|
Author
|
Topic: Speciation
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 29. April 2004 07:32
Function implies purpose, purpose demands design and design requires a designer, at least to this observer. I think one of the major problems is the insistence on using the present tense in attempting to understand the world around us. Everything we now observe was established millions of years ago. There is no reason to assume intervention by any exogenous agency to explain what now exists. It has become very clear to me that the environment has played at best a trivial role in evolutionary progress. It has been entirely emergent, driven by forces about which we know nothing except that Natural Selection could not possibly have been one of them. All that Natural Selection can do or ever has done is to permit that which has emerged to survive or not. It has never been a creative force for reasons that by now should be entirely self evident. If we start with the necessary assumption that Nature was created somehow, one is compelled to ask exactly when, in that creative sequence, did the creative reins become transferred from their original source to that which had by then been created. I hope I am not alone in seeing the utter fallacy of Natural Selection, that indisputable cornerstone of the Darwinian hypothesis.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 29. April 2004 07:41
Pim
A careful reading of Darwin's work reveals that he was more Lamarckian than Lamarck, just as his many disciples have proven to be far more Darwinian than Darwin. They even believe devoutly that the eye was produced through the selection of random mutations. Darwin would be appalled by such an assumption. As I recall, the eye made him "shudder".
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 29. April 2004 08:15
Rex is correct in pointing out that there is a distinction between a simplification and an inconsistency. However, conventional analytical standards require that the person using the approximation or simplification explicitly demonstrate that the approximation or simplification does not distort the analysis.
The evidence clearly shows that a genetic determinism assumption is at best an approximation. The evidence also clearly shows that developmental processes are in some sense predictable or deterministic. The combination of these two pieces of evidence means that under limited circumstances the genetic determinism assumption may be useful in modeling or simulating some types of evolutionary behavior. This is very different from the general unsupported claim that genetic determinism assumption is valid, appropriate or non-distorting for all analysis of evolutionary behavior.
As was discussed earlier, there is a viable alternative to the genetic determinism assumption. Evolution can be analyzed as ‘behavior controlled by purposeful intelligence’. This approach or paradigm uses the intelligent teleological determinism assumption. This form of the scientific determinism assumption produces useful, testable predictive hypotheses and is compatible with both the deterministic characteristics of heritability and the dynamic characteristics of evolutionary and developmental processes.
Dynamic many to many mappings clearly have the appearance of being logically inconsistent with the genetic determinism assumption. It is possible that someday someone will be able to explain or resolve this apparent inconsistency, but such a resolution certainly does not exist today. At least IMO, it is far more likely that the unworkable genetic determinism assumption will eventually be replaced by a scientific determinism assumption that actually fits the evidence.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 29. April 2004 11:04
Warren
I am very sympathetic with your perspective and I agree that some day the laws that have so obviously governed evolution will become fully disclosed and understood, just as have the laws that determine chemistry, physics and mathematics already been disclosed. In the meantime I suggest the following slightly modified old saw as our guiding principle -
"God worked (past tense) in mysterious ways.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 29. April 2004 14:50
Nosivad: There is now and never was any role for chance in determining those sequences. If there had been, evolution could never have occurred. Darwinism is the last and indeed the only refuge of the confirmed atheist.
Of course the strawman is being perpetuated here that evolutionary theory is all about chance, conveniently ignoring that the two foundations are random wrt environment variation and selection. Thus it seems obvious that Nosivad's conclusion that Darwinism is the only refuge of the confirmed atheist seems a bit irrelevant but it does help explain his objections to the Darwinian theory and may help explain. I have found personally that such ideological rejections can serve to blind oneself to facts and reality, especially when the facts contradict one's ideology.
Nosivad: A careful reading of Darwin's work reveals that he was more Lamarckian than Lamarck, just as his many disciples have proven to be far more Darwinian than Darwin. They even believe devoutly that the eye was produced through the selection of random mutations. Darwin would be appalled by such an assumption. As I recall, the eye made him "shudder".
It may be helpful if Nosivad were to familiarize himself with the term 'random' in the context of variation. It means that variation is not immediately useful in a particular environment. In addition they do not 'believe' that the eye was produced through the selection of variations they argued that it was a good possibility. Not surprisingly science has pursued these matters since the early days and found that such gradual pathways can indeed be envisions (Nilsson and Pelger, A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve, Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1994 Apr 22;256(1345):53-58). Additionally science is uncovering the role of the Pax6 hox gene in the evolution of the eye.
