I decided to move the bulk of the post to the comments.
aintnuthin,
Before a detailed response, let me see if I can correctly summarize our disagreement. You seem to be claiming that the Modern Synthesis of population genetics with natural selection is defunct, out of favor, discredit, or something similar. I have been saying that the many additional mechanisms we are seeing recently are things that will be incorporated into the Modern Synthesis, and that complement it rather than replace it.
On that topic, consider this link (with a hat tip to Panda’s Thumb).
LH: What are the most exciting recent developments in systematics / comparative methods?
JF: The availability of genome-scale information is certainly one. The arrival of a generation of young researchers who are comfortable with statistical and computational approaches is another. But the most important development is reflected in recent work on coalescent trees of gene copies within trees of species. What this does is tie together between-species molecular evolution and within-species population genetics. Those two lines of work have been developing almost independently since the 1960s. But now, with population samples of sequences at multiple loci in multiple related species, they are coming back together. This is not another Modern Synthesis, but it is a major event that needs a name. How about the "Family Reunion"? Long-estranged relatives who have not been in touch are getting together.
Posts
211 comments:
1 – 200 of 211 Newer› Newest»One Brow said: "The changes in the theory meant that Newton’s equations became approximations, good enough in many applications, but were not universally applicable or the whole story."
Eric, I have actually been makin (or tryin to make) a number of diverse points, but this statement of yours involves one of them--i.e., how a radically different theory can reach ultimate conclusions similar to the one it supersedes.
Ptolemic astronony can still be used to predict eclipses, generate calendars, etc. So what is really significantly different or special about heliocentricism? Copernicus' theory did NOT contradict a single observation that ptolemic theory accounted for.
Copernicus did not deny that bodies are in motion in our solar system, as ptolemics insisted, he merely changed the focal point of the motion from the earth to the sun. Nuthin really new, just a slight tweakin of the old theory, see?
He did dispense with the dogmatic insistence that heavenly motion (bein perfect) is circular, but what "practical" difference does that make? Either assumption can explain and predict planetary motion. Copernicus merely refined and supplemented the age-old "theory of heavenly motion," invented by Howlin Wolf in prehistoric times.
====
Your statement focuses on "applications" when the topic I'm focusing on is the theoretical foundations for explanations proferred by a theory.
Is relativity just a "refinement" of Newtonian mechanics? A "supplement?" Hardly. It would have been inconceivable to the Newtonian paradigm that velocity could alter the length of a yard, the duration of a minute, or change the force of gravity.
The fundamental viewpoints of Newton and Einstein are as radically different (even more so) from each other as heliocentricism is from geocentricism. In short, the premises and conceptual framework of a theory can be radically different even though they may agree with each other in many cases, as far as applications or results go.
====
While on the topic of Newton, let me observe that, elsewhere in your responses, you indicate the need to "know" a mechanism to postulate a theory.
What was Newton's mechanism for the "force" of gravity? He was embarrased by the question, and offered no hypothesis to explain the mysterious "action at a distance" that he was postulating. Did that mean it wasn't "science," ya figure?
Eric, I am not an ID theorist. However, I am, and always have been, unpersuaded by the neo-darwinistic theory of evolution. ID theory almost exclusively criticizes that particular brand of evolutionary theory (and gets my sympathy on that account), but it is not, as Shapiro (and many others) have noted, a choice between either one or the other.
Neo-darwinism (and orthodox darwinism) were formulated with a specific end in mind, i.e., to utterly refute theological arguments from design. In that sense, they are polar opposites, and the underlying metaphysics demonstrates that.
The main dogma of neo-darwinism is encompassed in a two-fold presupposition:
1. That all mutation is random with respect to adaptability, AND
2. That mutations (or lack thereof) at the "gene" level dictate all phenotypical change and/or stability.
Both of these are needed to accomplish the task they set for themselves. Neither one standing alone is sufficient.
The wiki description of the modern synthesis is NOT a description of the neo-darwinistic theory of evolution. But since you have cited it, let me address this claim: "1. All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms..."
From a historical viewpoint, this is just flat wrong. Little was "known" about genetic mechanisms at the time, but Crick and the others thought they "knew" a lot, especially after the discovery of DNA.
Their metaphysics "became" their theory, as Woese (somewhat) documents and bemoans. For them, many former questions and issues had been forever decided on the basis of their a priori pronouncements, and any further inquiry in those areas was pointless, unnecessary, and merely betrayed an utter failure to grasp the "known truth."
You ask me for alternative theories. I am no expert, but their are plenty out there, if you're actually interested. A couple of excerpts from Gerhart and Kirschner's explanation of their theory of facilitated variation follow:
"The theory implies that new traits contain very little that is new in the way of functional components, whereas regulatory change is crucial....
we argue that robustness, adaptability, modularity, capacity for weak regulatory linkage, exploratory behavior, and state selection of the conserved core processes, as well as the regulatory compartmentation of the conserved core processes, are key properties of the animal's phenotype that facilitate the generation of anatomical and physiological variation by regulatory change, which ultimately requires genetic change to be heritable...
Is this a testable hypothesis or merely a post hoc rationalization? To begin with, we should say that the theory emphasizes the targets of change and their consequences for phenotype...we accept any kind of regulatory change, arising by any path of genetic change, as long as it affects the combinations, amounts, states, times, and places of conserved core processes. Included would be the neo-Darwinian possibility of a rare, favorable, nonlethal, penetrant mutation that is selected to fixation of a new phenotype....
some conserved core processes appear to search and find targets in large spaces or molecular populations. Specific connections are eventually made between the source and target. These processes display great robustness and adaptability and, we think, have been very important in the evolution of complex animal anatomy and physiology...we concur that externally directed phenotypic plasticities are a rich source of variations for regulatory stabilization, we add to it the richer source of internally directed cellular developmental adaptations. The latter class would not be evoked by the environment and then stabilized, but stabilized directly by regulatory change...
Phenotypic plasticities, both those evokable by environmental change and those developmental adaptabilities not evocable, are rich sources and favored paths of variation requiring little regulatory change."
Truth be told, I simply can't see how anyhow who has touted the orthodox neo-synthetic view as "plausable" could ever think of themselves as a "skeptic." As Lewontin observed:
Whether right or wrong, at least this type of approach seems plausible rather than ridculously naive and ideology-driven. They are quick to note that: "These views are not at all Lamarckian, nor does facilitated phenotypic variation require selection for future good."
This is the mandatory homage to the orthodox powers that be, but the fact that "selection for future good' is not "required" by their theory certainly does not suggest that it doesn't happen.
Frankly, I find it amazing that anyone who has ever sincerely argued for the plausibility of the othordox neo-darwinistic line can calls themself a "skeptic." As Lewontin said: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."
That is not skepticism, it is faith. It is does not display a critical attitude, but rather one of prejudice with all the accompaning gullibility which devout belief in one's prejudicies always entails.
Edit: I meant to delete this sentence (and thought I had) which just appears out of the blue in the above post:
"Truth be told, I simply can't see how anyhow who has touted the orthodox neo-synthetic view as "plausible" could ever think of themselves as a "skeptic." As Lewontin observed:
Anyway, Eric, as I previously noted, you seem capable of being astute and objective. However, I don't think you and I have the same idea about what a "theory" is, and I am not persuaded that legitmate criticisms of orthodox neo-darwinism are constitutionally prohibited just because some of those advancing them may have religious motives for doing so.
As much as anything I feel that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and I find it distateful that so many have convinced themselves that their (anti)religious beliefs are in fact science. Not just supported by science, they ARE science, by god. Utter self-delusion, if ya ax me.
I will answer my own question, eh, Eric? If that is the central idea of Maynard Smith's book, then it is a philosophical exercise, not a scientific one. As I pointed out in my earlier answer, it's not any more philosophical than saying all crows are black. There is some interesting work on variable mutation rates, but the core statement that nutations themselves are random is completely consistent with the evidence.
His review of Dennett's book makes this painfully obvious:
"Dennett goes well beyond biology. He sees Darwinism as a corrosive acid, capable of dissolving our earlier belief and forcing a reconsideration of much of sociology and philosophy....So, you proof that Mayr goes beyond the science in book A is that he says Dennet goes beyond the science in book B, and he likes what Dennet has to say? No, that just doesn't work.
If you can picture a room full of rabid, devout Hegelians arguing with an equally fervent and contemptuous Marxists, then you know how I see the typical interaction between Creationists and Neo-darwinists, eh? Both so absolutely sure that they can "prove" that their emotional commitments are indubitable and that any contrary commitment is foolhardly, ya know?So, you are equating neo-Darwinism to the philosophical positon of scientism, or materialism? I agree we don't need to teach either in high school. All we should be teaching is that there is no way to predict mutations (thus, they are random), and that this prediction is not necessary for evolution. This is true even if we have a currently active Designher still meddling in life.
The main dogma of neo-darwinism is encompassed in a two-fold presupposition:
1. That all mutation is random with respect to adaptability, AND
2. That mutations (or lack thereof) at the "gene" level dictate all phenotypical change and/or stability.
Both of these are needed to accomplish the task they set for themselves. Neither one standing alone is sufficient.
The wiki description of the modern synthesis is NOT a description of the neo-darwinistic theory of evolution.So, who still accepts these two provisos as factual? They certainly don't represent the current state of evolutionary theory. Textbooks always lag behind the current level of science, but I'm sure that they will pick up on epigenetic changes adn so on as time adn space permit. Why should I not think you are howling at ghosts of science past?
You ask me for alternative theories. I am no expert, but their are plenty out there, if you're actually interested.
Well, if by "neo-Darwinism" you mean the limited, outdated two-sentence list that has no room for new mechanisms, nevermind. Science has moved beyond it. However, let's be careful to distinguish that from the five-sentence Modern Synthesis that does allow for new mechanisms to be added, expolored, etc.
Whether right or wrong, at least this type of approach seems plausible rather than ridculously naive and ideology-driven. They are quick to note that: "These views are not at all Lamarckian, nor does facilitated phenotypic variation require selection for future good."
This is the mandatory homage to the orthodox powers that be, but the fact that "selection for future good' is not "required" by their theory certainly does not suggest that it doesn't happen.
It doesn't suggest that is does, either. Everything that I read is your quote is simply another type of variation that can be paced into the list of mechanisms of the current state of the synthesis. It doesn't oppose the Theory of Evolution, it's incorporated as one more aspect of it.
Frankly, I find it amazing that anyone who has ever sincerely argued for the plausibility of the othordox neo-darwinistic line can calls themself a "skeptic." As Lewontin said: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.".
A list of mechanisms is complete until it is not complete anymore due to new discovered phenomena or new mechanisms. Life is so complicated and complex we will not have all the answers for the next 1000 years. You don't need to have every item nailed down and tucked away to have a viable theory (or else science has no theories).
That is not skepticism, it is faith. It is does not display a critical attitude, but rather one of prejudice with all the accompaning gullibility which devout belief in one's prejudicies always entails.
If that were really true, then that attitude would stop critical invesitigation. Neo-Darwinism was not eliminated by people trying to bring in untestable, supernatural notions, but by people engaging in the exact same methodological naturalism as the people who first built the edifice.
Anyway, Eric, as I previously noted, you seem capable of being astute and objective. However, I don't think you and I have the same idea about what a "theory" is, and I am not persuaded that legitmate criticisms of orthodox neo-darwinism are constitutionally prohibited just because some of those advancing them may have religious motives for doing so.
If by "legitimate crititicisms" you mean to include the works of Woese, Margulis, epigenetic inheritance, and other such mechanisms as time and scope in the curriculum allows, I am all in favor of that.
As much as anything I feel that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and I find it distateful that so many have convinced themselves that their (anti)religious beliefs are in fact science. Not just supported by science, they ARE science, by god. Utter self-delusion, if ya ax me.
You will find many scientists, including many atheists, who agree. However, randomness is not antireligious. It is as impossible to predict the actions of an unknowable Designer as it is to predict the interactions of molecules on an individual strand of DNA.
Why should I not think you are howling at ghosts of science past?
Well, in one sense I am. Gould, and others, pronounced neo-darwinism "dead" decades ago. But Lynch, who is an expert in the field, claims that the vast majority of current biologists are essentially pan-adaptionists. In that sense, it is not dead. If you will admit that the theory is dead, and that no coherent "general theory of evolution" has taken root in it's stead, then we will agree. Then we can stop pretending that there exists such a thing recognized as :THE Theory of Evolution."
I have repeatedly and expressly stated that "random mutation," standing alone, is insufficient to implement the neo-darwinist agenda. Gene expression is the only thing that matters, as far as phenotypical change goes.
===
In response to this excerpt:Biologists from Havard and Berkeley (Gerhart and Kirschner), who advance a theory of "facilitated (non-random) variation, state that: "discoveries of gene regulation have opened the possibility of important evolutionary changes in nontranscribed DNA sequences, as well. Still, there are no “laws of variation” regarding its generation, only a black box of chaotic accidents entered by genetic variation and occasionally exited by selectable phenotypic variation," One Brow said "You realize this quote is actually promoting random change as a driver?"
No, I don't realize that, Eric. Gerhart does not pretend to have discovered laws of variation, and simply says so. One should not confuse epsitemological limitations with onotological ones. If only the neo-darwinists were as circumspect in conceding what they don't know, eh?
I read Gerhart to be sayin that there is a lot of genetic variation that does not result in phenotypic change. This alone contradicts the genetic determinism posited by the neo-darwinists. It seems that "something" is selecting which genetic variation will be implemented so as to generate phenotypical change.
We know of no laws that govern written expression. That notwithstanding, words get chosen by authors will result in sentences, paragraphs, and books. No one can predict just exactly what words a given author will choose, and, from an epistemological standpoint the process which results in a particular word or phrase being chosen might seem "chaotic." But that would never imply that there is no rhyme, reason, or pattern to word choices by authors, eh?
One Brow said: "However, randomness is not antireligious. It is as impossible to predict the actions of an unknowable Designer as it is to predict the interactions of molecules on an individual strand of DNA."
If I'm reading you correctly here, Eric, then you're makin my point for me. As I said before, there is no scientific reason to INSIST that all mutation is random with respect to adaptation, and to write an entire book on the theory of evolution. That constitutes a philosophical platform, no more.
"All we should be teaching is that there is no way to predict mutations (thus, they are random), and that this prediction is not necessary for evolution. This is true even if we have a currently active Designher still meddling in life."
Yes I agree almost 100%, but the exception is quite signficant to me. You conclude that "thus they are random." This is an ontological statement, not an epistemological one. That's where we differ, and the difference is immense, as I see it.
I have no problem with positing randomness for epistemological purposes, but I suspect that many devout neo-darwinists teachin at the high school level ever leave it at that.
Maynard Smith did not say, as you appear to, that the ability to predict a direction for mutation was unnecessary to study biology and/or that the issue was basically irrelevant to the scientific enterprise. He made it the central point of his book, and his point was NOT that randomness (or the lack thereof) was irrelevant.
You repeatedly say that all heritable genetic variation has been shown to be random. Epigentic phenomena suggest otherwise, and I thought you were well aware of that.
A great many diverse ideas are emerging as hypothetical explanations for various aspects of the evolutionary process. Much of this is due to recent discoveries pertaining to the workings of the genome, developmental peculiarities, etc. Much reseach is bein conducted to empirically test those hypothoseses and to explore the implications of relevant findings.
This, without question, is a scientific enterprise, a research program, if you will. But research is not a theory. The astonomical empirical data compiled over centuries ultimately resulted in a theory of planetary motion, geocentricism. But the observers did not have a "theory" to guide them. They merely recorded what they saw. Collection of empirical facts which may or may not have an important bearing on evolution is not a "theory" either. That is not to say that it is unimportant, of course.
Heh, I've got this here blog so fucked up with alla my comments that I git lost, eh, Eric. I made a few posts in the ole Nagel thread, because I forgot where I wuz, ya know? Since the discussion has presumably moved here, I re-post them below.
don't know much about mathematic models for population genetics, and, truth be told, I don't care to know. However, I do note that Maynard Smith claims that: "A science of population genetics is possible because the laws of transmission—Mendel's laws—are known." http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1703
Heh, known "laws," eh? As I understand it, Mendel's "laws" are far from universal. As one of many known "violations" of Mendel's laws, a wiki article offers this summary about "genomic imprinting:"
"Genomic imprinting represents yet another example of non-Mendelian inheritance. Just as in conventional inheritance, genes for a given trait are passed down to progeny from both parents. However, these genes are epigenetically marked before transmission, altering their levels of expression. These imprints are created before gamete formation and are erased during the creation of germ line cells. Therefore, a new pattern of imprinting can be made with each generation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Mendelian_inheiritance
This is a collateral point, but what does this tell ya about population genetics, then, eh? Maynard Smith calls it a "science" but as I understand it, it is at best a mathematical/analytical tool which requires sound premises to be useful. It does not, in itself, tell you anything about what a sound premise is, or what is empiricially correct. For that reason, I wouldn't call it a "science."
It was of great theoretical importance to the neo-darwinists, though, because it allowed them to accept the "known laws" of Mendel and to postulate natural selection as virtually the exclusive force behind evolution. Of course other premises (genetic determinism, etc.) were also needed, but they went plumb hogwild with natural selection once they realized that, mathematically speaking, it was at least not contradictory to Mendelian "laws."
To draw yet another analogy to history, Eric, Church-sanctioned astronomy presupposed certain "non-negotiable" premises, such as 1. all heaven motion is circular, 2. the earth does not move, and 3. All other material bodies in the universe revolve around the earch.
Given these immutable premises, each and every new observation could be (at least approximately) accomodated by ptolemic theory. Sure, it became necessary for one after another after another, epicycle, deferent, and equant to be specially created on an ad hoc basis to force the observed phenomena to conform to the dogmatic premises, but so what? They had planets constantly shifting from one "circular" orbit to another. It became prima facie absurd, but of course that did not phase the church authorities, or undermine their "faith" in their premises in the slightest. They just kept revising their "mechanisms," while refusing to review their fundamental premises.
