|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 07. June 2006 15:33
quote:
Over a long time, CA east becomes the chimp, and CA west becomes the human.
No, this is not how we observe it in the genomes. The genomes of these species show that the differences between these species are determined by:
1) the karyotypes, due to NON-RANDOM shuffling of chromosomes,
2) NON-RANDOM indel mutations,
3) a handful of NON-RANDOM point mutations in regulatory genes.
This has all been demonstrated and can be conceived as non-random predetermined fast-track evolution OR as an act of creation. I believe it is impossible to distinguish between these two options and it will for ever (till the end of days) be a hot topic in origin debates. Apparently, we were created free and everything is all a matter of belief.
Cheers mate,
peebee
[ 07. June 2006, 15:34: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 07. June 2006 15:42
quote:
Would this perspective negatively affect your GUToB hypothesis?
GUToB predicts that genes with the same function were originally identical in chimp and man. Alleles will be plentyful in both species due to random and non-random mutations. The latter give the illusion of common descent. The beauty of GUToB is that it explains biology in a few sentences.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 07. June 2006 16:13
Peter
I think the long ages most certainly did exist just as the fossil record testifies. The actual evolutionary changes were instantaneous (saltations), without intermediate states which makes it look like it was all very recent. It most certainly wasn't, of that I am confident. The strata where you find animal and plant fossils have been dated and those ages are the age of the fossils they contain. The one thing that cannot be denied is the fossil record. Evolution, when it did occur, took place in rapid spurts separated by long periods of stasis. That is what allows us to talk about the Age of the Amphibians, the Age of the Dinosaurs and the present Age of the Birds and Mammals. They were all millions of years in duration. I am sure there will be no more organic ages. We will be lucky to last another 500 years.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 07. June 2006 16:49
peter borger: "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 indicate you did the analysis yourself, but I don't suspect you did the genomic sequencing. Do you have a cite of some sort?
Humans and chimps have identical amino acid sequences, by the way.
IP: Logged
|
|
christopher humphrey
Member
Member # 1377
|
posted 07. June 2006 17:20
quote:
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.
"A decade after Mandelbrot published his physiological speculations," Gleick writes, "some theoretical biologists began to find fractal organization controlling structures all through the body. The standard 'exponential' description of bronchial branching proved to be quite wrong; a fractal description turned out to fit the data. The urinary collecting system proved fractal. The biliary duct in the liver. The network of special fibers in the heart that carry pulses of electric current to the contracting muscles...."
"How did nature manage to evolve such complicated architecture?" Gleick asks, rhetorically. "Mandelbrot's point is that the complications exist only in the context of traditional Euclidean geometry. As fractals, branching structures can be described with transparent simplicity, with just a few bits of information...." "Fractal mathematics" is comprised of the simple formulas by which conversions are made--fractal to fractal.
http://www.fractal.org/Bewustzijns-Besturings-Model/Fractal-Evolution.htm
----------------------------------
Abstract
Synergy of various kinds has played a significant creative role in evolution; it has been a prodigious source of evolutionary novelty. Elsewhere it has been proposed that the functional (selective) advantages associated with various forms of synergistic phenomena have been an important cause of the "progressive" evolution of complex systems over time. Underlying the many specific steps in the complexification process, a common functional principle has been operative. Recent mathematical modelling work in biology, utilizing a new generation of non-linear dynamical systems models, has resulted in a radically different hypothesis. It has been asserted that "spontaneous," autocatalytic processes, which are held to be inherent properties of living matter itself, may be responsible for much of the order found in nature and that natural selection is merely a supporting actor. A new "physics of biology" is envisioned in which emerging natural laws of organization will be recognized as being responsible both for driving the evolutionary process and for truncating the role of natural selection. This article describes these two paradigms in some detail and discusses the possible relationship between them. Their relevance to the process of human evolution is also briefly discussed.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:LvN0w2eBin8J:members.aol.com/iscs/synres.html+chaos+theory+evolution+kauffman&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4
[ 07. June 2006, 17:21: Message edited by: christopher humphrey ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 07. June 2006 18:30
PB quote:
B.T.W. don't you guys read science journals, or what?
Some of us certainly don't. I sit at my computer every day, dilligently coding my latest program which is supposed to make me millions of dollars. For a destraction, I check my three favorite forums. I try to read a book per quarter on the topic. I just got Denton's "Nature's Destiny".
I know that Dr. Davison is a Ph.D., I am pretty sure Zachriel is too. Those of us who are not have other lives, and limited resources, so we don't read the journals, even the core ones like Nature.
Such is how the other half (99.8%) live.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 07. June 2006 20:44
I was not cricizing fractals as examples in biological systems. I regard them as nothing more that expressions of the law of minimal energy. They have nothing to do with the MECHANISM of organic evolution any more than does the fact that most eggs are spheres or that cracks in mud join at coequal angles just as do the edges of the cells in epithelia. They are results not causes.
Chaos theory is a joke as an explanation for a progressive creative evolution. It has no predictive power. It has played no role that can be demonstrated in either ontogeny or phylogeny. In my opinion it is just one more futile attempt to get something for nothing and to generate order and progress out of randomness. In other words it is like Godless, purposeless, aimless Darwinism.
Of course that is just my opinion so I don't expect it to be taken very seriously in this particular venue.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 08. June 2006 05:24
quote:
You indicate you did the analysis yourself, but I don't suspect you did the genomic sequencing. Do you have a cite of some sort?
Humans and chimps have identical amino acid sequences, by the way.
The NCBI home page has all annotated sequences available, look for annoted SNP page (upper left panel; scroll down, click, got-it).
Human and chimp indeed have the same protein. Their DNA squence only differs by one (or a few; different reports, different number) neutral position. GUToB says these organism were originally created with the same sequence, a sequence that is of course subject to random and non-random mutations. I did not do the analysis, yet, but I predict that the polymorphisms in chimps can also be found in humanss. Why? Due to NRM in equivalent DNA sequences.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. June 2006 07:43
I agree with Peter Borger.
All the allelic substitutions in the world had nothing to do with evolution unless they affected the active site in which case they were potentially lethal. That has probably been a powerful force leading to extinction in the past and in the present. We humans are probably accumulating them at an alarming rate due to the intervention of modern medicine, especially in civilized societies.
It is also possible that many identical protein sequences have been produced by chance. The substitutions in the primates clearly favor what was already known from anatomical studies, that the chimp is our closest living primate relative and that among the living anthropoid apes the Orang Utan the most distant. Very little, if anything, concerning the MECHANISM of evolution has been disclosed by such studies. Allelic mutations have played no role whatsoever in creative evolution and I offer that as one more challenge to be ignored I am sure. Please do not trot out sickle cell anemia or industrial melanism in moths.
IP: Logged
|
|
christopher humphrey
Member
Member # 1377
|
posted 08. June 2006 16:42
quote:
Chaos theory is a joke as an explanation for a progressive creative evolution. It has no predictive power . It has played no role that can be demonstrated in either ontogeny or phylogeny. In my opinion it is just one more futile attempt to get something for nothing and to generate order and progress out of randomness. In other words it is like Godless, purposeless, aimless Darwinism.
This is a perfect example of linear thinking, “predictive power,” “something for nothing.”
The power the creates life is the eternal form that exist outside of time, The order assembles around this eternal form. Information for order are preexisting. “The Alfa and omega.”
This before that is not the full description of the universe.
This two dimensional view point is the limiter of your mind not the limiter of how the universe actually operates.
“generate order and progress out of randomness”
Order and randomness are not the dualities that create existence. They are the eternal and the temporal. Read my earlier post on this subject matter.
quote:
Maxson J. McDowell
Maxson McDowell is a Jungian analyst in private practice in New York City. Formerly, as a molecular biologist, he did post-doctoral research at M.I.T and at the M.R.C. Laboratory in Cambridge, England.
Dynamic Systems
A triangle is static, but a dynamic system also has such pre-existing possibilities. Think of a mountain stream. It is a dynamic system because it only exists while energy flows through it, in this case the water's kinetic energy. Sometimes the stream forms a whirlpool. Sometimes it assumes the serpentine form. The latter is seen most clearly in an aerial photograph of a river delta. Both forms are pre-existing possibilities, characteristic of rivers and streams everywhere. Even the stream of stars in a galaxy sometimes forms a whirlpool (Hildebrandt and Tromba 1996, pp. 12-13). A stream organizes itself, but the ways it can do so are constrained: only certain pre-determined forms are possible.
Like a mountain stream, a living creature is also a dynamic system. It too exists only while energy flows through it, either from food if it is an animal, or from the sun if it is a plant. Like the evolution of a mountain stream, evolution in biology is self-organized: it is directed by no outside agent and it leads to emergent levels of order (Holland 1998, pp 225-231). Like a mountain stream, a living creature evolves forms which are pre-existing possibilities.
The snake is an example. Not all snakes are related: at different times, several different groups of reptiles evolved the snake body-form (Zug 1993, p. 119) as an adaptation for moving through narrow spaces. A snake-like body-form also occurs in fish (the eel) and in mammals (the ferret). Amongst invertebrates roundworms, earthworms, and centipedes have a similar body-form. The first worm-like fossils, of animals about a meter long, appear in the Precambrian era, about 700 million years ago (Kauffman 1995, pp. 158-161). Thus the body-form of the snake is a pre-existing possibility which waits to be discovered by evolution.
The wing is another example. It was discovered independently by plants (for example, the sycamore seed), insects, fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Thus the wing is a pre-existing possibility. Though it is only an abstraction, the possibility of the wing has exerted a profound influence on the evolution of life.
http://cogprints.org/1084/00/Jap_9.html
[ 08. June 2006, 16:52: Message edited by: christopher humphrey ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. June 2006 22:02
Sorry Christopher but I can honestly say that I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. June 2006 06:30
Don't misunderstand me. I agree entirely with the notion of preadaptation. Indeed it is central to the PEH. What I object to is the element of mysticism that so often seems to dominate discussion here. I still await any evidence for chaos theory or randomness in the evolutionary scenario which again I insist is no longer in progress. It has nothing to do with "linear thinking." It has to do with hard-headed bench science. There WAS no place for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny.
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. June 2006 10:08
I repeat again my earlier comment. The question that should have been asked is - Is there any aspect of Darwinism that can be verified?
The answer is yes. Darwinism, with its cornerstone, Natural Selection, can explain the production of varieties in some but not all life forms. That is all it can do or ever has done. That is all that Darwin was able to verify and nothing has changed in the intervening 147 years.
Mivart destroyed the Darwinian myth with a single question in 1873, a question that to this day has never been answered because it cannot be answered.
How can natural selection influence a structure which has not yet appeared?
IP: Logged
|
|
christopher humphrey
Member
Member # 1377
|
posted 09. June 2006 15:59
quote:
How can natural selection influence a structure which has not yet appeared?
“Eternal true forms.” Pythagoras was a mathematician not a mystic.
If you are referring to "eternal" remember time is not constant, and Einstein was also a mathematician.
quote:
Eternal universe
By continuum creations and evolution (live cycles)
Wave theory – United nature theory-Theory of everything
Tejman Chaim, Henry Dr.
"That means that our Universe is mercurial, continuum, moving living Eternal formation. Which by evolution start its eternal existence Only “living” creation can form life formations, Which are copies of the main masterpiece . According to the United nature theory- wave theory void does not exist in nature. Evolution provides new formation in the old one which gradually decays. This means that G.Lemaitre was correct with the Big bang theory describing how the new Universe was created. It is also evident from different observations that the world disperses but the world can not be out of nowhere and can not disperse to nothing. And new universe appears inside the old universe or on its remnant.”http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/Third%20Book/Eternal%20universe.htm
---------------
The creativity we see forming is the result of a force emanating from the singularity [ Were all things are known and formed ]
This is the universal duality that are separated by the event horizon, the information that exist beyond the event horizon can not be known outside of it.
This duality is what keeps the universe perpetually moving in this creative circular motion around the eternal..
quote:
So I walk on the uplands unbound ,
And know that there is hope
For that which Thou didst mold out of dust
To have consort with things eternal.
--- The dead sea scolls
Information is composed of order; this order collapses around a preexisting possibility of order.
As Pythagoras said “eternal true forms” these eternal true forms exist as inherent inevitabilities…. A singularity……..A basin of attraction.
The driving force of life are dualities, up down, right left, positive negative, past and future.
These dualities create currents between one another to create movement. All these
dualities can be traced to one source, a singularity. A finality
quote:
“chaos theory or randomness in the evolutionary scenario which again I insist is no longer in progress.”
You seem to be dismissing a lot of information without demonstrating an understanding of what these models are addressing. Could you explain this statement above, it makes no sense to me. At what point in the cosmological record did the universe stop evolving?
[ 09. June 2006, 16:10: Message edited by: christopher humphrey ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 10. June 2006 06:36
Both Robert Broom and Julian Huxley (of all people) have claimed that a new genus has not appeared in the past 2 million years. I have further challenged anyone to document a new species in historical times and received no response. The history of the fossil record demonstrates a progressive loss of evolutionary creativity until today it is questionable if there is a single living form capable of becoming anything very different from what it is right now. Phylogeny, exactly like ontogeny, has proven to be self-regulating and self-terminating. To claim otherwise is without experimental verification. I hope this serves as an answer.
I have also recently addressed this issue at EvC on the "showcase" thread so I will not repeat those arguments again here.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