(Gehring WJ, Ikeo K., Pax 6: mastering eye morphogenesis and eye evolution.Trends Genet. 1999 Sep;15(9):371-7. )
quote:
Pax 6 genes from various animal phyla are capable of inducing ectopic eye development, indicating that Pax 6 is a master control gene for eye morphogenesis. It is proposed that the various eye-types found in metazoa are derived from a common prototype, monophyletically, by a mechanism called intercalary evolution.
the co-option of genes, is well demonstrated in Pax6 eye evolution
quote:
The repeated use of the same regulatory genes during eye development has been explained in conjunction with the high degree of conservation of the genes: as eye formation progressed during evolution from simple photoreceptors to the complex visual systems in insects and vertebrates, the same regulatory genes were co-opted for each new developmental pathway (Desplan, 1997).
link
Pax6 gene is found to be relevant in many areas of eye evolution
quote:
The role of Pax6 in eye development in insects and vertebrates supports the view that their eyes evolved from simple pigment-cup ocelli present in their last common ancestors (Urbilateria).
Development of pigment-cup eyes in the polychaete Platynereis dumerilii and evolutionary conservation of larval eyes in Bilateria. Arendt, D., Tessmar, K., de Campos-Baptista, M.I., Dorresteijn, A. & Wittbrodt, J.
Development 2002 Mar;129(5):1143-54.
. A schematic diagram of the evolution of different types of eyes from a common ancestral prototype (as hypothesized). Photosensitive cells with light receptors evolved at first. Then under the control of Pax 6 gene, these photosensitive cells assembled with a pigment cell forming an organ, the prototype eye. Later on the various types of eyes such as, compound eyes of insects, the camera-type eye of vertebrates and large variety of eyes in mollusks evolved by divergent, parallel and convergent evolution. (Gehring and Ikeo. 1999. Trends in Genetics. 15:371-377)
link
Your recollection of Darwin is incomplete which portrays Darwin as if he considered the eye an obstacle to his theory. The reality of course is totally the opposite. When going beyond the out of context quote we hear Darwin say the following
quote:
About the weak points I agree. The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations, my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder." (Darwin to Asa Gray [a Christian minister] Feb. ?, 1860)
Link
Darwin also addressed the eye in Origin of Species:
"To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. "
Darwin however continues:
quote:
When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory
While researching this quote on the internet I was surprised how many creationist websites seem to quote Darwin's quote partially.
As a scientist and a Christian that saddens me.
The eye evolution as well as many of the other examples proposed by Nosivad, apparantly relying on Mivart, may have been obstacle in those early days of evolutionary science but nowadays we have quite good explanations (many even Darwinian in nature) for the objections raised by Mivart.
Evolution of the eye, limbs, mimicry can all be quite well understood in terms of variation and selection.
Warren, can we expect you to support your claim
quote:
It will be noted this all happens with many to many, dynamic phenotype to genotype mappings which can not be explicitly defined or demonstrated.
Nosivad: Function implies purpose, purpose demands design and design requires a designer, at least to this observer.
We should not confuse function and purpose since the two can be quite different. Function can arise without a guiding forward looking purpose while purpose suggests that there was an ultimate goal. In fact function indeed requires a designer and evolutionary theory has presented what it considers to be designers.
Nosivad seems to be rejecting Darwinian science without much supporting evidence. Making such statements as "It has become very clear to me that the environment has played at best a trivial role in evolutionary progress. " when in fact the evidence contradicts such notions.
or have you come to realize that the claim in light of the evidence presented was erroneous?
wARREN: Dynamic many to many mappings clearly have the appearance of being logically inconsistent with the genetic determinism assumption. It is possible that someday someone will be able to explain or resolve this apparent inconsistency, but such a resolution certainly does not exist today.
Hmm, still ignoring what is being argued here Warren?
