|
Author
|
Topic: Prof. Davison's Challenge to NDE
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 31. May 2006 10:14
John A. Davison: "Zachriel faithfully adheres to the Darwinian myth that chance was the cause of evolution."
Strawman. The Theory of Evolution posits specific non-random mechanisms. That there is contingency in life is not a secret.
John A. Davison: "Zachriel has his sources, I mine. I have produced mine. I now expect him to produce his."
Yes, you quote decades old research that have been rejected by the scientific establishment. I cited recent studies in genomics, including by the consortium that sequenced the chimpanzee genome which will form the basis for all future research in that area. I also provided information concerning the human-ape phylogeny from a source cited by another.
Molecular phylogeny of the hominoids: inferences from multiple independent DNA sequence data sets.: "The implication of the multiple-locus test is that existing DNA sequence data sets provide overwhelming and sufficient support for a human-chimpanzee clade"
The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium: More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 31. May 2006 10:24
Zachriel wrote:
quote:
Not slippery but chaotic. I assume as a mathematician, you are familiar with fractal borders, e.g. the Mandelbrot Set. Some things are definitely inside the Set. Some things are definitely outside the Set. Some things must be judged by looking very carefully at the border. And some things are just too close to know for sure (beyond the available resolution).
The complexity of the bifurcation locus is not due the definition of the set in question (e.g. the Mandelbrot Set: z--> z^2 + c). The problem of determination comes when using the definition. If the iteration process was “completed” ad infinitum the determination would be sure and unambiguous for any point in the closed disk of radius 2 around the origin. The behavior of J(f) my be “chaotic” but the definition of the rule of determination f for the Mandelbrot Set is in no way chaotic.
Your definition is slippery. Your rule of determination is not “J-stable”. It is as though each time I look it up in the dictionary I see a different definition of species with respect to evolution. Weather or not the process of evolution is stochastic or not, stochastic definitions only compound the problem. But as I have said, I will play this game if it is the common practice. I accept for discussion then that, when populations exhibit low gene flow sufficient to maintain significant differences, then they are usually classified as species, usually. I suppose mathematicians play their own game with definitions and this does not bother me as much because I know the rules to our game. So, while I question the details of your analogy, I accept your point.
Zachriel wrote:
quote:
Stochastic processes will continue to lead to the divergence of the isolated populations, but as with all such processes, they may meander closer and farther, perhaps even reuniting. However, if they no longer exchange genes, eventually they will become genetically incompatible
I am familiar with stochastic processes in theory (e.g. the random walk). I am also familiar with applying stochastic theory to make predictions with regard to real events (e.g. actuarial science). I have yet to be convinced that stochastic processes were the cause of any real event in all of history. Do I understand you correctly that genetic incompatibility is temporary and unimportant?
Zachriel wrote:
quote:
Common Descent is inferred from the nested hierarchy.
Could not common design be inferred from the nested hierarchy? In other words, why is common descent the only logical conclusion based on all of these statistical correlations?
Zachriel wrote:
quote:
As a mathematician, you might want to read about how other mathematicians have shown that the nested hierarchy is independent of human cognition, but can be constructed analytically.
Do you have a favorite you could reference? Mathematicians are a funny sort. When we put on our thinking cap, we are not too concerned about reality. We like the virtual world because we can make it our own. We can make the rules and then see what happens. The biologist might like one of these worlds because it “fits” what they are observing. How well does it fit, perfectly? We must be careful not to force reality to fit perfectly any mathematical model. One biologist can look at the mitochondria and see a phylogenetic tree. Another might apply the universal probability bound. Which model is correct? Neither?
Zachriel wrote:
quote:
When did Mandelbrot cross the borders of his Set?
