|
Author
|
Topic: Prof. Davison's Challenge to NDE
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 01. June 2006 08:45
peter borger: "This does not really answer my question. My questoin was how is natural selection linked to microbe-to-man evolution?"
If you reject the evidence for common descent, then there is little point of talking about the mechanisms of evolution and diversification.
IP: Logged
|
|
Sandor Szabados
Member
Member # 1969
|
posted 01. June 2006 08:54
Peter,
quote:
How did it retain all the information that was released only eons later?
Is it not possible for the original plasm to be programmed so as to contain the full potential for all future developmental variations and subsequent evolutionary changes and modifications?
Sandor
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 01. June 2006 09:52
quote:
If you reject the evidence for common descent, then there is little point of talking about the mechanisms of evolution and diversification.
Let me repeat: "This does not really answer my question. My questoin was how is natural selection linked to microbe-to-man evolution?"
[ 01. June 2006, 09:53: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 01. June 2006 09:57
quote:
Is it not possible for the original plasm to be programmed so as to contain the full potential for all future developmental variations and subsequent evolutionary changes and modifications?
No, it is not. As argued before, there is no known mechanism to keep the information in the genome for eons. Why do you guys all want to believe in the long ages? Biology shows it is impossible.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 01. June 2006 10:16
Zachriel,
Perhaps I can bring this back around to the topic of the thread. It has become more clear to me, having read your thoughtful responses, that until we get a consensus on the definition of the term “species” there is no way we can talk about origins. Without consensus we will continue to disagree by definition. John’s challenge can’t be answered satisfactorily if he is talking about oranges and you are talking about apples.
We all agree that genetic mutations will occur but I am confounded when you say,
Zachriel wrote:
quote:
And some mutations have causes, mutagens. But mutation is inevitable due to quantum uncertainty on the molecular level.
Allow me to paraphrase; even after removing all of the physical causes for mutations, we would still have mutations. This invokes a supernatural cause. The candidates are, statistical law[quantum uncertainty], a designer or both I suppose. Based on your attitude toward the Mandelbrot Set, I get the impression you consider statistical law a natural cause. If it is physical, show it to me [the core of John’s challenge]. You will say we know it is physical because of the distributions of data but these distributions are not caused by the probabilities [uncertainties], rather, the probabilities are derived from the distributions. That the shapes of these distributions are repeated throughout the natural world could indicate uniformity of design rather than a statistical force.
Remember, you and I agree that mathematical models should not be forced onto physical reality.
Zachriel wrote:
quote:
The standard physical problem of chaos is the onset of turbulent flow. Let's consider the Mandelbrot Set.
This is a set of complex numbers not a physical object. This set is not connected to reality in any physical way. If you use the dynamics of the complex functions to model turbulent flow, then good for you but don’t get enamored by the pictures. Any picture that is produced is “seriously degraded”. It is degraded because the only way we can represent these abstract structures perfectly is with abstract constructions. We can’t represent them with physical devises without distortion. Have you ever seen a perfect circle? No, and you never will, not in this world.
We can’t agree if the varieties of Darwin’s finches are different species or not because we don’t agree on the definition. A point is clearly defined to be in or out of the Mandelbrot Set. We may have to work to determine its status but it can be determined by definition. Consider the Douady and Hubbard explicit conformal isomorphism between the complement of the Mandelbrot set and the complement of the closed unit circle. You are correct when you say that I have not studied all of mathematics and I will have to research the published work by Douady and Hubbard but if their mapping is what it is billed to be, a one-to-one correspondence between the two complements, then it can be used to make the determination and circumvent the problems of pixels and calculations. So, what’s your point?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 01. June 2006 10:45
Melvin H. Fox: "Allow me to paraphrase; even after removing all of the physical causes for mutations, we would still have mutations. This invokes a supernatural cause. The candidates are, statistical law[quantum uncertainty], a designer or both I suppose."
Quantum uncertainty is not supernatural, but an empirically observed phenomena.
Melvin H. Fox: "That the shapes of these distributions are repeated throughout the natural world could indicate uniformity of design rather than a statistical force."
There is no known underlying scientific cause of the nature of the quantum world. However, there is no known underlying scientific cause as to why gravity exists or even why there is something rather than nothing. Empiricism does not depend on answers to these questions. The Theory of Gravity explains and predicts a wide variety of phenomena, and that makes it a scientific theory. Quantum Theory and the Theory of Evolution explain and predict a wide variety of phenomena, and they too are a scientific theories.
Any speculation beyond that is philosophy, not science.
Melvin H. Fox: "Remember, you and I agree that mathematical models should not be forced onto physical reality."
Yet you confuse the cognitive category 'species' with the empirical facts.
Melvin H. Fox: "We can’t agree if the varieties of Darwin’s finches are different species or not because we don’t agree on the definition."
No. You want to reject the definition because it is often hard to determine whether certain objects are in or out of the set. Like the Mandelbrot Set, though there is a boundary, we can't say exactly where it is.
In biology, there is the empirical fact of reproductive isolation, and as Darwin pointed out, this isolation consists of a continuum of interfertility in closely related organisms. What you want to call it is immaterial to the existence of these empirical facts. Whether someone presents a strawman argument based on a 'species' concept that doesn't correspond to observation is likewise irrelevant.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 01. June 2006 11:13
Peter
I am surprised at you. I can't believe you would arbitrarily rule out the possibility that information can be front loaded and retained for millions of years. I also cannot believe you would subscribe to a young biota when the geologic column speaks otherwise in terms that cannot be denied. Tell me I am seeing things.
I will still respect you no matter what you believe which is more than I can say about any chance-worshipping atheist Darwinian or any Bible-Banging Fundamentalist Creationist. They are all completely out of touch with reality as far as I am concerned.
IP: Logged
|
|
Sandor Szabados
Member
Member # 1969
|
posted 01. June 2006 13:55
Peter,
quote:
No, it is not. As argued before, there is no known mechanism to keep the information in the genome for eons.
Just because there is at present no known mechanism does not imply the impossibility. As you well know, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. As an example among many, continental drift was also denied and Wegener ridiculed by other scientists, but it turned out to be true.
Sandor
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 01. June 2006 15:00
Speaking of the absence of evidence, where are the responses to my challenges? All I see is a lot of subject changing and internal bickering. Are thread titles completely without significance? So it would seem.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 01. June 2006 15:04
I am confused over the term “species”, that I admit freely. It may be I am a dullard or it may be I am the butt of a clever shell game with words. Could anyone offer me relief where I fail to see Zach’s point contrasting cognitive category vs. empirical fact? He has done his level best to straighten me out, yet I remain confused.
Exactly how does statistical law explain [make plain or comprehensible] the appearance of new species; whatever they are?
If you were to give an observed example that might appease John.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 01. June 2006 15:24
quote:
I am surprised at you. I can't believe you would arbitrarily rule out the possibility that information can be front loaded and retained for millions of years.
John, I do not rule out the possibility that information can be front loaded, but I do not see a chance to retain it for billions of years in the genome with the current mutation rates. In particular when we consider the mutation incidence in neutral regions and the level of genetic redundancy.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 01. June 2006 15:26
quote:
Just because there is at present no known mechanism does not imply the impossibility. As you well know, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
I think it is not the absence of positive evidence of such mechanism, but rather the evidence that shows the opposite: the omnipresence of genetic redundancies without selection acting on it.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 01. June 2006 15:30
Melvin H. Fox: "Exactly how does statistical law explain [make plain or comprehensible] the appearance of new species; whatever they are?"
After our short diversion into the semantics of the 'species' concept, please read my post from the following thread posted 27. May 2006 10:05. Let's try to approach the fundamental biological observations afresh.
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000621-p-16.html
[ 01. June 2006, 15:32: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 01. June 2006 15:39
PB: quote:
I think it is not the absence of positive evidence of such mechanism, but rather the evidence that shows the opposite: the omnipresence of genetic redundancies without selection acting on it.
PB, as a software developer, let me caution you on this one. If I were writing a "voting algorithm" as I have discussed, the algorithm would work based upon the number of data points available for voting. If a whole redundant gene were knocked out, it wouldn't phaise my algorithm in the least. However, the algorithm would still compare all of the available information -- all redundant genes -- to determine the optimal gene.
By the same token, I don't think that knocking entire redundant genes out is a reliable way of proving that there is no voting algorithm in place. Rather, one would want to input a specific mutation into one of the redundant genes, and see if the mutation is repaired.
Additionally, such would be attractive research, research that would be very publishable. Alas, the ID hypothesis doesn't have nearly enough in the lines of formally published primary research. Such a publication would be useful to the general cause.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 01. June 2006 19:18
Nonsense Bruce. Most of my own research and all of that by my predecessors oozed ID long before Dembski and the rest of the ID crowd decided to introduce it for debate as if they had just discovered it. By not citing that enormous literature they should be ashamed of themselves. I did it for them and Demski banned me for it! So much for the so-called "ID movement."
Here are some examples.
"But according to Darwinian doctrine and Crick's central dogma, DNA is not only the depository and distributor of the information but its SOLE creator. I do not believe this to be true."
Pierre Grass, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 224, his emphasis
"However that may be, the existence of internal factors affecting evolution has to be accepted by any objective mind..."
ibid, page 209
"I believe there is a Plan, and though in the slow course of evolution there have been ups and downs, and what look like mistakes, the plan has gone on; and we may feel sure that it cannot fail to meet its goal."
Robert Broom, Findingthe Missing Link, page 108
I could give you plenty more but what is the point? No one pays any attention.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic