|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 22. June 2006 03:26
John, the answer to you question is: probably for ages. I don't know how long, exactly, but life as we know it is certainly not around the billion of years proposed by the mainstream scientists. They simply copy and paste mainstream ideas, without objective scrutiny. Like you, I believe we must not stop testing whether current paradigms hold in the light of new scientific evidence. I have argued that from the observed new biological fact that the living systems we see today cannot be as old as assumed by the geoligists. Maybe earth was time warped while the universe expanded. With Einstein everything is possible. What do I know? I am only a biologist with a non-mainstream opinion, like you. That's all.
peebee
[ 22. June 2006, 03:27: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 22. June 2006 19:27
Well thanks Peter. That explains why you say what you do. I can't accept a young earth because the vast majority of the geologic and radiological evidence won't support it. I also don't see how relativity can permit it but apparently you do. Go for it! Like you say nobody knows anything for sure. I won't bother you again about it. Best regards.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 23. June 2006 03:08
quote:
I can't accept a young earth
I was not talking about a young earth. I am argueing that the organisms as we know them are characteriszed by robustness due to genetic redundancy and cannot be old. I wouldn't expect many redundancies left in the genome if the genomes were as old as claimed. But they are the rule rather than exception and there is no association with gene duplication. I believe that you must incorporate a solution to GR to have a functional PEH.
peebee
PS1: Elsewhere you wrote
quote:
I have a new hypothesis for organic evolution and I am still waiting for a reason to respond to a critique of it.
John, you know my critiques. You cannot just say:
quote:
I can't accept a young earth
That would be dogmatic thinking.
PS2: I have found compelling genomic evidence for your PEH but then you must reduce your ages. In fact we should really start doubting the dating methods. In for a demonstration?
[ 23. June 2006, 07:19: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 23. June 2006 10:36
PB: "In for a demonstration?" Actually PB, you have made your case here repeatedly. Your case is obvious and clear. If a gene is truly redundant, then deleterious mutations should just knock it out because natural selection will judge the fitness of the organism based upon the alternative fully functioning system. It should, therefore, take no more than, say 5 million years to kill the average redundant gene.
However, PB, I have looked at evidence for an old earth from the perspective of a half-dozen different sciences. The evidence for an old earth is significant. This produces significant dissonance. Your understanding of biology does not permit an old biosphere, other sciences require it. However, mainstream biology's understanding does not explain the facts that you present. This is a signifant quandary. I think that the only thing we can be sure of is that we really don't have that good of a handle on the ancient past.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 23. June 2006 12:02
Peter. I am very dogmatic. Haven't you noticed? So are you!
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 23. June 2006 13:54
Peter wrote:
quote:
In fact we should really start doubting the dating methods.
I personally reject uniformitarianism in the scientific arena. I am then forced to doubt all dating methods in that they each rely heavily on this principle. Contrapositionally, if one embraces any one of these dating methods then they must accept that the same processes [at least those processes related to the method in question] in the universe today have been in effect for all time and to the same degree.
From the ID perspective the age of the earth is immaterial. From the NDE perspective an old earth is a necessary condition.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 23. June 2006 14:48
quote:
"In for a demonstration?"
The demonstration would not involve genetic redundancy.
Rather, I would like to demonstrate Salty's saltationism. There is evidence for this notion in the human genome.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 23. June 2006 14:50
quote:
Peter. I am very dogmatic. Haven't you noticed? So are you!
John, I am not. I believe you could be right, I could be right, everybody else could be right. It is the data that count and the theory has to be in accord with the data.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 23. June 2006 15:37
quote:
Assuming a saltational evolution, the timing may have been done by the virus-like sequences abundantly present in the genome.
Peter, on my opinion the question stands like that: is speciation (of mammals) proceeded via sexual mechanism, or no (by parthenogenesis)? In the case of parthenogenesis - as proposed by professor Davison - there is no need for timing for speciation, it can proceed in any time (in scale say plus minus 100.000 years). There is also no need that more individuals of given species should arise at the same time (or at least in the same generation in order to put into beeing sexual partners). This view - if my memory does not deceive me - corresponds with the Plato opinion (Symposion?), that first mankind did not have sex and woman and man was in one individual.
On the other hand in the case of speciation (I do not have in mind any gradualistic darwinistic speciation, but only saltationism) via sexual reproduction, there is need for some trigger in order to secure sufficient amount of sexually reproducible individuals of new species (at least two of them with opposit sex.) And for that purpose I proposed viruses as triggring mechanism in old species to convert into new one.
This is very intriguing if it is true that according another saltationism theory old species split as a rule into two new species and ceased to exist (also professor Davison proposed, that by splitting are old degenerating species so to say purified - transformed into new one). If in one generation old species give rise to new species, the timing is necessary and I have no idea how this timing can be done by "internal clocks". There is need for some external trigger.
Anyway Peter - I believe in panspermia not the slightest bit - information, that viruses contain huge amount of genes are surprising:
"a few hundred liters of water from the Sargasso Sea identified 1.2 million unknown genes from 1,800 predicted genomic species." http://www.panspermia.org/whatsne38.htm#050926
According Luis P. Villarea, the Director Center for Virus Research University of California at Irvine, even humans aroses via horizontal gene transfer: article "Can Viruses Make Us Human?". He claims, that the source of genetic evolution lies in viruses, not in individual genoms. www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1483/480304.pdf
I am a layman unable to judge if new genes arise first in viruses or in organisms. I like most the theory, that all information was preformed - stored in the first organism. It can be confirmed by observation, that in some primitive organisms the information in DNA is overlapping, and it dependnds on "reading frame", which of them is expressed.
Another question of course is, what and how many information is stored in DNA/genom, while it is necessary always have the maternal cell to enable expression of genes and ontogeny. Judging by computers, where DNA is like software and cell is like hardware, the software is not omnipotent and it is the hardware, which "understand" information and translates this information into something meaningful. And it is the software, that should be accomodated, adapted (compiled, interpreted) to the machine language of given hardware.
[ 23. June 2006, 15:53: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 23. June 2006 15:42
Peter,
You raised an excellent point about how selection or lack of selection can keep the redundant genes alive in the genome. Your point is valid only if we assume that Dawinian selection (reproductive success) is the only the selection force in nature. If we can prove that there is also in nature a selection force that is the opposite of the Dawinian selection force, then keeping redundant genes is no longer a problem. Indeed, humans have a lot more need than simply reproduce. We also want to be unique and creative in terms of art and science. The redundent genes may not be necessary for reproduction but may be needed for creation in the domain of ideas. If reproduction is all that counts, bacteria is the best in doing that and evolution should just stoped after bacteria. It is obvious that evolution has a goal of creating diversity and complexity for the sake of diversity and complexity. Redundant genes add to diversity and complexity and are precisely the predicted results of a selection force that has a goal in creating diversity and complexity. The ultimate goal of that force is of course the human mind. The mind is not an epiphenomenon of an evolution has only reproduction in mind. The mind is the primary goal of evolution and is the ultimate product of a selection force that aims to create diversity and complexity for the sake of it. Redundant genes therefore are the proves for such a selection force.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 23. June 2006 16:22
I have deduced a logical prove for the claim that consciousness creates matter.
There are essentially two opposite metaphysical philosophies, consciousness creates matter or matter creates consciousness. Let us assume they cannot both be correct. Thus, to prove one of them wrong, we only need to prove empirically one of them right. Well, what do facts say? Clearly we see consciousness creates matter every day, as the human mind is doing in creating matters of complexity such as cars, airplanes, music, etc. In contrast, there is zero observation of matter creating counsciousness. Sure, brain/neuron is needed for mind. But what created the brain? Is neuron sufficient? Can one exclude the divine consciousness? So, we have positive evidence for the claim that consiousness creates matter. This, together with the lack of data supporting the opposite claim, proves that the opposite claim must be false.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 23. June 2006 16:47
PB: "Rather, I would like to demonstrate Salty's saltationism."
Something new? Bring it on!
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 23. June 2006 20:08
Uniformitarianism is as as sound as a dollar in geology and has absolutley nothing to do with organic evlution. That was the mistake that both Wallace and Darwin made. Similarly allelic mutation had nothing to so with evolution either so all of Mendelism is useless as an explanation for creative evolution just as Bateson realized toward the end do his life. There is a whole new kind of genetics locked up in the genome that we have not yet been able to analyze. It WAS basically a position effect phenomemon and chance never had anything to do with phylogeny any more than it does in ontogeny. The only role for selection was to maintain the status quo long enough to ensure ultimate extinction so the next emergent step could occur. It is now finished as far as I can tell. I believe that from here on it will all be down hill.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 23. June 2006 20:20
All the great creative ages of mankind are in the past, literature, painting sculpture, music, you name it. We are now in the terminal age, technology, and we are approching the limits there just as we have in every other great age. This is it folks. It is later than you think! Enjoy.
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 24. June 2006 03:20
Professor,
according one study there are two different types of sex chromosomes, XX/XY and ZZ/ZW, in the Japanese frog Rana rugosa. They are separated in two local forms.
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/164/2/613
Has this phenomenon any relation to Vorontsovs claim on nonhomologous males of different species?
[ 24. June 2006, 03:37: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