[ 29. April 2004, 15:09: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 29. April 2004 16:12
I cannot imagine a Darwinian who is at the same time a theist of any stripe, especially a Christian. I am fully familiar with the terms random, stochastic, aleatory, chance and the most wonderful one of all - semi-random. It is all pure hocus pocus! There was never any role for chance in evolution just as now there is no role for chance in ontogeny. Both have proceeded according to law and both are part of the same organic continuum.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 29. April 2004 16:21
Nosivad: I cannot imagine a Darwinian who is at the same time a theist of any stripe, especially a Christian.
Given the fact that there are countless Christians who accept (Darwinian) evolution, it seems that your imagination may be the complicating factor here.
May I suggest Ruse's excellent books "Darwin and Design : Does Evolution Have a Purpose? " or Kenneth Miller "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution" or Denis Lamoureux
The NCSE has links to various religious organizations
Nosivad: I am fully familiar with the terms random, stochastic, aleatory, chance and the most wonderful one of all - semi-random. It is all pure hocus pocus!
Again the term pure hocus pocus contradicts the claim 'familiar' unless it suggests merely having heard of the terms. Even the term 'random' as it applies to mutations seems quite straightforward but is fraught with subtleties.
Nosivad: There was never any role for chance in evolution just as now there is no role for chance in ontogeny. Both have proceeded according to law and both are part of the same organic continuum.
Laws constrain evolution but chance variations obviously play a very important role in evolution, evolvability. Thus the suggestion that 'there was never any role for chance in evolution' first of all does not seem to communicate an understanding of the term 'random' and additionally suggests a certainty for which you have failed to provide supporting evidence.
As I have shown in the beginning of this posting, what you may imagine and what is real may be two very disjoint entities. I am merely trying to help find a common ground here between what we believe or want to believe and the reality. They need not always be the same, trust me I know. I have been a victim of wishful thinking more than once in my life, it's a very human response, in fact I can see it as related to 'survival'. But that is just my imagination speaking here.
[ 29. April 2004, 16:28: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 29. April 2004 16:29
I simply pointed that some of the arguments presented in favor of neo-Darwinism appear to be based on logically inconsistency assumptions. Specifically some arguments are based on a simple form one to one mapping and others are based on dynamic many to many mappings. I am not arguing about the inconsistency, simply pointing out that the people using the inconsistent assumptions have not resolved the inconsistency.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 29. April 2004 16:43
Warren: I simply pointed that some of the arguments presented in favor of neo-Darwinism appear to be based on logically inconsistency assumptions. Specifically some arguments are based on a simple form one to one mapping and others are based on dynamic many to many mappings. I am not arguing about the inconsistency, simply pointing out that the people using the inconsistent assumptions have not resolved the inconsistency.
And people have simply pointed out that your claims of logical inconsistency or the lack of resolution of said inconsistency are not supported by much factual evidence. In other words, you may be arguing a strawman here.
Does this mean that you are not going to support your claim as asked for by RBH and others? Without such supporting evidence, all that remains are your claims.
And you were arguing more that just the existence of such inconsistencies (if any)
quote:
Evolutionary and adaptive processes exhibit the same goal seeking behavior as genetic algorithm programs, but, apparently without the genetic determinism or static defined genotype to phenotype mappings assumed in the GA’s. Some people might describe this as a logical inconsistency between evolutionary theory and evolutionary mathematics. Some people are obviously content to ignore the inconsistency.
You argued that people were content on ignoring the inconsistency. That genetic algorithms may appear to be goal seeking rather than goal finding may help explain this apparant contradiction, in other words, while evolution is inherently teleological it searches function not purpose or in other words is not forward looking but rather uses and reuses what is available.
[ 29. April 2004, 16:59: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 29. April 2004 17:06
For those who understand the applicable mathematics the logical inconsistency and the failure to reconcile is readily apparent. Those who are unable or unwilling to evaluate on the issue on its merits will undoubtedly rely on the authorities of their choosing.
The only real issue here is the form of the scientific determinism assumption to be used. Is genetic determinism despite its obvious logical incompatibility with developmental processes, the only option available? Or is there an alternative form of scientific determinism that explains the predictability of inherited traits? I seriously doubt if the literature will be of any real help in answering such questions.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 29. April 2004 17:21
Warren, it should be obvious by now that you have chosen to rely on your own 'authority' and the use of ad hominem to reach what is commonly known as a 'begging the question' conclusion.