Truth is, a much more satisfactory theory of planetary motion posulates that the earth does move, that the earth is not the center of the universe, and that motion is not necessary circular. But again, who is to say that heliocentricism did not merely "refine" and "add to" geocentricism, ya know?
The central premises of neo-darwinism are just about as obsolete as those of geocentrism, I figure. Course, that aint to say ya can't go around callin geocentrism THE theory of astronomy, on the grounds that it "gave rise" to the "refinements" of heliocentrism, I spoze.
If I saw a horse with a cart behind it moving in tandem down a country lane, there is nothing in my observation that is inconsistent with the theory that the cart is exerting some kinda force on the horse, movin it forward. Kinda like natural selection, ya know?
10 years ago I had a very stark and vivid intution that, on that very night, my brother-in-law, who I have always detested, killed a young lady in her 20's in New York City. He lived in Kintucky at the time and I called my sister. Guess what? He wasn't home, that's what! The next day, he still wasn't home until late at night, when he came in drunk.
OK, I thought, he has no alibi....I checked with the municipal authorities in NYC a little later and found that at least 7 women in their 20's were killed on the night in question and, guess what? One of those murders was unsolved, that's what!
For the last 10 years I have been searchin for a train ticket stub from Kintucky to NYC on that night. I aint found it yet, but when I do, case closed, I tellya what!
Well, in one sense I am. Gould, and others, pronounced neo-darwinism "dead" decades ago. But Lynch, who is an expert in the field, claims that the vast majority of current biologists are essentially pan-adaptionists. In that sense, it is not dead. If you will admit that the theory is dead, and that no coherent "general theory of evolution" has taken root in it's stead, then we will agree. Then we can stop pretending that there exists such a thing recognized as :THE Theory of Evolution."
You mean, stop the pretense there is such a thing at THE Theory of Atoms? Stop pretending there is such a thing as THE Theory of Continental Drift?
The Theory of Evolution is always changing, like any other scientific theory. We nontheless have a highly predictive model of what life does, and make a wide variety of successful predicitons base upon that model. The model is not simple, nor able to be wrapped up in a dozen or so universal laws, nor is perfected. It's still the Theory of Evolution.
(Gerhart and Kirschner) ... state that: "Still, there are no “laws of variation” regarding its generation, only a black box of chaotic accidents entered by genetic variation and occasionally exited by selectable phenotypic variation,"
One Brow said "You realize this quote is actually promoting random change as a driver?"
No, I don't realize that, Eric.
How much more clear can "chaotic accidents" be on their positon?
Gerhart does not pretend to have discovered laws of variation, and simply says so.
Randomenss is not a law of variation.
I read Gerhart to be sayin that there is a lot of genetic variation that does not result in phenotypic change.
That's been well-known under neo-Darwinism: neutral replacements, many occurences of gene duplication, etc.
We know of no laws that govern written expression. That notwithstanding, words get chosen by authors will result in sentences, paragraphs, and books. No one can predict just exactly what words a given author will choose, and, from an epistemological standpoint the process which results in a particular word or phrase being chosen might seem "chaotic." But that would never imply that there is no rhyme, reason, or pattern to word choices by authors, eh?On the other hand, while we can identify strings mnade by authors with the intent to communicate in a specific manner using a specific decoder, we have no method of distinguishing strings that are run through an unknown decoder from strings that are random.
If I'm reading you correctly here, Eric, then you're makin my point for me. As I said before, there is no scientific reason to INSIST that all mutation is random with respect to adaptation, and to write an entire book on the theory of evolution. That constitutes a philosophical platform, no more.
All known mechanisms for generating new variations, at both the genetic and the epigentic level, have no known mechanism for tying them to the needs of the organism. They are, from a scientific standpoint, random.
I've already agreed with you a dozen times that the claim there is no hidden design behind the rendomness should not be taught in school science classes. Even zealous atheists such as Dawkins and Myers agree. So, who are yo udisagreing with?
You conclude that "thus they are random." This is an ontological statement, not an epistemological one. That's where we differ, and the difference is immense, as I see it.
On the contrary, the whole nature of science is epistomological, and the statement of the randomness of new inheritable information is no different.
I have no problem with positing randomness for epistemological purposes, but I suspect that many devout neo-darwinists teachin at the high school level ever leave it at that.
Perhaps you can provide some examples from an actual high school curriculum to show your consternation is justified?
Maynard Smith did not say, as you appear to, that the ability to predict a direction for mutation was unnecessary to study biology and/or that the issue was basically irrelevant to the scientific enterprise. He made it the central point of his book, and his point was NOT that randomness (or the lack thereof) was irrelevant.
So, he claimed randomness was essential, and that evoltuion was non-functional if the condition of random change was violated? I find that hard to believe, in no small reason because evolution works perfectly well, just differently, when you control various means of introducing variations.
You repeatedly say that all heritable genetic variation has been shown to be random.
I certainly hope I have not, because such a statement would be unprovable. I have said there is no known mechanism that would indicate the changes are non-random, and that the changes are not known to be predictable.
Epigentic phenomena suggest otherwise, and I thought you were well aware of that.
Some epigentic expressions give the appearance of being truly random (prions), some seem to be reactions to situations that can last genertions, go dormant, and come back (but is that really new variation?).
To draw yet another analogy to history, Eric, Church-sanctioned astronomy presupposed certain "non-negotiable" premises, such as 1. all heaven motion is circular, 2. the earth does not move, and 3. All other material bodies in the universe revolve around the earch.
Given these immutable premises, each and every new observation could be (at least approximately) accomodated by ptolemic theory. Sure, it became necessary for one after another after another, epicycle, deferent, and equant to be specially created on an ad hoc basis to force the observed phenomena to conform to the dogmatic premises, but so what? They had planets constantly shifting from one "circular" orbit to another. It became prima facie absurd, but of course that did not phase the church authorities, or undermine their "faith" in their premises in the slightest. They just kept revising their "mechanisms," while refusing to review their fundamental premises.
They probably still could. The real problem with geocentrism and Ptolemic astronomy is not the impossibiliy of duplicating observations made so far. It's the lack of mechanisms to explain the reasaons for the epicycles or why the Sun is flying around the planet, and the issue of pedicting future observations.
But again, who is to say that heliocentricism did not merely "refine" and "add to" geocentricism, ya know?
Geocentrism is founded on the notion of limited mechanisms, while the modern synthesis is not.
If I saw a horse with a cart behind it moving in tandem down a country lane, there is nothing in my observation that is inconsistent with the theory that the cart is exerting some kinda force on the horse, movin it forward. Kinda like natural selection, ya know?
How does that hold up under testing?
For the last 10 years I have been searchin for a train ticket stub from Kintucky to NYC on that night. I aint found it yet, but when I do, case closed, I tellya what!
That will allow you to predict future discoveries about his behavior?
There are so many issues here, and the onliest reason I really spend any time with you on it is because I think you are capable of some acute insights and capable of bein relatively objective.
That said, I find it very frustratin that you often appear to be quite partisan, unilateral, and dogmatic in response to some of your "pet peeves.".
I make no bones about being a skeptic. Outside of that, I try to avoid being partisan or unilateral. Sometimes I am more successful than others.
Can it be tested? I will mebbe say more about that later (I already have addressed the issue in my original comment), but let's leave that aside for the moment. You have already conceded that the presumption of randomness (of mutations) can't be tested, so why is "testability" only applicable to the side you oppose, I wonder? This ALWAYS seems to be your fall-back criterion, yet you are very selective in applying it. You refuse to apply it to your own predispositions, it seems. As we have agreed (I think), there is no known test for randomness/design per se. I don’t insist that design per se be tested. I do insist that, as science, if you want to change from the default position of randomness (i.e., that there is no known control mechanism) to one of design (i.e., that some mechanism of control was used), then you either need to come up with a test of randomness/design (currently unavailable) or a test for the mechanism itself. For example, natural selection is a non-random mechanism, and there have been a variety of tests made on its presence and effectiveness. Where is the comparative test for a design mechanism?
I know from prior discussions that you have little appreciation for how central and pre-eminent the doctrine that all genetic variation is due to random mutations actually is to the entire neo-darwinistic paradigm. You seem to think that neo-dawwinistic (modern synthetic) thought is fully capable or "incorporating" a different premise without bein destroyed as a theory. This seems much like the claim that Newton’s theories were "destroyed" by relativity. The changes in the theory meant that Newton’s equations became approximations, good enough in many applications, but were not universally applicable or the whole story. Neo-Darwinism (presumably defined as the focus on random changes to the genetic code followed by selection) is good enough to describe long period of the history of many types of populations, including the history of entire orders of living things, but is not universally applicable to describing all of evolution and is not the whole story. It has been limited, but still works in many situations. I don’t see how that is "destroyed".
That's one reason I often question just what you have in mind when you talk about THE Theory of Evolution. Common descent? Heh, that's a "theory?" You had parents, and so did I. They had parents, etc. That is a known and virtually self-evident fact. It is no more a theory than Howlin Wolf's Theory of Heavenly Motion. Nor is a concoction of postulated "mechanisms" a "theory." Galileo's rollin balls down inclined planes and timin them did not constitute a "theory of gravity," either. Common descent is a little more than you and I having parents. It’s that the best explanation for the current state of life, and the similarities and differences among living things, is the existence of ancestral populations, whose genetic legacy is such that all these populations are the genetic ancestors of better than 99.9% of the world’s biomass.
HGT aint even about "descent," know what I'm sayin? Nor is it "gradual." Nor is it due to "random mutations." In order, that would be wrong, sometimes wrong, and sometimes wrong. First, horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is meaningless unless it becomes part of the inheritable material. 10,000 sequences added to cells my nose have no effect on evolution. When it does become part of the heritable material, the transfer agent becomes a genetic parent for the offspring, so even then is it about descent. As for the next point, many of the changes from HGT may be completely irrelevant (occurring in non-coding regions), most of the preserved changes in vertebrates fall into this category. However, it can also make a radical difference, certainly. Finally, many of the viral insertions that mark HGT are truly random with respect to the needs of the host, especially in vertebrae.
I am actually bewildered that you feel comfortable asserting that "Selection....drives genotypical change" given the current state of data available. I mean, I know its the prevailin dogma, and all, but it's been severely undermined by many experimental studies. I would certainly agree that the notion that “selection is the exclusive driver of the direction of change” has been undermined. However, in any population limited by some sort of resource, selection is one of the drivers.
All "mutations" could be "random," but it seems they aint. Either way, that aint even the real point. The neo-darwinistic premise is that genetic mutations are virtually the SOLE CAUSE of all phenotypic variations and that the "dictates" of dna (or allele, or "genes," or whatever) are completely irreversible and strictly lineal in determining pheneoype, etc. As I said, this is a fine approximation for many circumstances.
This view is now considered to be a joke by many eminent scientists. No one even knows what a "gene" is. Population genetics is strictly a formal system which postulates it's premises and then deduces all conclusions therefrom, best I can tell. "Evolution" becomes defined as a change in allele, and if any phenotypic (corrected as noted) change is observed, that "proves" that allele have changed, as they see it. Any time you create a mathematical model (such models being common to population genetics, you are using a formal system (mathematics), so naturally the result will be a formal system. All formal systems are based on the process of establishing transformations schema, proposing postulates and deducing results; that is their very nature. Formal systems are judged/tested by their correspondence to reality and usability. Population genetics makes a wide range of testable predictions, and its model has been refined many times over the course of decades. It doesn’t have everything in evolution, but its utility is undisputed.
As for what a gene is, a gene is a unit of inheritance. As we have discovered more about how heredity happens, this notion has varied somewhat around this idea (for a while drifting to being specifically segments of DNA, and then getting broader again as other types of inheritance are discovered). For many phenotypes, the principal control is in the DNA, but even when it is not, that only means the transmission media for the phenotype is altered.
There is no viable "theory of evolution" at this point, that I can see. There may be dozens of hypotheses (not worthy of the title of "theory" at this point) about how and why certain aspects of inheritance, phenotypic change, and speciation occur, but there simply aint one grand theory. Well, there’s no small set of equations and explanations with universal applicability. There’s certainly more out there to discover. However, biologists have wide-ranging body of knowledge that they can use to make predictions about invasive species, creating medicines, locations to find certain fossils, the results of specific changes to the DNA made in embryos, etc. What do you think is missing that would make this a theory? What else is needed to be viable?
The essential presuppositions of the Modern Synthetic theory have been "tested" enough to conclude that they fail.
We can agree that evolution is a "fact." But, please, don't use this to conclude that THE theory of evolution has been proven. Far from it. In fact, they aint no coherent theory that has gained any widespread acceptance, with or without testin, that I have heard of. Again, what would you expect to see in such a theory that we don’t already have?
In another thread you again asserted the view (prejudice) that one MUST assume that mutations (and hence phenotypic change, if you're a neo-darwinist) are random, in lieu of evidence to the contrary. That is wrong. Would I have to assume that a BMW was assembled by random chance? Could it be proved that this particular BMW I'm lookin at WASN'T put together by a windstorm and other natural forces? Naw, it couldn't, but that sure nuff wouldn't mean that would be my startin assumption, eh? I would say that, if you stumbled across some configuration of metal, glass, and rubber that had no organization you recognized and no purpose you could discern, you would indeed assume it had been thrown together randomly. As for your BMW, you already know what a car is, you know how cars look, and you know what their purpose is. Further, all of your other, independent experiences with cars reveal them to have the same characteristics, appearance, and purpose, and you know all those other cars were not assembled at random. So, it is natural you assume the BMW is not assembled at random. By contrast, the only sort of design we know of for DNA is the cutting and pasting of strings in genetically modified organisms. When you can present an independently occurring biosphere with the appearance of common descent, evidence similar to the 30 listed by Theobald on talkorigins, etc., and show the biosphere was designed, then we’ll have a basis for that comparison.
Failing that, you could always provide a mechanism for genetic change that was not random.
"What is this metaphysical need? Keep in mind it can't be atheism, since you will find bvery religious men like ken Miller or Wesley Elsberry who state that all mutations are random just as strongly as Dawkins does."
This is a false dichotomy and a generally fallacious argument, Eric, incorporating the fallacy of division along with other unwarranted inferences. For many, it is in fact atheism that motivates them, not that it really matters as far as this discussion goes. To show that, you would need to demonstrate that, were these men not atheists, they would not accept/promote that mutations are random. However, at a minimum some 40% of biologists are non-atheists who accept that mutations are random, including many who aggressively promote this notion.
Dawkins regularly states that he is tryin to defeat the "appearance of design." If design is so "apparent," why the need to fight it as though it were an enemy? Gould said sumthin to the effect that Darwinism made it possible for atheists to be "fulfilled." Crick wuz a notoriously aggressive atheist, and his speculations were fundamental to the optimitic "proof" the neo-darwinists claimed for their theory. Actually, Gould said "intellectually fulfilled", as evolution gave atheists an explanation for the course of life that did not involve divine creation. If Darwin’s notions had not lead to so much knowledge and understanding, the atheists would still be looking. They would probably still be atheists, as well.
To many, the mere concept of any kinda "intelligence" in the evolutionary process smacks of supernatural vitalism and is per se abhorrent, as a matter of personal preference. Lamarckism was ruled out, ab initio, by the neo-darwinists, and the only "proper" response to any mention of Lamarck was for them to howl in laughter and insist that any and all notions of any kinda lamarckism had been utterly refuted. Not so, then or now, but strongly indicative of a closed and unscientific mindset, whatever the motivation. "Lamarckism, in its initial form of the giraffe who stretches its neck out for food having longer-necked children than a giraffe who does not stretch, is still completely without a mechanism. As long as people can’t hypothesize why stretching your neck will make your children long-necked, and have experiments about this process fail time and again, they’ll get laughed at by scientists for claiming it must be so nevertheless, and with good reason.
This general brand of metaphysics was not atypical of similar "schools" of thought in various disciplines in the 30's (and in physics and other "scientific" disciplines before that). Logical Positivism in philosophy and linguistics, for example, or strict behavioralism in psychology. Such schools have long been discredited in the minds of most people, but for some reason it has persisted as the dominant metaphysics of most evolutionary theorists. You can’t argue for atheism within logical positivism, as far as I can tell, because the statements that there are no gods, or that there is no good evidence for the existence of gods, is not verifiable. So, I disagree that this is the dominant metaphysics of most evolutionary biologists. Even among the scientists, there are very few scientismists.
Now, within science, the dominant methodological practices revolve around versions of verification or falsification or a constructed model. If you take that away, what is left does not resemble science. The only thing separating astrology from being a facet of psychology is that it makes no model that has claims which can be verified and/or falsified.
Woese's thoughts about the hopelessness of a metaphysical brand reductionistic determinism in biology simply mirror what others have been sayin for decades. There was a time, I believe, when he completely bought into that paradigm and is probably admonishing himself as much other dogmatic proponents of that particular metaphysical viewpoint. Logical positivism is not actually reductionist in nature, it does allow for the acceptance of holistic structures. Further, it seems unlikely that a man who devoted his life to proving himself by creating a new model for the unity of life, and then subjecting his model(s) to testing and proving them on that basis would look positively on you now calling upon his name in some quest to remove the modeling notion from science. Woese used the same scientific process as the neo-Darwinists used.
"When the time comes for egg laying, the wasp Sphex builds a burrow for the purpose and seeks out a cricket which she stings in such a way as to paralyze but not kill it. She drags the cricket into the burrow, lays her eggs alongside, closes the burrow, then flies away, never to return. In due course, the eggs hatch and the wasp grubs feed off the paralyzed cricket, which has not decayed, having been kept in the wasp equivalent of a deepfreeze. To the human mind, such an elaborately organized and seemingly purposeful routine conveys a convincing flavor of logic and thoughtfulness---until more details are examined. For example, the wasp's routine is to bring the paralyzed cricket to the burrow, leave it on the threshold, go inside to see that all is well, emerge, and then drag the cricket in. If the cricket is moved a few inches away while the wasp is inside making her preliminary inspection, the wasp, on emerging from the burrow, will bring the cricket back to the threshold, but not inside, and will then repeat the preparatory procedure of entering the burrow to see that everything is all right. If again the cricket is removed a few inches while the wasp is inside, once again she will move the cricket up to the threshold and reenter the burrow for a final check. The wasp never thinks of pulling the cricket straight in. On one occasion this procedure was repeated forty times, with the same result."
Guys like Daniel Dennet like to cite this phenomena as proof that there is no free will. Skinnerians like to use it to show that seemingly purposeful behavior is simply sumthin along the lines of "conditioned response." I believe that Dawkins has also used it, presumably to show how "apparent design" can simply be a false appearance. They are all very mechanistic and reductionistic in their metaphysics, of course. With regard to the wasp, do you think it exhibits free will? Do its actions indicate to you something more than a conditioned response? I agree this example has nothing to do with apparent design, but certainly the first two comments seem accurate enough, at least for the wasp.
But how does the neo-darwinistic theory of evolution explain instinctive behavior (fixed action patterns)? Darwin had a chapter in the Origin of Species which addressed the problems which instinct appeared to pose for his theory, but let's leave that be for a second.
Let's conclude that the wasp is simply actin as a programmed robot would, so now what?
No one questions that the behavior is inherited. So what kind of theory of genetics would explain how such a pattern developed and was transmitted to every succeeding generation? Well, accordin to the neo-darwinists it couldn't be anything Lamarckin (i.e, where "acquired traits" are inherited) because that possiblility is ruled out a priori.
So how does a very specific and complex chain of particular behaviors (which presumably benefits survival) get "into" the genome? The old deterministic "gene for every behavior" hypothesis, which most neo-darwinist speculation has tacitly assumed, has been completely disproven, but, even if it hadn't the question would remain. If it doesn't get incorporated into the genome via the organism's interaction with the environment, how does it get there?
Well, we all know the tale, I spoze. Once upon a time one wasp just happened (by random mutation to one of it's gene) to be FORCED to, let's say, put it eggs in a hole. This wasp had more survivors than the the average clan member did (who, let's say, had survived for many generations by simply droppin their eggs on the ground). Before ya know it, every wasp ever hatched is one with genes which MADE it do these things, all on account of natural selection, see? Later, another wasp had mutated genes which MADE it paralyze prey for it's as yet born young-uns, and so on, until every wasp everywhere does all these things in sequence. Rudyard Kipling would be proud, eh? I also like the story about Noah and the Ark. What are the alternatives at this point? Is there evidence the wasp, then or now, engaged in decision-making and then passed those decisions on to offspring? How would that happen? What evidence is there that the wasp exhibits more than a pre-programmed action-reaction cycle, with many of the reactions being to internal, as opposed to external stimuli? Can two wasps be trained to follow different reactions to same stimuli? For all of your scare caps, what is the factor you accuse the reductionist, neo-Darwinians of over-looking?
Yes, the tale you told, and any similar tale, is highly speculative, and we will probably never know how closely it actually resembles the actual species’ history. It’s not supposed to be that to begin with. Scientific magazines don’t publish just-so stories as representing research. Scientists don’t organize presentations to present them. They are not presented as being factual in text-books. However, they are good for one thing: opposing cases of argument from incredulity. When someone comes along and says that there is no way selection can cause this precise a chain of behaviors, it offers a possible path from a much more general set of behaviors.
Back to Darwin, atheism, and fundamentalist reductionism for a minute, eh, Eric? All quotes here are from chapter 8 (entitled "instinct") of Origin of Species.
Darwin perceives the problem: "Many instincts are so wonderful that their development will probably appear to the reader a difficulty sufficient to overthrow my whole theory." He thinks this is especially true in some cases, such as sterile insects, with respect to which he says present: "one special difficulty, which at first appeared to me insuperable, and actually fatal to the whole theory."
Not to worry of course, because he ends up sayin: "This difficulty, though appearing insuperable, is lessened, or, as I believe, disappears, when it is remembered that selection may be applied to the family, as well as to the individual, and may thus gain the desired end." "Desired end," eh? Sounds kinda teleological, sumhowze, don't it? That rather depends on the desired end, does it not? How teleological does "survival of the population" sound?
In parts of this chapter, he seems to implement some lamarckism to help explain the difficulties. "If we suppose any habitual action to become inherited--and it can be shown that this does sometimes happen--then the resemblance between what originally was a habit and an instinct becomes so close as not to be distinguished."
As I read him, Darwin's main argument is that he thinks that, once existent, "instinctive" behavior can be altered through natural selection. Well, aint that special, eh? I doubt Darwin claimed Lamarckism was impossible. To do that, you’d need to have some sort of mechanism for inheritance, and Darwin had none at his disposal. After all, it’s not like Darwin’s writings are considered infallible, just insightful. He did claim that random variation was in many ways a better explanation than Lamarckism for much of what was seen.
As for the altering of instinct, natural selection would not do the altering, but would discriminate among alterations once they appeared.
Of course, he has nuthin to say about how instincts came into bein so that "natural selection" could act on them to begin with: "I may here premise, that I have nothing to do with the origin of the mental powers..." Darwin was generally very cautious in his statements and conclusions. It’s one of the reasons his work is held as an exemplar.
Darwin concedes his fanatical devotion to natural selection: "It will indeed be thought that I have an overweening confidence in the principle of natural selection, when I do not admit that such wonderful and well-established facts at once annihilate the theory."
But so what, ya know?: "I do not pretend that the facts given in this chapter strengthen in any great degree my theory; but none of the cases of difficulty, to the best of my judgment, annihilate it."
He is at least honest enough to admit that, although his conclusions are far from logically entailed, he has a personal preference for them: "...it may not be a logical deduction, but to my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts...not as specially endowed or created instincts, but as small consequences of one general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings." It appears that Darwin tried to anticipate a variety of criticism that would arise of his work, and thus tried to be careful about separating out the statements he could and could not support. This is another reason why his style is held in high regard. In fact, on those occasions when I read the scientific literature directly, I regularly see echoes of these two ideas: make your statements cautious and differentiate between what you can prove and what you think is true. Going back to Woese, this is part of what allowed his to get his ideas into the mainstream. He had a vision, but he did not confuse his vision with what was proven at the time. People who create scientific revolutions are always men with visions, although most visions can’t find the proof needed to generate the revolution.
