|
Author
|
Topic: Prof. Davison's Challenge to NDE
|
Sandor Szabados
Member
Member # 1969
|
posted 31. May 2006 20:41
Shi,
quote:
It takes a person that is determined not to fit with the status quo to create a new paradigm.
This may be true in the arts and humanities, but not in science. Scientists do not seek to fit or rebel against any staus quo. They do research (theoretical and applied) and discover facts. An honest scientist will not try get the facts to fit the paradigm but will construct a new paradigm that explains the facts, and that's what Dr. Davison did.
Sandor
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 31. May 2006 22:22
Mind if I respectfully disagree with both Shi and Sandor 606 on this one.
It seems that it takes a piece of evidence that is determined not to fit the current paradyme to bring it down. As has been seen by the failures of other paradymes, like ether, we sometimes live for a time with the only paradyme being "I don't know."
Alas, NDE is a very flexible and accomodating paradyme. Assuming that common descent is generally true, it becomes rather difficult to disprove NDE. The problem with NDE is that, assuming common descent is generally true, NDE itself hasn't been particularly validated, it just hasn't yet been irrefuteably invalidated.
I am rather convinced that some day, some day reasonably soon, it will be. I think there's a good chance that early chatter that brings it down will be found on this particular board. My bets are currently with PB's GUToB.
Dr. Davison, I think a lot of PEH. The trouble with PEH is that the core data has been around for a lot of years, and even farely PEHish interpretations of the data have been around for a long time. They have not found the leverage to move this paradyme.
IP: Logged
|
|
Sandor Szabados
Member
Member # 1969
|
posted 31. May 2006 23:24
Bruce,
quote:
I respectfully disagree with both Shi and Sandor 606 on this one.
It seems that it takes a piece of evidence that is determined not to fit the current paradyme to bring it down.
I believe we are saying the same thing, only differently. When a new fact doesn't fit in the old paradigm, a new one must be contructed to account for it. In evolution, the elimination of chance as a driving factor is that one fact that is spelling the demise of Darwinism and the rise of intelligent design
Sic transit mundum.
Sandor
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 01. June 2006 03:49
quote:
"Evolution of strategies."
Yep, evolution of strategies from the preexisting multipurpose genomes. And we know how it works: duplications, reshuffling and site directed mutations.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 01. June 2006 04:28
quote:
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.
Darwin extrapolated from Malthus idea but his extension is a NON-SEQUITUR. Darwin was the first to link an increase of complexity (as his evolution is upward; from microbe to microbiologist) to an increased reproduction rate. How else can selection proceed? Nobody seems to realize that natural selection is equivalent to reproduction rate.
NB: Natural selection is nothing but differential reproduction.
GUToB's rule NR 2 is: The fastest replicator in a particular environment becomes to dominate that environment.
This has been demonstrated in the lab (Lenski's experiments show the validity of this rule in E.coli, although he speaks of selection it is nothing but culturing an organism with a decreased cell cycle) and in the field (introduced alien species).
There is no doubt that the reproduction rate can be increased just by loosing a few cell cycle control elements or by getting rid of genetic embellishment that is not immeidately required for reproduction in that environment (the environment-induced genetic redundancies). As long as the environment will allow for it they will thrive. The faster reproducer will only dominate as long as the selective constraints are present. Usually due to a relieve of selective constraints the population will revert to the WT. This is an observed phenomenon.
Darwin's extension from Malthus to explain the origin of species is an unwarranted extrapolation from the genetic black box. Darwin simply didn't know how genomes work. We now do and as Caporale showed, there are several mechanism present in the genomes that generate variation. Variation that may provide the individual with a reproductive advantage and thus can be selected (as they will overgrow the WT). If you propose to take these mechanisms as evidence for evolution from microbe-to-microbiologists, then you must also propose that the whole process was frontloaded (becasue we talk about preexisting genetic mechanisms of the genome).
I have communicated with Caporale on this topic personally, and my belief is that she speaks about evolution in terms of natural selection as she doesn't want to stand out to much from mainstream evolutionary ideas (darwinism). Surely, her stance is as incorrect as is Darwin's, because natural selection never had anything to do with evolution from microbe-to-man. I agree with her that these strategies can lead to adaptive phenotypes within species. It is adaptation, evolution it is not. Darwinians should get their jargon right. Straightforward definitions, I mean.
Propagation of "competition" and "selection of the fittest" not only leads nowhere (except maybe to atheistic nihilism), they have nothing in common with the origin of species. Besides, it is scientifically untrue as it is observed that many organism control their populations from within. Plants do not overgrow each other, birds of pray control the number of eggs per brood depending on resources, etcetera.
The whole darwinian story is outdated non-sense. It must be replaced by a better theory, the sooner the better. That theory is alread there: GUToB.
peebee
[ 01. June 2006, 04:39: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 01. June 2006 05:37
quote:
So as we find more and more "junk-DNA" that is not junk, will that falsify the GUToB?
A huge part of junk DNA has functions, indeed (current estimates 50-60% or so). However, another major part of JUNK DNA is made up of repetitive sequences (20% or so) alleged to have derived from endogenous retroviruses. As argued before, these could be the remnants of genetic elements that regulated speciation. Some of them are still involved in chromosome swapping, and thus this vision makes sense. But, and I have also argued this before, speciation is a genetic trait without natural selection acting on it and will easily get lost. The elements required for speciation now lead a life of their own in the genome, maybe they still can contribute to induce variation w.r.t. gene expression (there is some evidence for this too).
quote:
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.
I agree with Davison that the creation and differentiation of multipurpose genomes was an act of the past. All we see now is variation on the theme.
quote:
So, evolution happened.
The creation of multipurpose genomes happened. They had an intrinsic propensity to induce variation and speciation. As this propensity is not immediately required for reproduction it will easily be lost. That is what happened and thus "evolution" has come to a stand still.
quote:
It happened recently.
Life as we know it cannot have been around for billions of years ago, because all organisms have genetic redundancies which they rely upon for robust phenotypes. Loosing the redundancy is loosing robustness and equivalent to become extinct.
quote:
It must therefore have happened quickly.
And it just happened to stop pretty much simultaneously on all lineages.
Is this what the GUToB predicts?
If the loss of genetic elements is a stochastic process, most likely: yes.
quote:
How does this compare to the PEH?
GUToB is the very fast version of PEH, albeit that GUToB says that many (probably several hundreds) original MPG were created while PEH presumes one or only a few with loads of genetic redundancy (as far as I understand PEH). As argued genomes with loads of genetic redundancy are inherently instable, and unused genetic elements will be lost almost immediately (as demonstrated by Lenski's bacteria).
JOHN DAVISON, how many do you propose?
PEEBEE
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 01. June 2006 07:16
Shi
While you won't say that Darwinism has nothing to do with creative evolution, I will and have on numerous occasions. Apparently no one is listening, something I have gotten used to. I am still waiting for responses to my challenges. If they are not forthcoming it will speak volumes as it already has wherever I have presented them.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 01. June 2006 07:20
peter borger: "Natural selection is nothing but differential reproduction."
Technically, differential reproduction due to heritable variation. This is something that can be observed in nature.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 01. June 2006 07:26
Peter
I have no idea how many times the Big Front Loader or Loaders primed the evolutionary pump and neither does anyone else although the Darwinians are strictly monophyletic apparently. I find that very hard to accept. To believe that chance had anything to so with any of it is absurd. I also see no reason to postulate redundancy. If all the necessary information is present at the outset or outsets, why is there any need for repetition or redundancy? I hesitate to postulate something not required by the hypothesis. Maybe I just don't get it. If there is a role for redundancy in ontogeny I will give it serious consideration. I just am not convinced.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 01. June 2006 07:45
quote:
I have no idea how many times the Big Front Loader or Loaders primed the evolutionary pump and neither does anyone else although the Darwinians are strictly monophyletic apparently. I find that very hard to accept. To believe that chance had anything to so with any of it is absurd.
The monophyly cannot stand up to scientif scrutany. I have posted the reference for that recently. If there has ever been one common ancestor it must have had many, many genetic redundancies. It was loaded with distinct biochemical and metabolic programs that could be pruned to form the disticnt bacterial phyla. How did it retain all the information that was released only eons later? Natural selection cannot be invoked here, as it does not at on unused genetic programs.
quote:
I also see no reason to postulate redundancy. If all the necessary information is present at the outset or outsets, why is there any need for repetition or redundancy? I hesitate to postulate something not required by the hypothesis. Maybe I just don't get it. If there is a role for redundancy in ontogeny I will give it serious consideration. I just am not convinced.
I am not postulating redundancy. Redundnacy is an observed phenomenon in all extant organism and I don't see why it was not a trait of all extinct organisms. I believe that there must also be redundancy in ontology. All highly controlled processes have built in redundant systems as backup systems. It provides robustness. Why not ontology?
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 01. June 2006 07:48
quote:
Technically, differential reproduction due to heritable variation. This is something that can be observed in nature.
Yep, but how is it linked to microbe-to-man evolution?
Answer: It isn't. It is a pure invention, to be precise, Darwin's invention.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 01. June 2006 07:57
Melvin H. Fox: "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."
The quantum world has aspects of randomness and uncertainty. Looking at a uranium atom, there is no way to determine when it will spontaneously decay, but we can predict the behavior of a large collection of uranium atoms and show that they have a statistically *random distribution*.
Melvin H. Fox: "Genetic mutations will occur."
Yes, they will. And some mutations have causes, mutagens. But mutation is inevitable due to quantum uncertainty on the molecular level.
Melvin H. Fox: "Alright, it is easy enough to see that c = -2 +0i is an element of M."
You indicated a mathematics background, but apparently you have yet to study chaotic functions. The standard physical problem of chaos is the onset of turbulent flow. Let's consider the Mandelbrot Set.
There are a variety of wonderful picture galleries of the Mandelbrot set at high magnifications, as well as applets for examination of the set. There are several computational issues involved.
Consider that we can continue to examine the boundary of the Mandelbrot set to whatever magnification we choose and there is unending complexity. That means that the points we choose for examination may have long decimal expansions. As there is no limit to this process, the decimal expansion can be unlimited. We could be talking millions of digits. If we multiply two million digit numbers, it creates a result of a trillion digits. And it may take many iterations! Just multiplying two very long decimal expansions can be an intensive computation. In fact, it would quickly outstrip the power and memory of any computer. So we round. And due to the sensitivity to initial conditions, we must be very careful as we do so. In any case, if a million digits isn't enough, then magnify it again and again.
Next, the number of iterations to show that a given point is within the set increases as we get closer and closer to the boundary. Normally, in practical applications, we set a number of iterations and if it doesn't escape, then we assume it is in the set. But again, this is an approximation. Approximation limited by computation.
By the way, the boundary of the Mandelbrot Set is infinitely long. And did you know that the general three-body problem is chaotic. No one knows if Earth's orbit is stable in the long run. And there is no way to know other than wait.
It can be shown that in general complex systems, the quickest calculation of the end state is to just run the simulation. So in the analogy with speciation (long segue back to topic), the only way to know in general whether two very closely related populations are on their way to speciation (even in an abstraction) is to watch and wait.
Melvin H. Fox: "Select a point of your own as 'very near to the border' as you like and we will examine it."
Here are a few images from the Seahorse Valley of the Mandelbrot Set with iterations < 30000 per pixel. At the bottom of the page, he presents an approximation with iterations < 500 showing how the image is seriously degraded.
http://spanky.triumf.ca/www/fractint/bm/bm-shv.html
[ 01. June 2006, 08:04: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 01. June 2006 08:17
peter borger: "Yep, but how is it linked to microbe-to-man evolution?"
The evidence for Common Descent comes from a variety of different fields of research, including genomics, embryonics, paleontology, geology, phylogenetics, etc. The mechanisms for evolution include mutation, natural selection and genetic drift.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 01. June 2006 08:25
quote:
Yes, they will. And some mutations have causes, mutagens. But mutation is inevitable due to quantum uncertainty on the molecular level.
Many mutations have causes and can be predicted. The frequency of mutations can be influenced by mutagens, that's true, but the position and nucleotide involved is usually the same. It has been shown that the incidence of mutation is increased, for instance, in regions with high natural background radiation, but the position is merely predetermined; the incidence on these positions increases. I can provide a reference for that if you like, I will look it up.
GUToB says there are two types of mutations:
1) Random Mutations (RM) which are unpredictable (and maybe due to quantum fluctuations and imperfect repair mechanisms). They are irrelevant for evolution from microbe-to-man.
2) Non Random Mutations (NRM) due to the bio-physiochemical environment of the DNA molecule and follow a predictable pattern. They, for instance, line up in phylogenetic analysis.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 01. June 2006 08:37
quote:
The evidence for Common Descent comes from a variety of different fields of research, including genomics, embryonics, paleontology, geology, phylogenetics, etc.
This does not really answer my question. My questoin was how is natural selection linked to microbe-to-man evolution?
I am not expert of all mentioned fields above (I am not sure you are), but I am an expert in biology. And as far as I am concerned biology as we know it is not in accord with Darwinian evolution. I have provided a compelling biological case against Darwin's mechanism of natural selection and against common descent. That is sufficient to scientifically bring down a theory. Maybe there was an evolutionary process, but it certainly was not by the mechanisms proposed by Darwin (as demonstrated).
quote:
The mechanisms for evolution include mutation, natural selection and genetic drift.
You certainly learned your lessons well. It is however a pitty that neither of these mechanisms lead to microbe-to-man evolution.
peebee
[ 01. June 2006, 08:39: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic