a theory.
FALSIFICATION 3: PREDICTABILITY AND PURPOSEFULNESS
RM&NS, at least in its original form, asserted that while it was possible to identify the processes and mechanisms responsible for the changes from g0 to g1, it was not possible to predict what g1 would result from F applied to g0. More specifically, NDG asserted that the end result g1 could not be defined or described in terms of an identifiable goal or purpose.
NDG, it is claimed here, is falsified by demonstrating that genetic mechanism are purposeful. Changes are produced by genetic mechanisms which are can be predicted based on the purpose of goal of the system. The adaptive approach defines the goal or purpose of genetic change processes as "maintaining a form of equilibrium called survival".
This goal can be used to ‘predict that when genes have been moved away from an adaptive state, genetic change processes will return the genetic material to the adaptive state. The success of such predictions (There are obviously practical limitations to the ‘predictions’ which can be generated by a model or theory) falsifies NDG.
SUMMARY
My impression is that to most people, evolutionary theory means something like "RM&NS and the assorted knowledge of genetics acquired over the last 50 year". One of the points I am trying to make here is that a hard science theory of genetic change must be far more precise and testable than a vague collection of facts. I am trying to demonstrate that the ‘hard science formulation of NDG’ can be easily falsified and in fact has been falsified many times. The second point I am trying to make is that there has been no hard science replacement for the falsified RM&NS.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 21. June 2002 15:53
Evan,
My references to an alternative model or theory are obviously vague since I have not published or presented it. I will make it available for review and comment to anyone who contacts my off-line. The model is a ‘logic machine program’. The code itself is not terribly complex. However, the transition from ‘what is being modeled’ to the ‘mathematical model’ involves a number of unconventional concepts like teleological causation and dynamic/programmable causal relationships. It’s probably not beach reading.
If there are specific aspects of my comments on falsification which are unclear let me know and I will attempt to address your questions. It is often difficult to make ideas clear when they are being presented from an unconventional perspective.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 22. June 2002 14:29
I thank Warren for his extensive response. I will attempt to focus on the main issues before delving into the many details.
********************
1. I argue that Warren's portrayal of NDG and RM&NS are a strawman. For instance, without further supporting evidence and I would argue in spite of the evidence Warren claims that quote:
NDG was based on the either 1)the assumption that genetic material only changed materially ‘once per lifetime’ or 2)the assumption that genetic change could be modeled and analyzed in terms of once per life time changes.
I encourage Warren to support such assertions with references since I argue that these are simplifications of what NDG actually proposes. Actually I do not believe that NDG makes any statements about the frequency of occurrence of genetic changes during the lifetime of the organism.
Then Warren asserts, once again without much supporting evidence that
quote:
NDG lists three types or classes of process or function required to produce genetic change- random mutation, natural selection, and drift. Even the most elementary GA simulation will involve operations, processes or functionality which do not fit nicely into the three defined categories.
First of al I wonder why NDG is artificially limited to these three but more importantnly I wonder why GA's are mentioned as somehow showing NDG to be wrong? Warren has failed to show that GA's are meant to actually mimic NDG accurately. Furthermore without further explanation of what these functions are which do not support NDG, it is hard to discuss the merrit of this part of the argument. It would be helpful if Warren could expand on his ideas.
and finally Warren argues without much supporting evidence that quote:
More specifically, NDG asserted that the end result g1 could not be defined or described in terms of an identifiable goal or purpose.
NDG, it is claimed here, is falsified by demonstrating that genetic mechanism are purposeful.
NDG makes claims about mutations being random with respect to their value in the environment. NDG does not preclude the existence of mechanisms of gene rapair for instance.
2) Warren's argument is based on "naive falsification" that is the idea that one disagreeing datapoint is sufficient to reject a theory. In fact he seems to argue that even if the theory requires additions of mechanisms that this would disprove the theory. But as I have shown with PE, this theory was inclusive in that it extended Darwininian theory not replaced it.
In fact we have a good example of a falsified theory which still is being used, Newtonian mechanics. We know that Newtonian mechanics has been 'falsified' by relativity and yet we still use Newtonian mechanics. Why? Because it works... It is a valid and sufficient approximation of reality in the realm of day to day usage.
****
Summary: My argument is that Warren has presented a view of NDG which he has failed to support with scientific references. That is, Warren has created in my opinion a strawman representation of NDG. Furthermore my argument is that even if we were to accept his version of NDG, that for instance the finding additional mechanisms of genetic variations do not falsify NDG. Unless Warren can show that the findings are irreconcilable with NDG, I argue that no falsification can be claimed.
In conclusion I would invite Warren to provide scientific support for his claims of NDG before trying to falsify them. I think this is the only way one can attempt to falsify RM&NS let alone claim that one has falsified such.
[ 22 June 2002, 20:06: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 23. June 2002 10:38
Frances,
To briefly summarize, you are arguing that my falsification argument is not valid because 1)it does not falsify a valid form of NDG (the straw man argument) and 2)my arguments are not supported by references in the literature.
As I discussed at some length earlier, I do not deny that I may be falsifying a ‘straw man’ theory. Further, I do not apologize for such a strategy. The straw man theory is, I claim the only real NDG theory in existence. If there is a real, explicitly formulated NDG, you, or anyone else, are free to offer such a theory to counter my falsification. In the absence of someone presenting a explicitly stated, testable, alternative, the rules of science do not require more than falsifying the straw man theory. No where in the rules, principles, or concepts of science is there a requirement to falsify imaginary theories.
The argument that my proposed falsification is not valid because it is not supported by references to the literature is an interesting, if invalid claim. First, as I have stated elsewhere, it seems clear that ‘corrupted professional standards’ make it highly unlikely that the peer-reviewed literature will provide useful, unbiased information relating to the validity of NDG theory. Although the literature provides a wide range of very useful factual information, any information or interpretations relating to scientific theories or the validity of scientific theories must be, at the very least, be viewed with skepticism.
Ignoring for a moment the potential presence of bias in scientific literature, it is useful to consider the uses and abuses of literature in analysis and debate.
First, it is important to recognize the immense value of peer-reviewed literature. The literature provides a extensive description of the knowledge that exists in a field. By reviewing the literature, a researcher can save huge amounts of time and resources using the knowledge acquired by others. In debating an issue, the literature provides information on arguments and counter arguments considered in the past. Knowledge of the existing literature provides a significant advantage in debating any issue.
The scientific literature is not, or should not be, a substitute for thinking. Far too many people seem to think that ‘dueling with references’ is a substitute for analysis and debate. Three of the more common abuses of references that I encounter are:
1. ORIGINAL IDEAS- The fact that an idea has not been addressed in the literature does not mean the idea is invalid. Some people seem to argue that "You can present any original idea you want to, provided you can prove from the literature that at least three people had the idea before you"
2. INTERPRETATION- The existence of a piece of literature and its use or interpretation are two different things. Making reference do a piece of literature does not eliminate the need to interpret the application of that literature to the current discussion. A common example of ‘failure to interpret’ is the general assumption that anything contained in the literature supports NDG theory.
3. SOURCE OF TRUTH- The fact that a claim or assertion is mentioned or listed multiple times in the literature does not make it true. Science provides very specific and rigorous standards for determining the validity or truth of assertions. It is the rigorous applications of these standards, not popularity in the literature, which determines scientific truth.
You are proposing that my falsification argument would be more convincing if I provided more references supporting my position. I disagree. I claim that the logic of the argument presented is clear and the facts asserted are not in doubt. If my arguments are invalid, then it should be easy for anyone to provide evidence from the literature which directly contracts the falsification arguments.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic