|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. June 2006 21:42
I cannot imagine a "natural law" being competent to produce life and determine its subsequent evolution. I don't think any one else can either. They just think they can!
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 14. June 2006 01:23
Dr. Davison, you regularly quote Einstein, "Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control." Einstein, if I understand, was a Physiscist. His science has discovered a set of laws which are doing very well at modeling the entire cosmos. These laws are leading scientists to a law maker, and very much confirming the above statement.
Stewart Kauffman, in "The Origin of Order" seems to be suggesting a natural law component involved in life. As one reviewer at amazon.com said, "gives a clear understanding of the limited role of natural selection in comparison to the self-organizing forces at work within such systems."
This suggestion of a limited role of natural selection in comparison to the self-organizing forces sounds eerily similar to your PEH. You certainly seem to be suggesting that natural selection is significantly overblown. However, Kaufman seems to be referring to a law of nature where you seem to be refering to a universal geneset built into the first organism. My guess is that you are both right, that there is a universal geneset, and that the geneset gets to be reasonably small because of natural laws such as Kauffman is describing.
It seems to me that a bunch of you scientists, those who aren't married to NDE, are all saying something quite similar. I suspect that if I take your perspective, PB's, Michael Denton's, maybe Kauffman's and put them all together, I will find that each of you brings part of the truth to the table.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 14. June 2006 03:01
quote:
I enjoyed your insightful analysis. I hold the view that the major variations in DNA sequences are set up or created in a non-random fashion at the beginning of species split. So, human and chimps never once shared nearly 100% identity and gradually divered to today's 95-98% identity. They have always been 95-98% different ever since human and chimp diverged from their last common ancestor. Is this view consistent with your ideas?
Shi, what I am arguing is that we might most probably be not able to discriminate between common mechanisms that create an illusion of common descent and common descent. We might not be able to distinguish predetermined fast-track evolution and creation.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 14. June 2006 03:21
The implications for the data Penny's article refers to:
1) all genetic changes are fast, not slow [1],
2) we cannot have an common ancestor with chimps 5-6 million years ago [1],
3) darwin was wrong,
4) the darwinians are wrong,
5) currently we do not have a evolutionary theory.
[1] Penny asks why nobody noticed this paradox before. This is untrue. Several creationists have pointed it out. Four years ago I have demonstrated this on the EvC board. I have tried to get in published in the scientific (darwin-minded) literature, without success. Now darwinians cannot longer obscure what is obvious they produce papers such as Penny's. With their dogmas the Darwinians are not only blocking the truth, they also block scientific progress (Over the last decade at least five years have been lost).
peebee
[ 14. June 2006, 03:31: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 14. June 2006 03:27
quote:
My question, as recessive genes do seem to periodically pop up in populations (we see left-handedness and blue eyes quite often) why would you say that recessive genes are "redundant", not protected by natural selection, and not accoutable for by NDE?
Most probably they are the result of non-random genetic mechanisms. Like many traits they can be found independent of common descent; they occasionally arise in the multipurpose genome (mediated by VIGEs).
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 14. June 2006 03:38
quote:
The reason why randomeness can coexist with stability is because randomness cancel itself out. It cannot move in one direction without also moving in the opposite direction. So, the net effect is no movement in any direction.
The Darwinians will tel you that the order we observe (the design of nature) is the result of natural selection. Therefore it is imperative to ID proponents to overturn this principle.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 14. June 2006 03:58
quote:
I cannot imagine a "natural law" being competent to produce life and determine its subsequent evolution. I don't think any one else can either. They just think they can!
There is no 'self-organizing' law. We would have known about it as we would have observed its impact in the experiments performed in the attempts to synthesise the intricate biomolecules required to sustain life. There is a no law to create life, there is a Will to create life.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 14. June 2006 06:31
There is an interesting feature of Lamarckian dogma which lends a degree of support to the PEH. Lamarck explained the origin of new structures as due to an "inner urge." This of course should not be taken literallly, yet it certainly implies that the effect came from within and not from outside the evolving organism. To that extent I feel he was right on! At least he offered an explanation for the origin of new structures, something the Darwinians can never do.
We should remember Mivart's challenge to natural selection - How can natural selection affect a structure that has not yet appeared? His question has never been even acknowledged, let alone answered by the atheist Darwnian establishment. Lamarck had provided the answer long before both Darwin and Mivart.
The one thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.
"You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him read it."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 14. June 2006 06:39
Darwin's real message in "the origin" is ussually overlooked. It is: atheism.
peebee
[ 14. June 2006, 06:39: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 14. June 2006 07:59
Shi wrote:
quote:
The reason why randomeness can coexist with stability is because randomness cancel itself out. It cannot move in one direction without also moving in the opposite direction.
I am remembering the random walk problem. Some may not be familiar, here follows a description.
Suppose we have some sort of critter, let’s call it Sam. Sam is confined to a linear track. Sam is totally purposeless but it will move. It can move left or right. Since it has no purpose it can’t decide which way to move. Sam pulls out a coin and gives it a flip. If it lands heads, Sam moves one step to the right, if tails one step to the left. Sam continues to flip and move one step right/left each time corresponding to heads/tails. What will happen to Sam? Will it stay relatively close to where it started or will it move off to the left or right? As it turns out, on average, the longer Sam flips the farther away from its starting position it will move.
This is a curious development. The explanation is thus. As the number of flips tends to infinity the percentage of heads does tend toward 50%. However, the difference between the number of heads and the number of tails is increasing without bound. That Sam will move off in some direction is sure, which direction right/left is a 50/50 shot.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 14. June 2006 09:56
peter borger: "The implications for the data Penny's article refers to:"
Odd then, that Ho, et al say that "Further analyses showed that purifying selection offers the most convincing explanation for the observed relationship between the estimated rate and the depth of the calibration."
In other words, there is an answer found in the (nearly) neutral theory of genetics. This has already been pointed out, yet in your zeal to overthrow the existing paradigm, you seemed to have ignored it.
peter borger: "The Darwinians will tel you that the order we observe (the design of nature) is the result of natural selection. Therefore it is imperative to ID proponents to overturn this principle."
Darwinians? There is a lot of historical revision going on. Darwin didn't even have knowledge of a valid theory of genetics. Neutral theory is a fairly new development. (Nearly) neutral theory is even newer. And there is little doubt that new theories will be required to explain the new data. So, "Darwinian" is meaningless in this context, though I would point out that Darwin did not posit that evolution worked at a steady pace, and suggested that many changes could be selectively neutral.
peter borger: "Darwin's real message in 'the origin' is ussually overlooked. It is: atheism."
Darwin: There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 14. June 2006 10:08
Shi: "I can use atoms as analagy. The randomness of quanta in the hydrogen atom will never be able to change a hydrogen atom into a helium atom."
That's not true. Fusion of hydrogen into helium is one of the most common events in nature, and is explained by Quantum Mechanics.
Shi: "Each type of atom is a unique stable state of energy. Within each atom, there is randomness of quanta. But such randomness is not without limit and contribute little to the difference between different types of atoms. A stable species is like an atom."
To continue the analogy, under certain circumstances, just as an atom may not be stable and distinct, a species may not be stable and distinct, and may evolve and diversify.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 14. June 2006 10:39
There was never ANY role, limited or otherwise, for natural seection in creative evolution. That is my firm position and I stand on it.
"Here I stand. I can do no otherwise."
Martin Luther
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 14. June 2006 11:05
quote:
peter borger: "The implications for the data Penny's article refers to:"
Odd then, that Ho, et al say that "Further analyses showed that purifying selection offers the most convincing explanation for the observed relationship between the estimated rate and the depth of the calibration."
In other words, there is an answer found in the (nearly) neutral theory of genetics. This has already been pointed out, yet in your zeal to overthrow the existing paradigm, you seemed to have ignored it.
My zeal is not to overturn Kimura. I like Kimura's neutralism. However, invoking selection or purifying selection refers to Darwin. Darwin introduced natural selection to explain speciation without the need for a designer. He did not invent the concept, however, that were Wells and Blyth, decades before him. Darwin extrapolated the concept to explain species. From the start he was scientifically objected as he abused the concept.
Anyone who uses the concept of natural selection for biological explanations is a darwinian. I object to that for my well-known sceintific arguments.
quote:
peter borger: "The Darwinians will tel you that the order we observe (the design of nature) is the result of natural selection. Therefore it is imperative to ID proponents to overturn this principle."
Darwinians? There is a lot of historical revision going on. Darwin didn't even have knowledge of a valid theory of genetics. Neutral theory is a fairly new development. (Nearly) neutral theory is even newer. And there is little doubt that new theories will be required to explain the new data.
I know. That is why I have set up GUToB. GUToB is NON-RANDOM MUTATIONS in a MULTIPURPOSE GENOME (GUToB = NRM + MPG). It explains all the odd stuff.
quote:
Darwin: There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Final sentence The Origin?
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 14. June 2006 11:18
quote:
In other words, there is an answer found in the (nearly) neutral theory of genetics.
No, there is not. The neutral theroy does not explain why we find distinct mutation rates. Only when you accept that distinct DNA segments are subject to different rates of mutations neutral theory could have an answer. That distinct (neutral) segments are not equal was demonstrated recently by Wyckof et al. I wrote his groupleader that I might have a possible explanation for this phenomenon from GUToB, but he, unfortunately, never replied. Apparently NRM is not allowed in current evolutionary theory, although we observe it all the time.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
