|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 02. June 2006 19:04
PB: "Why do we have to abandon the uniformitarian principle w.r.t. mutations rates?"
PB, could you put a little meat on the bones of this statement. Are you saying that it is the recognized understanding of mainstream biology that mutation rates are more rapid now than they used to be? Is this considered to be an extremely recent phenomenon, caused by human polution or something, or is there another proposed cause.
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 03. June 2006 14:38
quote:
As a biologists, when I talk about physics or chemistry I mean bio-physics and bio-chemistry.
Then you should say so.
quote:
Why do I have to embrace the long ages, when biology is not in accord with it?
The long ages of what?
Biology is not in accord with what?
Why are you using biology to make a determination regarding the age of the earth or the universe? It is totally inappropriate to do so.
As a scientist, you should know the dangers of using a restricted or inappropriate data set. You should embrace long ages because that is what the totality of the evidence shows, that's why.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 03. June 2006 21:18
Please someone present a single example of mutation having any role in the process of creative evolution, a phenomenon apparently not even in progress any more. You have your work cut out for you. Trust me.
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 03. June 2006 23:04
Scott. Peter said:
quote:
"If so, how can all mammals have the 8 functional H1 genes? Their primitive ancestor must have had the 8 genes and it supposed to have lived around 250 million years ago. The evolutionary dating cannot be correct as the individual genes are redundant (although two subtypes have not been checked). I believe that molecular biology provides the evidence that something is severely wrong with the billions of years evolutionary schemes." . . .
"If you had followed my discussions you would have noted that I am not arguing against an old earth. I am argueing that biological systems as we know them cannot be hundred of millions years old." . .
"Whether or not the earth is old, I don't know. I am not a geologist and it is a matter of belief, I believe. I am a biologist and I believe what I experience."
I understood Peter to address the long ages of alleged evolution, not the age of the earth. Lets not get sidetracked into a red herring on the age of the earth, but focus on the data relating to biological change.
(If earth strata are dated by fossils, then that may change the dating of the strata. However, that would be a consequence and it is independent from the math models and data that peter is presenting.)
IP: Logged
|
|
christopher humphrey
Member
Member # 1377
|
posted 04. June 2006 14:34
Hi Sandor
This page has a very good paper on attractors and how they create order. http://www.soulinvitation.com/philotactics/index.html
Look for..
"Suffice to say, maximum Complexity is found via self-organised criticality at the edge of Chaos,
which is epitomised by the Golden Mean, as the emergent geometric manifestation of the principle
of least action: therefore its full temporal/ spatial action is analogous to creation itself."
Dynamical Symmetries: Autopoietic Architecture
The Areas of Mathematical Synthesis Between Complexity, (edge of) Chaos Theory , Fractal Geometry and the Golden Mean: leading to an argument for an Autocatalytic Architectural approach based on emergent Self-Organised Criticality.
[ 04. June 2006, 14:38: Message edited by: christopher humphrey ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 04. June 2006 15:13
Every evolutionary change from true speciation to the formation of the orders, classes and phyla was the result of an instantaneous profound genetic transformation. There is, or more accurately was, no place for gradualism in evolution, a process no longer ocurring.
Otto Schindewolf, by far the greatest paleontologist of all time, put it this way:
"We might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed." and "The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg."
Richard B. Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, page 395.
I completely agree especially with his use of the past tense. Everything from the fossil record and the experimental laboratory pleads for a predetermined, or as I have put it, a "prescribed" evolutionary scenario which has fully run its course.
IP: Logged
|
|
Sandor Szabados
Member
Member # 1969
|
posted 04. June 2006 15:48
Christpher,
I am familiar with chaos and fractal theories. I asked you two questions which you did not answer. Here they are again:
1. The Mandelbrot set is called the 'island molecule'. What do you think its relationship is to god?
You say: "we are all part of god and god is a part of us."