The Set is connected and compact. The numbers in the set don’t cross any border and none are isolated. They are simply in or out; black or white. There is truly no gray area. Any perception of gray on our part is due mostly to the pixel display (discrete space) of our computer, as you have noted. Wouldn’t it be comical if the universe was discrete and we keep trying to fit it to all of these continuum models?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 31. May 2006 10:29
Bruce Fast: "methodological naturalism requires an NDE theory that realistically jibes with the evidence"
Perhaps Philosophical Naturalism does, but Methodological Naturalism only requires that theories accurate predict facts within their limited domains.
peter borger: "“Probably all of the organic beings, which have ever lived on this Earth have descended from someone primordial form” [FROM: Darwin C, The Origin, 1859]."
This vision is scientifically proven incorrect."
Note the careful use of the word "probably". Darwin knew he lacked evidence at the root of the tree of life. In addition, the evidence strongly indicates that eukaryotes do share a common ancestor, and evidence of the origin of cellular life as some modified common descent is being discovered.
But Darwin was wrong about a lot of things. Theories are judged on their empirical value, not by what someone said in 1859.
peter borger: "A good start would be Lynn Caporale's papers"
Caporale said, "Genomes evolve a balance between fidelity of replication, and exploration of new opportunities. Natural selection favors the evolution of strategies that increase the rate of adaptation."
Sandor 606: "IN ORDER for the theory of evolution to be true, life had to arise from non-living matter."
This is a false claim. Even if God miraculously created the first life, the scientific evidence strongly indicates that it evolved and diversified since then. And you are also conflating the mechanisms of evolutionary change with Common Descent.
[ 31. May 2006, 11:16: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 31. May 2006 11:01
Allow me to put it in the right order:
darwin: quote:
Probably all of the organic beings, which have ever lived on this Earth have descended from someone primordial form” [FROM: Darwin C, The Origin, 1859].
peter borger: quote:
This vision is scientifically proven incorrect.
zachriel: quote:
Note the careful use of the word "probably". Darwin knew he lacked evidence at the root of the tree of life. In addition, the evidence strongly indicates that eukaryotes do share a common ancestor, and evidence of the origin of cellular life as some modified common descent is being discovered.
But Darwin was wrong about a lot of things. Theories are judged on their empirical value, not by what someone said in 1859.
The data presented show that if we want to believe in an evolutionary process the whole original thing (what was it?) was (front)loaded with genetic redundancies. They cannot be retained in the genome by the mechanism proposed by Darwin, ie Natural Selection.
CONLUSION: Darwin was wrong about evolution. It is not going up; it is going down.
peter borger: quote:
A good start would be Lynn Caporale's papers
Caporale has said many things, including
quote:
Genomes evolve a balance between fidelity of replication, and exploration of new opportunities. Natural selection favors the evolution of strategies that increase the rate of adaptation.
Natural selection acts on the level of reproduction. Any reproducing organism that managed to get a reproductive advantage will thrive and outcompete his relatives. The examples Caporale showed in her book and articles are all conform this principle, and mostly degenerative from the genomic stance: diseases, parisites, and resistancies. I do not consider them to be of any relevance in microbe-to-microbiologist evolution. Adaptation it is. Adaptation of preexisting genetic elements, that is, and leading to a reproductive advantage. In biology there is only one thing that matters, and not as Dobzhansky claimed evolution, but REPRODUCTION. That is the principle law of biology. It is GUToB's rule NR 1.
peebee
[ 31. May 2006, 11:03: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 31. May 2006 11:15
Melvin H. Fox: "The behavior of J(f) my be 'chaotic' but the definition of the rule of determination f for the Mandelbrot Set is in no way chaotic."
Yes, and as this particular definition includes an element of time, all you have to do is wait for the chaotic function of the initial conditions to unfold for a few million years and you will have your answer. However, in the meantime, chaos implies uncertainty near the boundary. Just as we will know the weather next week, next week.
The question would be the empirical observations at a moment in time. Due to sensitivity of initial conditions (and that life is full of complex contingencies that cannot be incorporated in a simple mathematical function, something true all mathematical models of nature), we can't be sure when exactly a new species has been formed. We can't tell the exact moment when the Earth's orbit has reached a critical point of instability either.
Melvin H. Fox: "It is as though each time I look it up in the dictionary I see a different definition of species with respect to evolution."
As there is more than one definition of species used in science, that would be not be abnormal. Scientists will typically define their terms if there is any ambiguity.
Melvin H. Fox: "I have yet to be convinced that stochastic processes were the cause of any real event in all of history."
Some people win the lottery. Some don't. Quantum reality means that random genetic mutations will occur during molecular replication no matter what.
Melvin H. Fox: "Do I understand you correctly that genetic incompatibility is temporary and unimportant?"
Of course it is important. I'm not sure why you would get the contrary impression. Once organisms no longer exchange genes, speciate, they will continue to diverge by a number of different mechanisms. And these branches will speciate and diverge creating a singular nested hierarchy.
Melvin H. Fox: "Could not common design be inferred from the nested hierarchy?"
The only empirically observed designer consistently violates the nested hierarchy.
Melvin H. Fox: "In other words, why is common descent the only logical conclusion based on all of these statistical correlations?"
The nested hierarchy can be directly observed being formed such as in bacteria, or in human y-chromosomes. The pattern that unlies your male ancestry is the exact same pattern found in all genomes. It is the expected pattern of uncrossed descent. In design we expect repeated violations of this pattern.
Life didn't have to be that way. Perhaps we could imagine a world where horses and humans could mate and produce centaurs. But that is not the world we live in.
How do we know that centaurs didn't once exist and are remembered by tales people relay over generations? Can you guess? Centaurs not only have features of two extant species that can't interbreed, but mammals are tetrapods and centaurs have six limbs. They have no possible ancestor. The violation of the nested hierarchy tells us that Centaurs are *designed*.
Melvin H. Fox: "We must be careful not to force reality to fit perfectly any mathematical model."
Very good point.
Melvin H. Fox: "One biologist can look at the mitochondria and see a phylogenetic tree. Another might apply the universal probability bound. Which model is correct?"
The phylogenetic tree exists regardless of the motives of biologists. The universal probability bound is a fallacious strawman argument (based on a model that no serious scientists proposes) from big numbers.
Melvin H. Fox: "The numbers in the set don’t cross any border and none are isolated."
At finite resolution — and all computational resources are limited, even in the math department — there are areas of uncertainty.
Melvin H. Fox: "Any perception of gray on our part is due mostly to the pixel display (discrete space) of our computer, as you have noted."
It has nothing to do with the resolution of your monitor, but the limitations of computation. If we treat the algorithm as a process in time, then there is no way to determine whether a particular point very near the border is in or out of the set except to watch the process play out. And this is with a very simple abstraction.
Melvin H. Fox: "Wouldn’t it be comical if the universe was discrete and we keep trying to fit it to all of these continuum models?"
Science is empirical, so philosophical detours are not always productive. Discrete mathematics are used when quantum effects are involved, such as in molecular interactions, and analog mathematics, or no mathematics at all, are used when appropriate to the study in question.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 31. May 2006 11:22
peter borger quoting Lynn Caporale: "Genomes evolve a balance between fidelity of replication, and exploration of new opportunities. Natural selection favors the evolution of strategies that increase the rate of adaptation."
Your cite. "Evolution of strategies."
peter borger: "In biology there is only one thing that matters, and not as Dobzhansky claimed evolution, but REPRODUCTION. That is the principle law of biology."
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but reproduction is an an observation and certainly a component of the Theory of Evolution. The Malthusian idea is that population increases exponentially while resources are limited leading to a competition for those resources. Darwin extended those ideas and made specific empirical predictions, everything from the existence of intermediate species between humans and other apes, as well as mechanisms of gradual genetic change that he could not observe with the technology of the day.
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 31. May 2006 12:13
quote:
As such they could easily be inactivated and that is what has apparently happened and that is why we do not see evolution of novel species and that is why evolution is no longer in progress and that explains loads of "junk DNA" and that is GUToB.
So as we find more and more "junk-DNA" that is not junk, will that falsify the GUToB?
So evolution did occur once, but no longer? And according to your theory, it must have happened recently, correct? Otherwise we would not still have redundant genes.
So, evolution happened.
It happened recently.
It must therefore have happened quickly.
And it just happened to stop pretty much simultaneously on all lineages.
Is this what the GUToB predicts?
How does this compare to the PEH?
[ 31. May 2006, 12:14: Message edited by: Scott ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 31. May 2006 12:19
quote:
But to someone of the time period, they would look just like species.
They would have looked like distinct taxa. You're missing the most important point though, what would the sense of relatedness have been?
quote:
when examining Cambrian life up close, you would nevertheless note the nested hierarchy, and common ancestors with some branches more successful and more diversified than others.
But this is precisely what is missing at the Cambrian. I'd be happy to look at any data you can provide that demonstrates otherwise.
quote:
Sorry, but Windows clearly adapted features from Apple Computers and violates the nested hierarchy as design usually does. Biological descent does not show this type of borrowing, but forms a distinct nested hierarchy.
So you deny both symbiosis and HGT/LGT? Why would these not appear as "borrowing," something you claim never happends in biological descent?
The fact is, your theory can accomodate anything. You'll say it can't when arguing against design, but then turn right around and argue for something when you need it to support evolution, or when the facts contradict your theory.
quote:
Gene recombination can be observed to be a stochastic process, and includes gene duplication, insertions, translocations, inversions, frame shift, etc. And these recombinations can be shown to occasionally produce a beneficial effect.
Do they ever occasionally produce a detrimental effect? Which is more likely?
quote:
Strawman. The Theory of Evolution posits specific non-random mechanisms. That there is contingency in life is not a secret.
Not a strawman.
You wrote:
quote:
Genetic mutation and evolution are stochastic processes.
So, what are these "non-random mechanisms" contingent upon?
quote:
The only empirically observed designer consistently violates the nested hierarchy.
The fallacy here is that there is no one single empirically observed designer.
quote:
It is the expected pattern of uncrossed descent.
What is "uncrossed descent"? Are you saying it's the expected pattern except when it's not?
quote:
In design we expect repeated violations of this pattern.
Why?
quote:
Malthusian idea is that population increases exponentially while resources are limited leading to a competition for those resources. Darwin extended those ideas ...
My question is, why did Darwin get his ideas from Malthus, rather than from his observations of nature itself?
[ 31. May 2006, 12:56: Message edited by: Scott ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 31. May 2006 12:59
quote:
Gentlemen, do you agree with me that a biologist who went back in time to just after the cambrian explosion would recognize the organisms as being "of separate phila", and likewise after the appearance of the classes and orders, or do you agree with Zachriel that an observation just after the arrival of these novel creatures would have concluded that they be taxonomically seen as being only of different species, or genus?
Bruce,
You are sort of missing the point, as is Zach.
They would recognize distinvct taxa, just like today. The insensate gradual intergradations would still be missing then, as now.
What would lead them to infer that the organisms they were observing were all related by descent with modification through evolution by natural selection? That's the question.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 31. May 2006 14:03
Scott: "Bruce, You are sort of missing the point"
Hmmm, you seem to be agreeing with me. I consider the march of life through the taxonomical tree to be one of the most vivid and obvious proofs that NDE is inadequate. Further, this march must lead one to Dr. Davison's position that evolution is ending/has ended.
As far as I am concerned this is the biggest "elephand in the room". Yet the only living theorist who seems to be clearly pronouncing it as such is Dr. Davison.
IP: Logged
|
|
Sandor Szabados
Member
Member # 1969
|
posted 31. May 2006 14:41
Peter,
quote:
Not that I am particularly interested in cropcircles, but surely, canola and celery can be bent 180 degrees over 10 meters.
The structure of the stalk is such that it does not bend like a willow, but breaks like celery, no matter how long the stalk is. It cannot be bent 90 degrees without breaking, much less 180.
Sandor
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 31. May 2006 15:22
Zachriel wrote:
quote:
Some people win the lottery. Some don't. Quantum reality means that random genetic mutations will occur during molecular replication no matter what.
What is quantum reality? If you refer to the waving of the hands explanation for the double slit experiment with electrons, then I will point out to you that nobody has any idea how to explain the reality of that situation. That is why we use the probability distributions to predict the behavior.
Genetic mutations will occur. Just because the pattern (design) for mutation escapes us for now, this is no reason to proclaim no pattern (design) exists. I am all for using allele frequencies in populations over time but why must we conclude that changes in the distribution are not engineered?
Zachriel wrote:
quote:
It has nothing to do with the resolution of your monitor, but the limitations of computation. If we treat the algorithm as a process in time, then there is no way to determine whether a particular point very near the border is in or out of the set except to watch the process play out.
Alright, it is easy enough to see that c = -2 +0i is an element of M. It is also easy enough to see that c = -2.1 + 0i is not an element of M. What about c = - (2 + є) + 0i ? Well we have:
Z1 = - (2 + є)
Z2 = 2 + 3є + є^2
Z3 = 2 + 11є + 13є^2 + 6є^3 + є^4
Z4 = 2 + 43є + 173 є^2 + 310 є^3 + 305 є^4 + 178 є^5 + 62 є^6 + 12 є^7 + є^8
Z5 = 2 + 171 є + …
The point is that as long as we fix є > 0, then c will not be an element of M because the coefficient of the epsilon term is increasing regardless of how small is є. Perhaps my selection of c on the real line is too trivial? Select a point of your own as “very near to the border” as you like and we will examine it.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 31. May 2006 16:08
What ever happened to my challenges which I thought were the subject of this thread?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 31. May 2006 17:50
My sources are indeed decades old and have always been ignored for a very good reason. The Darwinian atheists have steadfastly pretended that they never had any critics. The members of this forum continue to prattle on about mutations having a role in evolution when there is not a shred of evidence to support that contention. Evolution though randomness and natural selection is a gigantic illusion based on the unwarranted assumption that phylogeny had an exogenous cause. Such a cause cannot be demonstrated because it does not now and never did exist.
The most intensive selection has never surpassed the species barrier. Accordingly NOTHING in the Darwinian fairy tale ever had ANYTHING to do with evolution beyond the establishment of varieties. That is all that Darwin was able to show because that is all that selection can achieve. For many life forms even that is quite impossible. No contemporary organism is demonstrably capable of becoming anything very different from what it is right now. Get used to it. Robert Broom did, Julian Huxley did, Pierre Grasse and Otto Schindewolf inferred as much and so have I.
Some one send me an email when the discussion gets to the subject of this thread. Until then I see no reason to further participate. Darwinism is dead as a hammer and was at its inception.
"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."
Thomas Henry Huxley
Carry on without me. I have better things to do than waste my time here.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 31. May 2006 18:26
John, I agree with you that Darwinism only accounts for variteis of a species and for maintaining the stablity of a species. The force to maintain a species cannot be the same as the force that is to fundamentally change a species into a new species. This is analygoud to the paradigm evolution of science as noted by Kuhn. Most scientists works to fit within a paradigm (like most of them today trying to fit within the Dawinian paradigm). You would not expect them to create a new paradigm or species. It takes a person that is determined not to fit with the status quo to create a new paradigm. The primary drive for such a person is to be creative and unique rather than to fit. But the work by the people whose primary goal is to fit is not without any value to the unique creative person in his creation of a new paradigm. Their work serves as the necessary background and information upon which the new paradigm is inspired.
So, John, you may not be accurate to say that variations within species does not have anything to do with creative evolution. I believe they do in an indirect way. They provide the information on gene-phenotype relationship which is necessary for the supernatural observer to supervise the next creation. This is similar to how the work of Darwinists may help indirectly the creation of the next better theory of evolution. Just like Einstein theory does not invalidate Newton, the correct theory of evolution will include Darwinism as a limited aspect of the theory. It will not say that Darwinism is of no value at all in creative evolution.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic