|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 16. June 2006 13:24
I have recently exchanged emails with Hall, who is now retired. His present position is A, the adaptive mutation is a real phenomenon, and B. no one has a clue about it.
The fact of the matter is science is limited but logic and mind/imagination is more powerful than science. Nature contains phenomena that can be precisely studied by science, no question about it. But Nature also contains phenomena that are beyond the capacity of science. The supernatural behavior of quanta (eg. a quantu can be in two different places at the same time) is beyond science. For such phenomena, the ultimate solution lies in human intuition, imagination, and logical coherence. The fallacy of science is its failure to see its own limitations. It is simply false that science will eventually find answer to all natural phenomena given enough time. Some natural phenomena can only be solved in logical reasoning. Mathematics is a logical game and is not convention science. And yet, the language of science if mathematics. The ultimate answer must come from the foundation of science and hence mathematics. But, The foundation of math is common sense and logic.
quote:
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.
The question is what is the cause of such regular pattern, accident or God. If you can identify a third cause in additon to my dichotomy, please do. You may say it is an inherent property of matter but there are many other kinds of orbit patterns that are also made of the same stuff. So, the dirunal cycle is not the only possible way of life for matters.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 16. June 2006 14:05
Planck said: “The proper formulation of which (the Principle of Least Action) in every unbiased observer arouses the impression as if nature be governed by a rational and purposeful will”.
The pinciple of least action is the most fundamental and unifying law that we know today. Its key feature is this, as put by Wilhelm Ostwald, the founder of energeticism, “If there is present an infinite number of possibilities for a process, then what actually happens is distinguished among the possible cases.” Basically, what is manifested in nature, among all possible choices, is always the distinguished or unique choice. This is as if some agency is selecting among all possible choices, the unique choice. The agency has a purpose to always manifest in nature what he sees as the unique. That is why the priciple of least action is commonly viewed as belonging to the teteological principle, as acknowledged by Planck as cited above. Now, the agency that is doing the selection can be either accident or a conscious observer. It is much harder to believe that accident can consistently select the unique choice each and every time over billions of times of selection events in the past 15 billion years of the cosmo.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 16. June 2006 14:06
Shi: "I have recently exchanged emails with Hall, who is now retired. His present position is A, the adaptive mutation is a real phenomenon, and B. no one has a clue about it."
I would happy to read a cite to any of Hall's recent publications on the subject, or at least a complete quote with some context.
Direct mutation is not impossible, though the evidence is scant. Of course, it would beg the question of how the environment communicates with the genome (short of miraculous intervention with every gene replication). Nor would directed mutation overthrow the basics of the Theory of Evolution which was originally proposed without any valid theory of genetics, especially if this mechanism can be shown to be compatible with evolution. Lynn Helena Caporale's comments on the previous page of this thread might be relevant here.
Shi: "The fallacy of science is its failure to see its own limitations."
Science is not an all-seeing philosophy. It is a methodology of investigation. You can believe whatever you want, but to claim the mantle of science (as Intelligent Design does), your assertions must be consistent with the scientific method.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 16. June 2006 14:22
quote:
I would happy to read a cite to any of Hall's recent publications on the subject, or at least a complete quote with some context.
Below is the whole text of a email exchange between Hall and me. I hope that Dr. Hall does not mind me sharing it here. At least I dont see any harm.
It's nice to see that someone still remembers the adaptive mutagenesis business.
I stopped working on adaptive mutagenesis in 1999 because I was unable to design and execute the kinds of experiments that would shed some insight on the mechanisms. While I remain confident in my observations, and in the phenomenon itself, I was never able to provide a testable mechanistic explanation. I think the answer is that the popular theory clearly has holes (it fails to explain our many observations in several systems), but the experiments also clearly have holes in the sense that no critical test of our best theories were ever done. For instance, we were completely unable to isolate mutants taht either significantly increased or decreased the adaptive mutagenesis rate. Similarly, we were unable to demonstrate that adaptive mutations had a significantly different spectrum from growth-dependent mutations. After concluding that the phenomenon is real, but that I don't understand its basis, I moved on to other things.
What most failed to appreciate was that adaptive mutagenesis never challenged any of the precepts of neo-Darwinism. Evolution still is the product of mutation and selection, it is just that some mutations are the result of selection in that they occur much more often when they are advantageous than when they are neutral. As CAirns and I (and others) understand it there are two sources of variation, random mutations and selection-induced mutations. We have no idea how much each process contributes to variation or to evolution, nor do I see any testable way to estimate the proportional contributions of the two processes. Indeed, because adatpive mutations are immediately advantageous, it is quite possible that they might be a tiny fraction of all mutations, but have a disproportionately large effect of adaptive evolution.
I must still decline your invitation, but I am pleased that you remain inerested in the issue.
I suspect that at some time in the future, someone with better tools and a better intellect than mine will attack the problem again. At that time, that person would indeed be a good choice for a session like yours.
Barry
On Dec 1, 2004, at 5:46 PM, Shi wrote:
Dear Dr Hall,
Thank you for your quick reply. I am interested in your thoughts and work on the adaptive mutation in bacteria first ...
...snip...
... help to revise or even dispute neo-Darwinism. If so, I would consider you an ideal speaker for my session.
Best regards,
Shi
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 16. June 2006 14:24
Sorry my email to Hall is the following that did not show properly in my last post.
Dear Dr Hall,
Thank you for your quick reply. I am interested in your thoughts and work on the adaptive mutation in bacteria first discovered by John Cairns. Since neo-Darwinism cannot adequately explain that phenomenon, there are two consequences. Either the popular theory has holes or the experiment has holes. If you are confident about your findings, you must have a novel hypothesis for your data that may help to revise or even dispute neo-Darwinism. If so, I would consider you an ideal speaker for my session.
Best regards,
Shi
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 16. June 2006 14:39
Thank you. Very interesting actually, but it doesn't support your assertions.
Shi, quoting Hall
"I was unable to design and execute the kinds of experiments that would shed light on the mechanisms".
"While I remain confident in my observations, and in the phenomenon itself, I was never able to provide a testable mechanistic explanation."
"we were completely unable to isolate mutants that either significantly increased or decreased the adaptive mutagenesis rate"
"we were unable to demonstrate that adaptive mutations had a significantly different spectrum from growth-dependent mutations"
"What most failed to appreciate was that adaptive mutagenesis never challenged any of the precepts of neo-Darwinism. Evolution still is the product of mutation and selection..."
Note the lack of demonstrable mechanism, the lack of appeal to some sort of 'special creation' or 'intelligent design' to replace such a demonstrable mechanism, the careful phrasing not to claim more than empiricism allows, and the assertion that even if the hypothesis were true, it would leave the Theory of Evolution largely intact.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 16. June 2006 15:04
Hall also said that "the popular theory clearly has holes (it fails to explain our many observations in several systems)".
The fact that he does not see it as a challenge to NDE has no bearing on whether other would see it differently. Particularly since he has no explaination for it, when he had NDE that is supposed to explain all biology. NDE has holes, despite some of its merits. A new theory that can cover the foles of NDE would turn out to be a more comprehensive theory. The problem with NDE people is that they never admit holes, as Hall did.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 16. June 2006 15:31
Shi: "Hall also said that "the popular theory clearly has holes (it fails to explain our many observations in several systems)"
Yes, that's normal when at the edges of empirical science. There may very well be a new paradigm there, but that will require additional research and not wishful thinking. And it will require explaining the current evidence. If you do not believe the currently available evidence strongly supports Common Descent, for instance, then it is unlikely that you are arguing from the scientific evidence.
Shi: The fact that he does not see it as a challenge to NDE has no bearing on whether other would see it differently."
No, but he's your cited authority and certainly an expert in the field. And he doesn't find directed mutations to be contrary to the Theory of Evolution. Darwin didn't even have a valid theory of genetics and thought that traits might from experience into germ cells, but this speculation wasn't a component of his Theory of Evolution.
Shi: "The problem with NDE people is that they never admit holes, as Hall did."
Of course they do. That's why scientists constantly test the boundaries of the theory.
You express certainty. Hall expresses confidence. The difference between these expressions is vast.
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 16. June 2006 17:01
Zachriel:
quote:
Life requires a non-random environment — regardless of any theory of origins.
Therefore, the environment is non-random?
I don't get this whole argument about the environment. How do we determine that an environment is non-random? How do we determine that all environments are non-random?
Is the environment random with regard to fitness, like mutations?
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 16. June 2006 17:06
PB:
quote:
The accumulation of disadvantagous mutations is very high and could indeed lead to extinctions. Humans would have to bring forth much more offspring than is actually happening to outpace this effect; it is known as Haldanes dilemma.
That's not what Haldane's Dilemma is about.
However, are you familiar with Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by John C. Sanford?
Zachriel:
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.
lol. More garbage about Haldane's Dilemma.
[ 16. June 2006, 17:09: Message edited by: Scott ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 16. June 2006 17:16
Whatever Hall thinks about NDE is his personaly opinion. His objective value is his discovery of an incontraversial fact that can be considered a factual exception to NDE. Adaptive mutation says that environment can induce specific and targeted mutations. The environment would certainly include a supernatural observer of quantum if there is one. So, a targeted mutation induced by environment is most consistent with the idea of a purposeful observer. In contrast, NDE says environment only selects preexisting random mutations. Nothing in NDE could include adaptive mutation as a piece of supporting evidence of NDE. That is why no NDE people is citing adaptive mutation as evidence of their theory. A fact can be one of three things to a theory, neutral, supportive, or against. No one can say that the adaptive mutation is anything but aginst NDE.
Hall is contradicting himself without realizing it. The holes he acknowledged are fundamental flaws of NDE. The adaptive mutation exposes those holes. If something is exposing your holes or weakness, it is only natural to say that that something is a challenge to you.
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 16. June 2006 17:20
quote:
Common Descent can be falsified by finding violations of the nested hierarchy.
For any such violation an ad hoc "explanation" can be found. And the theory remains.
quote:
Natural selection is directly observed.
Which definition of NS are you using today?
quote:
Genetic drift is directly observed.
False.
quote:
Variation and mutation are directly observed.
So. It's what happens to them and what they are capable that is supposed to be the stuff of evolution, not that they exist.
quote:
Evolution as the change in allele frequencies is directly observed.
What's the difference between this and the natural selection or genetic drift you mentioned earlier?
Is that all that's meant by evolution? That alleles change in frequency? Gosh.
quote:
The Theory of Evolution strictly concerns biology, and has since Darwin.
I was disappointed. I was hoping to find out just what is the theory of evolution. I guess it's the theory that alleles change frequencies. What a useless theory.
quote:
You do not have an accurate view of the Theory of Evolution.
Well, here's your chance to update your blog with a new entry in which you tell people what the theory of evolution is! Please post the link here when you've done it.
quote:
Nearly all theories are known to have anomalies.
The theory of evolution being one of those that do not. Why not?
[ 16. June 2006, 17:32: Message edited by: Scott ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 16. June 2006 17:39
I want to dicusss the idea of proving the existance of God by logic and law rather than by experiments or scientific methods. ID is using complexity as prove of God but did not give any hint about how God works or about his law of creation.
The principle of least action (PLA) offers by far the best possible logical proof of God or an observer who selects. The basic facts we observe about nature is that what is manifested is always the unique choice among all possible choices. It is impossilbe to have accidents as the selector of the unique choice. It would be a miracle for accident to even succeed once in selecting the one unique choice out of an infinity of choices. It is vertually impossible for accidents to do it consistently for billions of times. So to prove God all you need to show is that the PLA is the most fundamental law and that what is manifested in nature is always the unique choice. In this way, we would prove God by natural laws, the PLA.
The core value of NDE, ie, accidents create nature, is incompatible with the PLA. Either NDE is wrong or the PLA is wrong. The verdict is clear.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 16. June 2006 18:44
Scott: "Therefore, the environment is non-random?"
Not "therefore". The environment is *observed* to be non-random.
Scott: "For any such violation an ad hoc 'explanation' can be found."
If a substantial violation of the nested hierarchy is found, the theory must be modified or discarded. This has already happened with regards to the evolution of cellular life, such that the domain of Theory of Common Descent may not properly apply to the proto-biotic environment.
Scott: "Which definition of NS are you using today?"
The same one used in the biological sciences, the differential reproductive success in populations due to heritable characteristics.
--
Zachriel: Evolution as the change in allele frequencies is directly observed.
Scott: "What's the difference between this and the natural selection or genetic drift you mentioned earlier?"
Natural selection and genetic drift are mechanisms of the observed change. Their effects can be directly observed.
--
Zachriel: The Theory of Evolution strictly concerns biology, and has since Darwin.
Scott: "I was hoping to find out just what is the theory of evolution. I guess it's the theory that alleles change frequencies. What a useless theory."
You must have missed the link provided. Evolution is the observed fact of genetic change in populations. The Theory of Evolution explains those changes and includes a variety of interconnected assertions, including Common Descent.
(For symmetry, consider the observed fact of gravity, and the various theories of gravity, such as those proposed by Newton and Einstein.)
--
Zachriel: Nearly all theories are known to have anomalies.
Scott: "The theory of evolution being one of those that do not. Why not?"
Of course it does, but most everything points to modification and extensions of the existing theory.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 16. June 2006 18:45
Shi: "Whatever Hall thinks about NDE is his personaly opinion."
You mean expert opinion, and the very expert you cited.
Shi: "His objective value is his discovery of an incontraversial fact that can be considered a factual exception to NDE."
He expressed "confidence". That is not the same as an incontrovertible fact. He clearly stated he didn't have the empirical evidence to back up his hypothesis.
[ 16. June 2006, 18:53: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
