|
Author
|
Topic: Peter Borger: Genetic Redundancy: The Ultimate Evidence of the Design of Life
|
Supersport
Member
Member # 1989
|
posted 04. August 2007 18:22
Nosivad: "Scientists do not ask why, only how."
I find that to be one of science's biggest problems. Science may not care about "why," but those of us who live in the real world do. Life is all about "why." In my eyes, to ignore the reasoning behind why something happens or doesn't happen equates to ignoring a potential explanation. To ignore an explanation is not only non-scientific, but contrary to why most people want to learn about life in the first place.
[ 04. August 2007, 18:24: Message edited by: Supersport ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 05. August 2007 05:44
Supersport
I understand and share your frustration. The problem is that when we ask "why," there are no tangible answers. The problem with Darwinism is that it presumes to explain "why" but fails miserably. "That" evolution once occurred is obvious. It is also obvious to some of us, Robert Broom, Julan Huxley and myself "that" it is no longer occurring.
I have offered an explanation for the cessation of progressive evolution by suggesting that it was a planned sequence which terminated with the production of Homo sapiens. I suppose this could be interpreted as an explanation for "why" it has stopped.
I hope this helps.
'A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable "
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 05. August 2007 14:13
quote:
Supersport:
I find that to be one of science's biggest problems. Science may not care about "why," but those of us who live in the real world do. Life is all about "why." In my eyes, to ignore the reasoning behind why something happens or doesn't happen equates to ignoring a potential explanation. To ignore an explanation is not only non-scientific, but contrary to why most people want to learn about life in the first place.…
In sciences, there is no limit what question to ask, including question “Why”. However, we should be selective choosing an appropriate question. Right question contains a significant portion of an answer, however wrong question will take us away from a solution.
I actually have a problem that in Life siences the question “Why” is used indiscriminately. Practically all phenomena studied by Life sciences are being approached from a question “what is it for?” I call this a philosophy of “Supreme Purpose”. This philosophy is a very popular among all sorts of scientists (including Darwinists) and prompts them to look for a predestination of all natural events. For example, they try to find a Supreme Purpose in phenomena when animals eat their own posterity, or when certain worm embryos destroy mother's body. Even death, due to aging, was found by these scientists to be a greatly advantageous adaptation, which emerged during evolution. Evolution is seems to be a goal driven process, but a goal and a final result could be opposite to each other. Therefore the question "What is it for?" has to be justified in each particular case.
I was allays puzzled with a supreme purpose of reproduction, especially with a sexual reproduction. Its purpose (depends on whom you ask) is vary from accelerating evolution to conservation mechanism. I think that puzzle of sexual reproduction cannot be solved within philosophy of Supreme Purpose. If it is true, the question “Why do men have nipples?” belongs to the same category of wrong questions.
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 05. August 2007 15:08
quote:
I think that puzzle of sexual reproduction cannot be solved within philosophy of Supreme Purpose. If it is true, the question “Why do men have nipples?” belongs to the same category of wrong questions.
(De-lurking) Is this forum predominately established to discuss science or philosophy? I wonder if this is another horses teeth issue.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 06. August 2007 05:51
The major function of sexual reproduction, now as in the past, is to stabilize the species for as long as possible. I know of not a single instance in which it can be proven that a new true species arose through sexual reproduction. I have presented this before in the form of the following challenge. Name any two true species and provide the proof that one is the ancestor of the other. I prefer to limit this challenge to the most recently evolved categories of, let us say, the mammals or birds simply because these taxa are the most thoroughly known and catalogued.
In presenting this challenge I am not denying that such a relationship may exist. What I am claiming is that the differences we observe between true species can not have arisen through Mendelian bisexual means. Every attempt to achieve this end has met with failure. If there had been success we would hear about it. Of that one can be certain. The most celebrated attempt was by Dobzhansky with Drosophila. The best he could produce were what he termed "incipient species." Sexual reproduction can only support microevolution. I am certainly not the first to reach the conclusion that sexual reproduction is incompetent as a progressive evolutionary mechanism. It can only maintain the status quo and that only for relatively short periods of time as the fossil record so dramatically reveals. There are only a handfull of living eukaryotic species, like the oyster (Ostrea virginea), that even existed hundreds of millions of years ago. A nearly as can be established, creative evolution is a phenomenon of the distant past. I doubt very much if there is a single contemporary organism that will ever become anything very different from what it is right now. As for the neo-Darwinian Mendelian (sexual) model -
"Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no such category as incipient species...The neo-Darwinian theory of the geneticists is no longer tenable.
Richard B. Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, page 396-397.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 14. August 2007, 08:07: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 06. August 2007 07:10
quote:
Arjun:
(De-lurking) Is this forum predominately established to discuss science or philosophy? I wonder if this is another horses teeth issue.
In my mind, I never separate the philosophy (of science) from a science itself. While dealing with a complex problem, like explaining a Life, I found that it is helpful occasionally to stand back and observe it from a distance.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 06. August 2007 13:44
The reason that virtually ALL male placental mammals have nipples is because sexual expression is expressed largely through hormones rather than at the local cellular level as it is in many others organisms.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 13. August 2007 10:00
Let the record show that my challenge August 6, 5:51 AM has evoked, after a week, not a single response. Every challenge I have ever presented to the Darwinian fantasy has also been ignored. It is very gratifying to know that ones adversary is impotent ro defend his mysticism when openly confronted on a neutral venue like "brainstorms." It was the same at "One Blog A Day." It has always been that way. Only from behind the wall of isolation have my critics ever responded, typically with nothing but irrelevent denigration and ridicule. Now they do not even do that!
It doesn't get any better than this.
"Silence is golden."
Thomas Carlyle
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable,a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 13. August 2007, 10:01: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 23. August 2007 05:05
Von Ruckerson's question:
"Why do men have nipples?"
My question:
"Why are bananas bent?"
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 23. August 2007 05:06
GENETIC PROGRAMS, my dears.
[ 23. August 2007, 05:08: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 23. August 2007 05:13
Sure Peter, programs written millions of years ago.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 24. August 2007 09:12
"Sure Peter, programs written millions of years ago."
As a scientist, how did you measure that?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 25. August 2007 17:25
Peter
I measured it by the remarkable similarity between placental and marsupial saber-toothed cats which were separated temporally by millions of years and spatially by tens of thousands of miles. Read my PEH paper again Peter and this time look at the illustration. There are many more examples of this sort of thing in both the plant and animal kingdoms. I also recommend my 2000 paper - "Ontogeny, phylogeny and the origin of biological information." Rivista di Biologia, 93, 513-524.
Mutations had nothing to do with any of it. Those millions of years are also very real. I'll stick with a very old earth too, thank you very much. These are tangible. irrefutable proofs of a prescribed evolution!
What say you or anyone else for that matter? Come on, lets hear it here and not at Pharyngula or After The Bar Closes.
"Let my enemies devour each other."
Salvador Dali
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 25. August 2007, 17:35: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 03. September 2007 20:10
Per Von Ruckerson's question:
"Why do men have nipples?"
The key Design based reason is economy of genetic code and regulation. This enables one structure to be used with a male/female regulatory switch and consequent growth of different structures. I predict that the alternatives would require greater genetic encoding and/or regulation.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 03. September 2007 22:48
I'll buy that.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic