|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 15. June 2006 07:39
Zachriel: Nothing you have posted leads me to believe that your model is better at explaining the data than Ho's and other specialists in the field.
peter borger: "You can start by explaining genetic redundancy from the standard model"
Um, people have two kidneys and two lungs. They are virtually identical. Is this evidence of design?
In any case, not having the answers to everything does not falsify a scientific theory, nor lend support to a scientific design inference. Though when delving into areas of ignorance, people will often invoke the 'Hand of God', this is a metaphysical or religious statement, not a scientific one.
There is still a great deal unknown about genetics. However, gene duplication is a common process in biology. Redundancy can be shown to have evolutionary value both for the persistence of traits through generations, greater expression of the trait, and for the enhancement of evolution. Most gene duplicates are subject to rapid evolution, some take on new tasks, some duplicate pairs end up specializing and sharing the work, some duplications cause rapid speciation, some are subject to purifying selection; and in some fundamentally important and ancient genes, they apparently work as true redundants, and maintain their equivalence through a process of gene conversion, similar to other error correction mechanisms in the genome. There are statistical tests for detecting gene conversion in genetic sequences.
[ 15. June 2006, 07:41: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 15. June 2006 07:50
peter borger: "Common descent is okay as long as you talk about organisms that interbreed. For organisms that do not it is inferred from shared characteristics and similarities, which can also be the result of design and NRM."
The nested hierarchy of descent allows the formation of specific predictions. It predicts the possible content of genomes, morphology of yet to be discovered species both extinct and extant, and the shared characteristics of embryos. The design inference can explain anything, which is why this board is all over the place.
peter borger: "If you look into the genomes of dog varieties you find that the variation is not due to random point mutations but rather stems from shuffling of preexisting genetic elements"
There are certain alleles in poodles that do not exist in wolves or terriers, yet they share a common ancestor. In addition, new mutations have been recorded in recent times in domestic animals.
peter borger: "it is known as Haldanes dilemma"
Haldane's so-called dilemma depends on faulty mathematics. He assumes one beneficial mutation per generation, therefore claims there hasn't been enough time for evolution to work. However, this assumption is incorrect. Populations are full of mutations. In fact, everyone is a mutant and each individual human has new muations in their germ cells. That may mean billions of mutations per generation, many of them beneficial, many of them neutral, many of the linked, and often subject to strong sexual selection.
[ 15. June 2006, 08:13: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 15. June 2006 08:34
quote:
Um, people have two kidneys and two lungs. They are virtually identical. Is this evidence of design?
I know someone who has six kidneys, and this person feels chronically ill.
However, we are not discussing this type of redundancy (which can be taken as evidence of design as natural selection does not explain it). Rather, we were discussing genetic redundancy. Its mere existence unassociated with gene duplication and the observation that redundant genes do not change faster than essential genes reveal natural selection is not a major evolutionary force. If NS is unable to explain redundant genes, how on earth can it be relevant for the arrival of new species?
NB, my original claim was that genetic redundancy as we observe it falsifies Darwinian Theory as a whole and I have not seen it rebutted. Not here, not in the scientific literature. As a matter of fact it is acknowledged as an "unsolved problem in protein evolution" in the Nature review you referred to (on page 340). "Unsolved problem" is a bit of an understatement for the complete falsification and overturn of selection hypothesis, I would say.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 15. June 2006 08:37
quote:
There is still a great deal unknown about genetics. However, gene duplication is a common process in biology.
I am familiar with Ohno's hypothesis.
Your problem is that genetic redundancy is not associated with genetic duplications (see my previous references).
In fact, the lack of the association also provides the evidence that Ohno's evolution by gene duplication is wrong.
peebee
[ 15. June 2006, 08:40: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 15. June 2006 08:59
quote:
Redundancy can be shown to have evolutionary value both for the persistence of traits through generations, greater expression of the trait, and for the enhancement of evolution. Most gene duplicates are subject to rapid evolution, some take on new tasks, some duplicate pairs end up specializing and sharing the work, some duplications cause rapid speciation, some are subject to purifying selection; and in some fundamentally important and ancient genes, they apparently work as true redundants, and maintain their equivalence through a process of gene conversion, similar to other error correction mechanisms in the genome. There are statistical tests for detecting gene conversion in genetic sequences.
You do nothing but propagation of the standard evolutionary presuppositions. As argued in this thread the whole idea of gene duplications and evolution of new genes was found non-existing in the genome projects of the last decade.
Also, you are mixing up redundant genes and high abundance genes. The latter are truly redundant and it requires a mechanism to keep them stable in the genome. The existence of such mechanisms poses standard theory for another paradox: the increase of genetic information.
NB, there is NO association between gene duplication and redundancy, and BTW the 2R hypotheis was recently demonstrated wrong. What else is there for evolutionary theory? Nothing.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 15. June 2006 09:21
quote:
The design inference can explain anything, which is why this board is all over the place
Darwin's selection hypothesis is also worthless:
Sometimes there is positive selection; if it is not positive then it negative selection; for genetic redundancy we must introduce neutral selection. Darwin's selection hypothesis to explain biology is not much more than phlogiston to explain combustions.
quote:
There are certain alleles in poodles that do not exist in wolves or terriers, yet they share a common ancestor. In addition, new mutations have been recorded in recent times in domestic animals.
I do not doubt the existance of mutations. What I am convinced of is that the random mutation scenario of the darwinians is worthless to understand biology. What I am argueing is that variation is mediated by preexisting genomic mechanisms. That has now been proven beyond any doubt. The whole issue boils down to: if variation is prespecified in the genome, then what Darwinians observe is simply the MPG in action and the extrapolation from this into microbe-to-man evolution is unwarranted, unless you postulate frontloading and PEH.
peebee
[ 15. June 2006, 09:22: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 15. June 2006 09:29
quote:
Haldane's so-called dilemma depends on faulty mathematics. He assumes one beneficial mutation per generation, therefore claims there hasn't been enough time for evolution to work. However, this assumption is incorrect. Populations are full of mutations. In fact, everyone is a mutant and each individual human has new muations in their germ cells. That may mean billions of mutations per generation, many of them beneficial, many of them neutral, many of the linked, and often subject to strong sexual selection.
It has been calculated that the detrimental mutations by far exceed the beneficial, and to compensate for that and sustain a viable human population would require 30-60 offspring per individual female.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 15. June 2006 10:15
peter borger: "my original claim was that genetic redundancy as we observe it falsifies Darwinian Theory as a whole and I have not seen it rebutted."
When you use terms such as "Darwinian" that have imprecise meaning in context, it leads to confusion. Darwin didn't even have knowledge of a valid theory of genetics. Few scientists believe that selection is the only mechanism involved in evolution. Scientific understanding of genetics has come a long way since Darwin. And with this understanding has come many new questions.
All you have posted is that scientists have questions about the details of evolution. Nor do open questions about genetic duplication and redundancy represent anything other than an opportunity for further research. Just because scientists don't know everything, doesn't mean they don't know anything. There is substantial evidence concerning the existence of mechanisms of genetic duplication, genetic hotspots, error correction and genetic conversion; and that these mechanisms appear to be the result of ad hoc modification through common descent.
Nothing has been persuasive that evolution doesn't occur, or that it does not continue to act as the unifying theory of biology.
And certainly your appeal to the scientific literature undercuts any argument you make. Virtually every empirical study you cite contradicts your stance and offers avenues for contined study, as any good paper does.
http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v7/n5/full/nrg1838.html
peter borger: "What I am convinced of is that the random mutation scenario of the darwinians is worthless to understand biology. What I am argueing is that variation is mediated by preexisting genomic mechanisms."
No one in biology holds such a naive belief in mutation, e.g. genetic repair mechanisms have been known for decades.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 15. June 2006 10:45
quote:
Darwin didn't even have knowledge of a valid theory of genetics.
Standard evolutionary theory is based on Darwin. Darwin did indeed not know about genetics, and what we now know on genetics is not in accord with what darwin proposes as the mechanism for microbe-to-man evolution. So, if darwin was wrong how can evolutionary theory be Darwinian?
quote:
All you have posted is that scientists have questions about the details of evolution.
How come I always and everywhere here it was all settled since 1859?
The new biology data show genetic redundancy without an association between gene duplication. That not only questions the details of evolution, it simply demonstrates that the whole concept of Neo-Darwinian evolution is a human (atheistic) invention. I demonstrated that here on this forum, and now all Darwinians can do is deny it, ignore, not believe it. I know, because it happened before. In a pro-evolutionary board I would have been suspended long ago.
As a genuine scientist I am fed up with the darwinian dogmatic non-science. In the end, the truth will prevail anyway.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 15. June 2006 10:50
quote:
Virtually every empirical study you cite contradicts your stance and offers avenues for contined study, as any good paper does.
This statement is in need of references.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 15. June 2006 11:05
peter borger: "How come I always and everywhere here it was all settled since 1859?"
Huh? There has been no biology since Darwin? If anything, Origin of Species, like all great theories spurred a huge outpouring of new research which continues today.
peter borger: "So, if darwin was wrong how can evolutionary theory be Darwinian?"
Please define "Darwinian".
peter borger: "The new biology data show genetic redundancy without an association between gene duplication."
Cite, please.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 15. June 2006 11:28
Zachriel: Virtually every empirical study you cite contradicts your stance and offers avenues for continued study, as any good paper does.
peter borger: "This statement is in need of references."
peter borger: Penny, D. Relativity of molecular clocks. Nature 2005; 183-4. B.T.W. don't you guys read science journals, or what?
Yet, Penny suggests a valid mechanism to account for the "relativity" inherent in molecular clocks. And Penny is merely discussing Ho et. al., who made the original empirical studies and showed that "purifying selection offers the most convincing explanation for the observed relationship between the estimated rate and the depth of the calibration."
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 15. June 2006 11:53
quote:
(If there is interest I can post my paper on the GULO genes here as an original research submission, as it has been rejected now five times by the Darwinism-dominated scientific journals
PB, I am interested in your paper. Please post it. I cannot even find out what GULO gene is at the NCBI database.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 15. June 2006 13:02
“Can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?”
Zachriel wrote:
quote:
Nothing has been persuasive that evolution doesn't occur, or that it does not continue to act as the unifying theory of biology.
From a perspective outside the field of biology PB's argument is persuasive.
We (ID) are fewer than you (NDE). I am not as well educated as you. We don’t have the funding that you do. So cut us a break. If we are to falsify some aspect of Darwinism, say natural selection as creative evolution, then will you at least suggest the necessary and sufficient conditions that must exist in order to achieve this falsification? Not only must a good scientific theory be predictive but it also must be falsifiable, at least according to Popper. Perhaps the board would be less “all over the place” if you were to help us out. If no conditions are produced, then my only conclusion would be that NDE is no less intuition than is Shi’s designer.
Zach, I continue to investigate the maths involved. I presently am consumed in “Probability Models and Statistical Methods in Genetics” by Regina C. Elandt-Johnson. I must tell you with each page of this book and with every paragraph I read in biology texts I am more and more convinced the intuition for design I share with Shi and others is right on. However, I do agree with you that where science is concerned this intuition can’t stand alone.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 15. June 2006 13:35
Melvin H. Fox: "From a perspective outside the field of biology PB's argument is persuasive."
All I see is that they ignore the vast majority of the evidence and finds gaps in knowledge on the peripheries of what is known. That's why the bacterial flagellum is such an issue in ID circles -- because it is at the very base of the evolutionary tree just beyond the sight of current scientific investigation.
Melvin H. Fox: "If we are to falsify some aspect of Darwinism, say natural selection as creative evolution, then will you at least suggest the necessary and sufficient conditions that must exist in order to achieve this falsification?"
Common Descent can be falsified by finding violations of the nested hierarchy. Natural selection is directly observed. Genetic drift is directly observed. Variation and mutation are directly observed. Evolution as the change in allele frequencies is directly observed. The process of population divergence is directly observed. By Jove, the continents move, seas form, mountains rise from the oceans.
Scientists walk out into the wastelands of Montana and predict where to find dinosaur eggs, and find entire nesting colonies. Scientists camp for years in the Arctic looking in specific strata and find organisms with intermediate features betweens fish and land tetrapods. Scientists predict that there were once species of apes that walked upright and that they will be found in Africa in million year old rock, and they find them. Lucky guess?
Do you accept Common Descent? If so, then the evidence indicates that adaptation is ad hoc, and the process can be directly observed as predicted. If you don't accept Common Descent, then you must apply special pleading and your non-acceptance is no longer science.
The Theory of Evolution is a number of interrelated assertions. Other than that, you would have to be more specific.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