2. Can you be more specific? In which way are we part of each other?
Sandor
[ 04. June 2006, 15:51: Message edited by: Sandor 606 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
christopher humphrey
Member
Member # 1377
|
posted 06. June 2006 11:56
The 'island molecule' represents an archetypal form, these points manifest in the temporal view around preexisting probabilities patterns or more precisely as Pythagoras said “eternal true forms” The ultimate true form being god which all things revolves and evolves around.
quote:
You say: "we are all part of god and god is a part of us."
2. Can you be more specific? In which way are we part of each other
It has to do with dualities, the universe can only exist with a balance of opposite but complementary poles. These dualities create movement and cycles. The ultimate duality is the eternal and the temporal, without one the other has no contextual existence, therefore the visible universe and man are manifestations brought into existence by the presents of god.
quote:
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end" (xxi. 6); "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (xxii. 13); and also, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end,
[ 06. June 2006, 12:05: Message edited by: christopher humphrey ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 06. June 2006 14:57
One more of my many challenges goes unacknowledged.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 07. June 2006 08:17
quote:
Are you saying that it is the recognized understanding of mainstream biology that mutation rates are more rapid now than they used to be? Is this considered to be an extremely recent phenomenon, caused by human polution or something, or is there another proposed cause.
No, it is to reconcile the high mutation frequencies found in individual species (in intraspecies comparisons) and the slow mutation rates obtained under the darwinian asumption of common descent (in interspecies comparison). I will look up the scientific reference for you.
As an example, officially human and chimp differ by only one neutral mutation in the Cytochrome C gene, while in the 40 (or so) annotated human sequences we observe at least 18 point mutations. Many of them are not neutral but change the amino acid sequence. You will not read about it in the official (Darwinian) literature; I did the analysis myself in my book GUToB.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 07. June 2006 10:16
I see nothing in chaos theory or fractals that ever had anything to do with evolution, a process that is not even going on any more. I recommend a visit to EvC's "Showcase" forum where I have been presenting that perspective. There, unlike here, I get some responses to my anti-Darwinian heresies. Here, like all my distinguished sources, I seem not to exist. It is an old story.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 07. June 2006 10:20
Peter
It is my understanding that changes in amino acid sequences mean little unless they affect the active site. Would any such substitutions matter anyway?
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 07. June 2006 11:38
For those interested in John Davison's discussion on the EvC forum, it can be found at www.evcforum.net
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 07. June 2006 12:23
PB, if I understand you correctly, there are a number of alleles of the Cytochrome C gene in humans, is that correct?
I am wondering if Zachriel's understanding of speciation might remove this as a problem.
Let me apply what I understand Zachriel to be saying about speciation. Consider a stream that flows north-south. Consider a species, call it CA (common ancestor). It lives on both sides of the stream. One day the stream becomes a river, and navigation across the river comes nearly to a halt. Now, CA east and CA west each develop their own variations. Periodically a CA east will find its way accross the stream or a CA west will find its way accross the stream, so there is some gene flow, but minimal, between the two varieties of CA. Over a long time, CA east becomes the chimp, and CA west becomes the human.
Now, though it can be said that the species CA is the common ancestor to the chimp and the human, it cannot be said that any one individual was the common ancestor.
If this event were to play out, then all of the alleles found in the CA species would have the potential to be passed down to both the chimp and the human. We now have quite a long time available to us to build up 18 alleles of Cytochrome C in humans. (One should find some, most, of these alleles in the chimp also.)
Would this perspective negatively affect your GUToB hypothesis?
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 07. June 2006 15:21
quote:
No, it is to reconcile the high mutation frequencies found in individual species (in intraspecies comparisons) and the slow mutation rates obtained under the darwinian asumption of common descent (in interspecies comparison). I will look up the scientific reference for you.
Bruce, as promissed here the reference that even evolutionists have now abandoned the uniformatiarian principle w.r.t. mutation rates. Why? Because the long ages never existed for biological evolution.
Penny, D. Relativity of molecular clocks. Nature 2005; 183-4.
B.T.W. don't you guys read science journals, or what?
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
