|
Author
|
Topic: Is ID theory falsifiable?
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 30. December 2005 10:17
Melvin
One of the things that is not yet clear is what becomes of the blueprints once expressed. The irreversibility of evolution would indicate that they have been scrapped which may be what that extra DNA is all about. One thing is very interesting. The higher one goes in the evolutionary scale the more limited become the possibilities. One example is the progressive loss of regeneration. Primitive vertebrates like salamanders have great regenerative ability while it is virtually non-existent in birds and mammals. Similarly in arthropods, the Crustacea are great regenerators but the Insecta can regenerate nothing. This again mimics the progressive loss of potentiality that characterizes ontogeny. Ontogeny remains an excellent model of phylogeny and chance had absolutely nothing to do with either. Trust me but of course you won't.
IP: Logged
|
|
afonda
Member
Member # 1849
|
posted 30. December 2005 11:48
John Davison
quote:
A past Intelligence with potentialities far beyond our capacity to comprehend is undeniable. For that reason I have always regarded Intelligent Design as a self evident mandatory starting place from which to begin to understand both ontogeny and phylogeny. I am now absolutely certain that chance never played any role in either process.
For each of is (that is, for me, and putatively for you) the “self evident mandatory starting place” is far more modest: it is Self, Other, and uncertainty. I and I suppose you are each “on the inside looking out,” trying to tentatively make sense of our sense impressions both external and (since we do have an awareness of our own cognition) internal. All we are able to do is fabricate applicable fictions which prove in some instances (but not in others) reliable, hence useful. Which leads at best to confidence, not certainty. Only blind confidence masquerades as certainty.
To claim cognitive certainty is to fabricate a fiction about fiction. Except for uncertainty itself, nothing whatsoever, much less the existence of "a past Intelligence" or the absence of chance in both ontogeny and phylogeny (development of individual and of species), is by any means undeniable. Indeed quite the opposite, given the evidence, as per my 29 Dec posting.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 30. December 2005 16:32
In case anyone wonders, let me assure all that I have supreme confidence in everything I have ever published. I am prepared to defend any and all of it whenever anyone has the courage to challenge it, something yet to transpire either in the professional literature or in the ephemera of the internet.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 30. December 2005 19:26
afonda
I do not mean to offend you but I regard your arguments as philosophical in nature and not empirical which is the province of science. With Einstein I am unable to comprehend philosophical matters.
"Upon reading books on philosophy, I learned that I stood there like a blind man in front of a painting. I can only grasp the inductive method... the works of speculative philosophy are beyond my reach."
Albert Einstein
IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Fox
Member
Member # 1847
|
posted 31. December 2005 10:25
Professor Davison stated:
quote:
I am prepared to defend any and all of it whenever anyone has the courage to challenge it, something yet to transpire either in the professional literature or in the ephemera of the internet.
The challenge for you, John, is to explain how your hypothesis explains the diversity of terrestrial life, past and present. Do I understand you to say that all the necessary information has always been present in the genome of the first organisms by a process of "front loading" and no new information has been added since the "creation"? Would you like to correct any misunderstanding on my part, and also indicate what evidence exists or existed which led you to your hypothesis.
IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Fox
Member
Member # 1847
|
posted 31. December 2005 10:35
Professor Davison wrote:
quote:
One of the things that is not yet clear is what becomes of the blueprints once expressed
The term "blueprint" is a very misleading description of how developmental information is encoded in the genome. There is no one-to-one mapping; there is no plan: there is no gene for the little finger for example. Growth and development is controlled by the interplay of HOX genes, which affect the expression of other genes. No blueprint is being referred to for dimensions.
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 31. December 2005 15:06
quote:
Growth and development is controlled by the interplay of HOX genes, which affect the expression of other genes.
Allan
Encouraging to see your citing HOX gene control of gene expression. From an engineering point of view, that appears to show remarkably efficient design and regulation with incredibly compact encoding. That is even more impressive than a conventional engineering "blueprint" (which gives relatively simple "verbose" information encoding by comparison.)
quote:
There is no one-to-one mapping; there is no plan: there is no gene for the little finger for example. No blueprint is being referred to for dimensions.
Please clarify why "blueprint" so upsets you. I would just consider it a common colloquial term. There may not be exact "one-to-one" mapping, but there appears to be remarkable design of growth.
While not exact replication of parents, the close correlation of identical twins suggests that there is extensive control of numerous dimensions which also show similarity with parents.
When you say "there is no plan," perhaps you could clarify what you perceive as the origin of the remarkable control of growth with left/right symmetry, proportional growth of digits and limbs, coordinated regulation of growth of nerves, arteries and veins.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 31. December 2005 20:04
There is, or more accurately WAS, a plan and neither Alan Fox or anyone else will ever convince me otherwise because that is required to understand anything about either ontogeny or phylogeny, two closely related aspects of the same organic continuum, a continuum in which phylogeny no longer plays a role. To mindlessly claim that chance ever had anything to do with either phenomenon is the height of arrogance and flies in the face of everything we are now learning from descriptive science and the experimental laboratory. There is now and never was a role for chance in any aspect of either the animate or inanimate world. Einstein realized that and so did Leo Berg, William Bateson and Pierre Grasse That others, lacking their genius and insight, believe otherwise is no longer of any concern to me. I regard them with consummate pity, not even contempt, poor misguided souls who cannot hear what Einstein called "the music of the spheres."
The neo-Darwinian paradigm, rejecting as it always has the realities of the fossil record and the experimental laboratory, has finally joined the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics to complete the triumvirate of the three most discredited hypothesis in the history of science, all three nothing but perfect testimonies to the powers of the human imagination.
I love it so!
"Marx, Darwin and Freud are the three most crashing bores in the Western World."
William Golding
"Darwinists of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your Natural Selection."
after Karl Marx
"Fundamentalists of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your Bibles."
ibid
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 31. December 2005 20:11
I have already declared that I have no intention of responding to any questions from Alan Fox as I have no respect for his methods or purposes. Also it would seem to be quite unecessary as others are doing just fine without me.
IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Fox
Member
Member # 1847
|
posted 31. December 2005 20:58
David
When I say "there is no plan" I mean there is no such spacial or other dimensional information encoded in the genome, such as "grow the left ear to 5cm". DNA sequences produce amino acid sequences. Proteins produced by HOX genes act as switches to suppress the expression of other genes. In development, for example, in chordate animals, sheets of cells divide, differentiate and grow influenced by chemical interaction between each other. The cells are not checking a blueprint. The word is anthropomorphic, and therefore, to my mind, misleading.
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 01. January 2006 21:13
Allan
Assuming there is Intelligent Design, the "blueprint" is embodied in ways that each cell can follow. e.g., in combination of genome, cell & component structure, and regulatory mechanisms.
Assuming ID which is similar to human design and an anthropological goal, then why not an anthropomorphic description? While cells obviously do not check a macro sheet, "blueprint" still appears to be a good description.
Assuming ID, do you have a better term to describe it?
[ 01. January 2006, 21:14: Message edited by: David L. Hagen ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Fox
Member
Member # 1847
|
posted 02. January 2006 09:14
I prefer "recipe".
IP: Logged
|
|
afonda
Member
Member # 1849
|
posted 06. January 2006 01:01
On 30 Dec John Davison said quote:
I do not mean to offend you but I regard your arguments as philosophical in nature and not empirical which is the province of science. With Einstein I am unable to comprehend philosophical matters.
To make my main point I did not need to remark that each of us is on the inside looking out; as obvious, and as empirical, as that seems to me.
But no respondent has in any way disputed any specific step in my characterizations of Darwinian evolution as a byproduct of the imperfect life process, and Intelligent Design as proposition capable of execution only by a fantastically sophisticated biomechanical manupulator with incredibly skillful guidance. The production of differing life forms is inherent in the life process when executed imperfectly, with no assistance - - no Intelligent Design - - at all.
My message has two parts. Firstly, it ain't broke. And secondly, Intelligent Design ain't fixing it!
Darwin (with help from Mendel) nailed it. Details will forever remain to be investigated, but no fundamentally differing alternatives are needed.
I believe that I have presented an impeccable line of logic. If not, why not?
I know that I have walked into the lion's den, a fellowship of disbelievers in the Darwinian explanation. It would be unremarkable to hear knee-jerk dissent; but most interesting to hear from anyone who has actually followed the logic and then does not, or in the alternative does, find it convincing.
Why do I bother? Because much harm is done to society by maligning a perfectly valid work of science. The common man has enough troubles; don't add this to them. I do not mean to offend, but, really, go find a bull worth goring. There are many.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 06. January 2006 08:23
afonda
Put aside all of our personal conclusions. Ignore, for a moment, what it is that we as individuals consider obvious. Let us all walk down the beach holding hands and sing together a rendition of, “Don’t Worry; be Happy.” All of a sudden, we come across an item of remarkable complexity. All jaws drop. We each ask ourselves, where could this wonder have come from? You come up with a plausible, reasonable to most, hypothesis to explain the origin of the object. You test it. Some believe the evidence collected supports the hypothesis in grand style. Some do not. In fact some raise serious concerns over the quantity, quality, and derived implications of your work.
This smaller but equally well educated group sets out to find, what they hope will be, a better explanation. They are, from day one, ostracized by the larger group, prohibited position and resource due their course of action. This alone inhibits greatly their progress. They remain, to this day, undaunted by efforts to squash their ideas as “ludicrous”.
I am not a laboratory scientist. Pencil and paper together with a good imagination is all I need to practice the art of my trade, mathematics. I understand how logic can lead one down a path that quickly removes the architect far away from reality, although this removal may not be obvious to anyone. Take for example Zeno, a Greek philosopher/mathematician. He formed a rather convincing argument against the proposition of motion. Zeno’s paradox is easy to find if you are not familiar with it. There is a danger entrenching oneself too deeply in a position. What is broken is not always obvious to most people.
John Davison does present evidence [Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis], as do others, in support of the brokenness of the extrapolated ideas of Darwin. I suggest you read them before commenting. In this forum we do not all agree. We do allow each other to think. The real implication of Zeno’s argument is that the universe is not continuous but rather discrete. This line is addressed in another thread [d* the littlest number]. You do raise one interesting point, which of the two is more improbable. I am considering this and will post on this point at a latter date.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 06. January 2006 09:51
Afonda
Excuse me for disagreeing with virtually everything you have said.
Neither Darwin nor Mendel even scratched the surface of the mechanism for organic evolution. Mendelian genetics, like natural selection, WAS and still IS entirely conservative and accordingly anti-evolutionary. The only role for both is to preserve the status quo allowing only minor adjustments.
I will not now review the evidence again as I have presented it many times at many forums including this one. Even if the PEH proves to be inadequate, it will never detract from the total failure of the so-called "Modern Synthesis" a term coined by Julian Huxley, the man who himself claimed for good reasons that evolution is quite finished and has been for millions of years.
Let me assure all that nothing has as yet been "nailed down" concerning the greatest mystery in all of biological science. To claim that it has is but naive wishful thinking. One thing is certain. Chance had nothing whatsoever to do with phylogeny just as it still has nothing to do with ontogeny.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic