|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 16. June 2006 03:18
quote:
"can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified"
To summarize the thread:
EVERY aspect of darwinism can be falsified.
Why is it still around, then?
ANSWER: Data selection, false interpretation and propaganda.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 16. June 2006 04:00
From Zachriel's blog:
quote:
The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat. The scientific method is a recursive system of matching theory with observation.
Zachriel, what does standard evo theory predict for genes and genetic redundancy?
1) Genes can only be stable in the genome due to selective constraints.
2) Genes not subject to selective constraint should evolve faster then those subject to (purifying) selection (=essential genes)
3) There is an association between genetic redundancy and gene duplication.
1) False! Genetic redundnacy is all over the place.
2) False! Redundnat genes do not change faster then essential genes.
3) False again! This association is not existing.
Conclusion. Evolutionary theoy is based on false premises. We are in need of a new theory.
Fortunately it is already there:
GUToB = MPG + NRM
peebee
[ 16. June 2006, 04:35: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 16. June 2006 05:16
quote:
Shi: "I say that God interveined to alter some quanta and in turn mutations. Can NDE prove me wrong?"
Zachriel: There is no scientific evidence to support your assertion. If you want to hold it, that's fine. Just don't claim you have scientific justification for that belief, as you do not.
I have the scientific evidence. It can be inferred from the mutations in the FOXP2 gene (which has been coined "the speech gene"). The gene in man has two point mutations not found in any of the primates. Darwinians have to assume two selective sweeps. GUToB only invokes two non-random mutations (As a matter of fact I can proof they are non-random) [1].
Peebee
[1] I have sent the MS where I show this to a scientific peer-reviewed journal about four weeks ago.
[ 16. June 2006, 05:21: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 16. June 2006 07:22
Shi: "The opposite of NDE/accident position is the God/purpose position.""
False dichotomy. Accident is not the antithesis of purpose. For example, if something falls, that is neither accident nor purpose. It is a result of observed regularities in nature. Nor can you show in a scientific manner that God is the only source of purpose. Try eliminating the double equivalences.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 16. June 2006 08:02
Zachriel: Virtually every empirical study you cite contradicts your stance and offers avenues for continued study, as any good paper does.
peter borger: "I discussed Penny and Ho in this thread. I showed that the relativety is due to the false assumption of common descent."
As I said, the cited paper contradicts your stance. And these are the very people who have developed the actual evidence and did the genomic analysis. This doesn't make them right, just expert. This doesn't guarantee the finality of their conclusions, but they offer a perfectly plausible and supportable explanation for the data based in the very statistics and methods used to develop the data in the first place.
In any case, there is no point discussing the mechanisms of evolution is you do not accept common descent. So, it's back to basics. You might want to start a new thread on just this topic.
The evidence for common descent is found in the succession of life found in the fossil record, the nested hiearchy of life, extinct and extant, the nested hierarchy of biogeography, the nested hierarchy of embryonic development, the nested hierarchy of microbiology, the nested hierarchy of genomes. This the same nested hierarchy that is found in the y-chromosome of male descent used to determine paternity.
Evolution Defined
peter borger: "All theories, however beautiful they may have been set up, will be terminated by only one single falsification of the basic principle."
Not quite. Nearly all theories are known to have anomalies. And falsification is also based upon theories of observation that may also have anomalies, genomics in particular fraught with statistical interpretations of tenuous data.
In addition, falsification requires a modification of a theory, not necessarily discarding the entire structure. For instance, Newton couldn't accurately predict the orbit of Mercury. But Newton's Theory was so powerful in other respects that it was maintained until the anomaly was explained by Einstein. You could call the modified theory "Newton's Theory of Planetary Motion (expect Mercury some of the time but it does a pretty good job with that too) Theory".
peter borger: "Selection theory is the basic mechanism of darwinism, neodarwinism, standard evotheory (or whatever you call it). If one falsifies that concept it overturns the theory as a whole. That is the scientific method."
Well, it's been a matter of some debate for decades the extent to which natural selection accounts for the patterns found in biology, with (nearly) neutral theory being strong contenders to explain at least some of the data. In fact, Darwin originally suggested that some variation was 'neither beneficial nor injurious'. And the original population theory was introduced by Hardy-Weinberg a century ago. However, natural selection is believed to be essential to long-term adaptation.
peter borger: "I know a few good examples which can be directly checked in the genome"
As genomics is a stochastic process, there will always be some purported anomalies. In addition, there are bound to be anomalies because the process is so complex and the methodolgy of observation based on statistical interpretations of vast quantities of data.
Once having pushed through this veil, it might be possible to reach strong conclusions, but there is every possibility that any patterns you claim are merely the result of poor resolution of the data, or your own wishful thinking. There have been many surprises in the study of genetics. Your evident rush to overthrow the Theory of Evolution is probably premature. (It's not like this rush to overthrow the theory is a new phenomena.)
peter borger: "They are found in all organisms and it has been shown that they have an ability to shuffle the genome to produce adaptations."
Yes. It's also been shown that mutation can lead to selectable novelty.
peter borger: "Evolution equals changes in alelle frequencies. It is population genetics, however."
The modern scientific definition of evolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. It is a *prediction* from the Theory of Evolution. Remember, Darwin couldn't directly observe genes. From the macroscopic patterns in nature he predicted microevolutionary processes.
peter borger: "Why would population genetics and evolution from microbe-to-man be equivalent?"
That's called the Theory of Common Descent. Start with the nested hierarchy of vertebrates.
peter borger: "Panta rhei. And leave the roman Gods out of it."
Can't. As long as the gods move mountains, it will be intrinsic to the study of biogeography.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 16. June 2006 08:16
peter borger: "what does standard evo theory predict for genes and genetic redundancy?"
The Theory of Evolution has been modified continuously since Darwin, so "standard evo theory" is a rather inexact term.
peter borger: "1) Genes can only be stable in the genome due to selective constraints."
That is somewhat misleading. In a scale-invariant structure, such as that found in genomics, the more ancient and essential a structure is, the less likely it is to be available for genetic change, and if a change occurs, the more likely it is to be detrimental to the organism. (That's because everything else depends on these essential structures. A change in the foundation requires simultaneous changes throughout the entire structure. The existence of this scale-invariant structure is evidence of evolution, not design. With design, we can modify the foundation and the structure simultaneously in our minds before laying the foundation.) There are mechanisms of redundancy, gene repair and gene conversion that maintain these structures. These mechanisms of stasis are also believed to have evolved.
peter borger: "2) Genes not subject to selective constraint should evolve faster then those subject to (purifying) selection (=essential genes)"
Already discussed. Ancient and essential structures are maintained by various known mechanisms. The evidence indicates that these maintenance mechanisms also evolved through ad hoc modification.
Of course, these structures are very ancient, so the data is shrouded in historical events since then. Again, this shows the weakness of the Intelligent Design movement who are continually pushed back to the peripheries of knowledge as befits an argument from ignorance.
peter borger: "3) There is an association between genetic redundancy and gene duplication."
As expected, there are recent pseudo-genes of redundant structures.
In any case, even if none of your objections had known resolutions, ignorance is not evidence. It is expected there will be areas of unknown or contradictory evidence on the peripheries of empiricism. This may or may not suggest anything concerning the need for a modification of the Theory of Evolution. Nothing suggested thus far would overthrow the theory entirely.
But if you don't accept Common Descent, there is little reason to discuss the mechanisms. Pretty good guess on Darwin's part, though, that from the broad patterns he saw in nature, there would be mechanisms of microevolution.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 16. June 2006 09:39
quote:
peter borger: "what does standard evo theory predict for genes and genetic redundancy?"
The Theory of Evolution has been modified continuously since Darwin, so "standard evo theory" is a rather inexact term.
Standard theory still is Darwinian. It requires Darwin's selection mechanism. Kimura adds on neutral theory and what else is there? Some evolutionists may argue differently, but what is the mechanism of microbe-to-man evolution if selection is not the force to drive it? If standard theory assumes it is selection, then standard theory is Darwinian.
Let me ask you this: Is natural selection a major component of standard evolutionary theory? Yes or no?
quote:
This is what misleading. In a scale-invariant structure, such as that found in genomics, the more ancient and essential a structure is, the less likely it is to be available for genetic change, and if a change occurs, the more likely it is to be detrimental to the organism. (That's because everything else depends on these essential structures. A change in the foundation requires simultaneous changes throughout the entire structure. The existence of this scale-invariant structure is evidence of evolution, not design. With design, we can modify the foundation and the structure simultaneously in our minds before laying the foundation.) There are mechanisms of redundancy, gene repair and gene conversion that maintain these structures. These mechanisms of stasis are also believed to have evolved.
The funny thing is that 2 of the once believed indispensable 8 H1 genes can simply be removed from the genome. Hisone genes are ancient, apparently not essential. The same holds for the three redundant calcineurins.
In addition, and reiterated many times: essential genes do not evolve more slowly than redundant genes. This is the not exactly in accord with your claim.
Krakauer (you refer to him, isn't it) makes the scientific community believe that robustness is an evolved characteristic. If so, then apparently evolution had a direction and is now finished. That brings us back to Davison.
quote:
peter borger: "2) Genes not subject to selective constraint should evolve faster then those subject to (purifying) selection (=essential genes)"
Already discussed. Ancient and essential structures are maintained by various known mechanisms. The evidence indicates that these maintenance mechanisms also evolved through ad hoc modification.
Already rebutted. What mechanism do you refer to?
It should be realized that even the simplest organisms were shown to have the complete set of repair enzymes and cannot be explained ad hoc (for instance the sequencing of Chlorobuium demonstrated this). They are a prerequisite.
quote:
Of course, these structures are very ancient, so the data is shrouded in historical events since then. Again, this shows the weakness of the Intelligent Design movement who are continually pushed back to the peripheries of knowledge as befits an argument from ignorance.
Apparently there were many different types of these structures and not one, which points in the direcion of frontloading rather then ad hoc evolution. (as discussed)
It is not the peripheries of knowledge. It is the new data obtained by the last two decades of molecular biology. Data that are simply not in accord with standard evotheory. Data that show that evolution cannot be explained by RM + NS. That is my primary objection. (that I am on the side able to defend a recent origin of biological systems is hilaric, but may be ignored)
quote:
peter borger: "3) There is an association between genetic redundancy and gene duplication."
As expected, there are recent pseudo-genes of redundant structures.
I do not doubt that duplication of preexisting DNA elements takes place. The pseudogenisation thereafter shows it is not subject to NS. All we have to wait for is the inactivation of the redundancy as a whole. This happened many times and the inactivations have been located in the genomes. I discussed a few of them. (For instance, the caspase 11 gene; Inactive in humans, but still active in chimp. BTW it protects against Alzheimer. Many genetic redundancies protect against diseases that are not immediatle jeopardizing reproduction. I would like to coin them: longevity genes.)
quote:
In any case, even if none of your objections had known resolutions, ignorance is not evidence. It is expected there will be areas of unknown or contradictory evidence on the peripheries of empiricism. This may or may not suggest anything concerning the need for a modification of the Theory of Evolution. Nothing suggested thus far would overthrow the theory entirely.
As I predicted a few mails ago: All darwinians can do now is deny, ignore, or not belief most genes can be knocked out without a consequence for the individual.
It is simply impossible to falsify evo-theory. However, a theory that can accomadate every possible observation is not much better than a theory that invokes ID for every observation.
quote:
But if you don't accept Common Descent, there is little reason to discuss the mechanisms. Pretty good guess on Darwin's part, though, that from the broad patterns he saw in nature, there would be mechanisms of microevolution.
Why accept CD while many examples argue against it?
Microevolution is regulated by preexisting genetic elements (VIGEs). Darwin's made an unwarrented extrapolation from this by invoking this method to explain speciation. (Unless, of course, all genetic elements required for this process were frontloaded).
Cheers, mate
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 16. June 2006 09:47
quote:
As genomics is a stochastic process,
I the Darwinian (outdated) view it may be stochastic, but the new biology data show otherwise: mutation is modulated. Read a bit into Caporale's publications. My stance is similar but with more dramatic consequences for evotheory.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 16. June 2006 09:49
quote:
As long as the gods move mountains, it will be intrinsic to the study of biogeography.
What Roman god moved mountains?
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 16. June 2006 09:57
quote:
The modern scientific definition of evolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. It is a *prediction* from the Theory of Evolution.
It is also a prediction from thermodynamics, to be precise from entropy.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 16. June 2006 11:14
peter borger: " Is natural selection a major component of standard evolutionary theory?"
Natural selection is a major mechanism of evolution. It is just not the only one.
peter borger: "The funny thing is that 2 of the once believed indispensable 8 H1 genes can simply be removed from the genome."
You are probably referring to Yuhong Fan's work. Let's see. We have a family of closely related histones consistent with an origin through duplication and divergence. According to Fan, when one is knocked out, the other members of the family compensate, a multi-legged type pattern of stability. Such a stable pattern could have easily arisen through step-by-step modification.
peter borger: "Krakauer (you refer to him, isn't it) makes the scientific community believe that robustness is an evolved characteristic. If so, then apparently evolution had a direction and is now finished."
Not at all because the environment continues to change, not only due to planetary processes, but because each change in life creates new opportunities and problems. Complex systems are inherently unpredictable, and the stability of complex systems is usually due to flexibility and not rigidity. We would expect these changes to be scale-invariant, which is what is observed.
peter borger: "Read a bit into Caporale's publications."
Lynn Helena Caporale: "Biochemical mechanisms that increase the probability of constructive vs. destructive genetic alterations would provide a selective advantage to populations in which such mechanisms evolved and thus should have been selected for in evolution. As genome-encoded strategies evolve, enabling some populations to become more efficient at exploring possible adaptations to novel environments, the efficiency of evolutionary adaptation evolves. [emphasis mine]
peter borger: "What Roman god moved mountains?"
The geologists seem to think it has to do with heat in the Earth's interior causing plastic flow and upwelling in the mantle and something about the density of crustal material and eons of time. But what do they know.
peter borger: "It is also a prediction from thermodynamics, to be precise from entropy."
Quite so! Discrete molecular interactions are always beset by the quantum uncertainty principle. And information copying routines are always subject to error.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 16. June 2006 12:13
quote:
Shi: "I say that God interveined to alter some quanta and in turn mutations. Can NDE prove me wrong?"
Zachriel: There is no scientific evidence to support your assertion. If you want to hold it, that's fine. Just don't claim you have scientific justification for that belief, as you do not.
The best evidence suggestive of divine intervention in mutation, which science today has no clue whatever, is the adaptive mutation in bacteria, first found by John Carns and later confirmed by Hall and others. The mutation is so precise, targeted, goal orented.
Nothing in today's knowledeg can exclude a God or an observer who has been and still is influencing world events at the level of quanta. Science in fact demands an observer to be an inseperable partner of quanta. An observer of quanta or micro world can certainly influence macro world: all biology is chemistry, all chemistry is physics, and all physics is quanta. Our brain is full of quanta activities and so is our DNA code.
If we accept quanta as the starting material of nature, we must accept all of the inherent properties of quanta, including its inseperable partner, the observer. The observer must be an inherent property of nature just as quanta is. What we need is a theory that is based on the quanta and its observer. The real question for human is this: What kind of law the observer uses to build the world using quanta? I dont think any one has a law like that as yet. The theory of Peter and Davision do not sound like it.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 16. June 2006 12:26
quote:
EVERY aspect of darwinism can be falsified.
Why is it still around, then?
ANSWER: Data selection, false interpretation and propaganda.
It is not quite accurate to say that EVERY aspect of darwinism can be falsified. Survival of the fittest has some merits. A crazy man who does not fit in within the human way of life will be lockup and will have little chance of reproductive success.
Why is it still around, then?
ANSWER: Data selection, false interpretation and propaganda. You should also add the most important answer: the present lack of a better alternative. PEH is too broad and lacks details and predictive power. GUToB does not explain the origin and purpose of the MPG and NR. Here is a challenge: what is the purpose of life according to PEH or MPG. Both are teteologically orented and hence must address convincing the purpose issue before either can be taken seriously by the science community and the public at large.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 16. June 2006 12:42
quote:
alse dichotomy. Accident is not the antithesis of purpose. For example, if something falls, that is neither accident nor purpose. It is a result of observed regularities in nature. Nor can you show in a scientific manner that God is the only source of purpose. Try eliminating the double equivalences.
Not so. For all practical matters relavent of humans, the opposite of the God/purpose position is the accident position. This dichotomy has been in existence for as loog as human has existed. That is why today, the enemy of God is Darwinism and vice versa. You may invoke any other trival competing positions to God or Darwinism, but the fact remains that they are trivial and no one cares about them. If I believe in God, I know my main and only enemy is NDE, and vice versa.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 16. June 2006 13:05
Shi: "I say that God interveined to alter some quanta and in turn mutations. Can NDE prove me wrong?"
Zachriel: "There is no scientific evidence to support your assertion. If you want to hold it, that's fine. Just don't claim you have scientific justification for that belief, as you do not."
Shi: "The best evidence suggestive of divine intervention in mutation, which science today has no clue whatever, is the adaptive mutation in bacteria, first found by John Carns and later confirmed by Hall and others. The mutation is so precise, targeted, goal orented."
However, the effect that Cairns identified in 1988 has been determined to be a result of hypermutation of bacteria under stress possibly due to a breakdown in the genetic repair mechanism. And it was Hall who "conjectured that when starving, a few bacterial cells might enter an unusual state in which they generate multiple mutations. Cells that by random chance produced, but others would probably die and leave no trace. So investigators would see more beneficial mutations than harmful or neutral ones. For some years, technical obstacles made it hard to confirm or refute this explanation. [Scientific American 1997]"
This is a prime example of latching onto a perceived weaknesses in current (1988!)understanding to try and find scientific cover for what is essentially a matter religious faith or metaphysical belief. Even if no explanation for Cairn's observation were available, it would not justify invoking an "intelligent designer" in lieu of searching for a scientific explanation. These sorts of anomalies are part-and-parcel of cutting edge research.
Shi: "For all practical matters relavent of humans, the opposite of the God/purpose position is the accident position."
That's not true. The regularity of the diurnal cycle is hardly an accident and is certainly of practical relevance to people. Yet, we know that this regularity is due to the rotation of the planet.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