Since you have failed to show that 1) you are a reliable authority on these matters 2) that there are applicable mathematics supporting the logical inconsistency 3) to support your arguments with external references, it should not come as a surprise that I will have to reject your claims as unsupported.
I consider the issue closed, no supporting evidence has been presented.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 29. April 2004 17:25
How is the term "random" fraught with subtleties?
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 29. April 2004 17:46
Nosivad asks how the term random is fraught with difficulties.
I believe that the term randomness in evolutionary theory is filled with misunderstandings.
I have seen how critics of evolutionary theory confuse randomness of variation with respect to fitness with randomness of evolution. Evolution however contains two factors, variation and selection. The latter one is deterministic. Thus we see calculations of the probability of proteins or flagella calculated from random chance only, clearly a strawman version of what evolutionary theory argues.
In other instance, randomness is confused with chance processes but randomness can arise through lawlike processes as well in the sense that the outcome is not preferentially beneficial to the environment.
or as this article argues
quote:
Another way to say this is just that the changes that get encoded in genes occur with no forethought to the eventual needs of the organism (or the species) that carries those genes.
What I find fascinating is that the same evolutionary processes can actually lead to evolvability namely a bias in the probability distribution function of variation. In other words, it may be that organisms evolved the ability to repress or amplify certain variations based on their average 'success/failure' rates.
So while the variation is obviously caused by regular processes, from the perspective of the environment they are essentially random.
quote:
It's not really random, of course, because it is the result of causal processes, but so far as natural selection is concerned, it may as well be.
Ibid
then there is the confusion of chance as uncaused versus unpredictable
quote:
We need to distinguish between two senses of "random": the one kind that involves a total break in the causal chain, and in which the event is essentially chaotic; the other that requires only unpredictability, such as the decay of unstable atoms, or Brownian motion, but which remains a caused event. These get confused all the time. There is nothing about changes in a genome or a gene pool that is random in the first sense, but much of the second sense. For example, shuffling a deck of cards results in a properly physical process of the rearrangement of each card, yet there is no real way to predict the order of a random shuffle. Cards don't just materialise in place, but you don't know what you will end up with (unless you bias the shuffling so it isn't random).
Ibid
So in other words, organisms do not generate a particular mutation in response to its need in a particular environment. Although for a while there appeared to be evidence that this was indeed what was happening in adaptive mutations. We now know that these mutations were in fact hypermutations in response to stress and a combination of mutation and selection was needed after all.
I hope that this helps clarify my statement.
A truely random process is genetic drift.
The Evolution of Improved Fitness By Random Mutation Plus Selection
Evolution and chance
[ 29. April 2004, 17:48: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Claire
Member
Member # 725
|
posted 29. April 2004 23:43
How can an argument about a new idea have worth, when brainstorming in a forum, and it be all based on logical consistency and be supported, if what is being argued is a brainstormed idea, whereby the general system of thinking of the participants within that forum that is required to create such an idea, allows that idea to develop in a way that it cannot possibly be all logically infered therefore cannot be all supported nor authoritatively supported or argued about by any others in its inception period, but not only that, but because it has been creatively posted as new, therefore representing what it means to brainstorm an idea, because within the first instance and by some knowledge of how the mind works, will more likely be hard to support because if we could, it would not represent what has never been thought about before in the first place?
Claire
[ 29. April 2004, 23:51: Message edited by: Claire ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 30. April 2004 05:45
I am not a critic of evolutionary theory as Pim suggests. I am a critic of the Darwinian model which is a total failure. Genetic drift for example has nothing to do with evolution beyond the subspecies. Even if one assumes that it can ultimately lead to physiological isolation, are we to seriously believe that this process can proceed to the Genus, Family, Order, Class and Phylum? There is also no compelling evidence that real evolution is even occurring as I and many others have maintained. To continue ignoring the serious defects in Darwinism is inexcusable. Variation and selection lead nowhere in contempory species and probably had nothing to do with evolution in the past. As Phillip Engle has maintained, adherence to Darwinism is based on ideology and ideology alone. It is the only conceivable position for those that refuse to accept the possibility that there has been purpose in a process which culminated with a creature capable of ultimately understanding the process itself. Stephen Jay Gould summarized the Darwinian position perfectly when he arrogantly stated - "Intelligence was an evolutionary accident". For the Darwinian, everything was an evolutionary accident. Don't ever believe it.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