Kinda funny that Darwin starts out by fessin up that he aint knowin nuthin about how instincts are created, and yet concludes that are not "specially created," eh? Well, he don't really do that, he just says he finds it more "satisfying" to look at it that way. Kinda like some fundies find it more "satisfactory" to read the bible literally, I spoze. Humans have an innate preference for finding simple patterns to explain reality, and Darwin was no different. We generally try to explain what we can as simply as possible within the evidence. If you like, Darwin was shaving his explanations with Occam’s Razor.
"To the human mind, such an elaborately organized and seemingly purposeful routine conveys a convincing flavor of logic and thoughtfulness.." (excerpt from my prior quote of Woolridge on wasps).
Such behavior is NOT "seemingly" purposeful. Without question it serves a very important purpose (survival). It would be absurd to assume that just because a chess-playin computer program does not "really think" it came into existence by random chance, eh? The purpose of chess programs is to win chess games, and some do this very well. There is in fact intelligent design and purpose underlying their creation and existence. That is true even if the computer program does not itself really "know" its purpose, or understand why it operates as it does, eh, Eric? I agree that the behavior of the computer is purposeful. Of course, I know how computers work, how they are programmed, etc. What is the evidence for the intelligent programming of the wasp? Mere complexity does not imply intelligence or design. If anything, all the designers we know prefer simplicity first, and only make things more complex as other needs intrude.
One Brow said: "Selection is a non-random process that drives phenotypal change."
Gabby Dover, the british geneticist, claims that: "We don’t have a theory of interactions and until we do we cannot have a theory of development or a theory of evolution." That was a decade ago he wrote that. The entire field of evolutionary development was still in its infancy then, compared to now. We have conducted genetic knock-out experiments, looked at the details of embryonic development controlled various proteins, etc. There is a wide-ranging theory of interactions developing.
Biologists from Havard and Berkeley (Gerhart and Kirschner), who advance a theory of "facilitated (non-random) variation, state that: "discoveries of gene regulation have opened the possibility of important evolutionary changes in nontranscribed DNA sequences, as well. Still, there are no “laws of variation” regarding its generation, only a black box of chaotic accidents entered by genetic variation and occasionally exited by selectable phenotypic variation." You realize this quote is actually promoting random change as a driver?
Michael Lynch from Indiana U. is a vociferous opponent of ID theory, is ultra-orthodox in his adherence to reductionism and genetic determinism and is a devotee of the mathematical population genetics paradigm. But even he claims that selection not only fails to explain many phenomena, but further insists that the assumption of natural selection must be virtually eliminated if they are to be explained.
Among other things, he says: "Darwin conceded that “our ignorance of the laws of variation is profound” (1), and 150 years later the mode of its generation remains largely unknown. Phenotypic variation is thought to affect all aspects of an animal's phenotype and to be “copious in amount, small in extent, and undirected” with regard to selective conditions....The literature is permeated with dogmatic statements that natural selection is the only guiding force of evolution, with mutation creating variation but never controlling the ultimate direction of evolutionary change." He clearly rejects this view. I have rejected that view, as well, as have many other biologists. In fact, I don’t know of any who claim that selection always favors the complex. Rather, complexity is described as probabilistic outcome. Once you have achieved a certain level of complexity, and become highly adapted in using it, it is very difficult to simplify again past a certain point, you hit the wall of irreducibility. You can’t function anymore as the simpler organism. Of course, this does not happen to every population, and some populations become simpler as circumstances warrant (just as invasive species shrink in size after generations on an island, when the usual tendency is to gain size).
With respect to complexity, he says: "There is no evidence at any level of biological organization that natural selection is a directional force encouraging complexity. In contrast, substantial evidence exists that a reduction in the efficiency of selection drives the evolution of genomic complexity." No argument from me here. The best time to generate more complexity is when the resources required for it are abundant, and the aspects of selection that do exist do not interfere with its creation.
He acknowledges that "discoveries of gene regulation have opened the possibility of important evolutionary changes in nontranscribed DNA sequences, as well," but does not claim that the possiblilites are well-understood…
He acknowledges the prevailing dogma, but disagrees with it:
"Most biologists are so convinced that all aspects of biodiversity arise from adaptive processes that virtually no attention is given to the null hypothesis of neutral evolution...Such religious adherence to the adaptationist paradigm has been criticized as being devoid of intellectual merit."
He too adheres to a theory of "facilitated variation," in which neutral evolutionary forces play the predominant role.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8597.full I think we’ve had that discussion before. I’m not even sure adaptationism is a majority view among biologists anymore.
All of these experts (and many more) appear to explicitly reject one or more of the essential tenets of neo-darwinism. Many contempory experts, like Dover (who proposes a "third" evolutionary force which he calls "molecular drive'), claim that there presently is no viable, coherent "theory of evolution." All, of course, presuppose the "fact" of evolution. Perhaps at some point you’ll say what is needed to for a theory that we don’t now have?
It requires some highly questionable theoretic assumptions to conclude that "selection drives phenotypal change." Lynn Magulis put it in (what I see as) a humorous way when she characterized neo-dawrwinism and population geneticts as being "a minor twentieth century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology"Margulis has done some amazing work, no doubt. However, I’ll doubt you can find a quote of hers that says selection is never of driver of phenotypic change. She certainly cays, with good reason, that phenotypic change is driven by other reasons than natural selection, but that is as an addition to, not a replacement for, selection.
Edit: Oops, one of those quotes I attributed to Lynch (pertaining to the role of natural selection by the prevailing dogma) was actually from Gerhart and Kirschner. I removed it for you.
I do believe I was correct in commenting that he clearly rejects such a view, though. Elsewhere Lynch has said:
"...our theoretical work on network evolution, challenge the popular idea that modularity arises as a direct consequence of selection for morphological complexity, and by extension raise questions about the common assumption that natural selection was responsible for the emergence of multicellularity."
http://homepages.ucalgary.ca/~jefox/Michael%20Lynch%20seminar%20advert.pdf
Indeed, he wrote an entire book on the topic [http://www.sinauer.com/detail.php?id=4843], in which he reportedly said"
"Most molecular, cell and developmental biologists subscribe to the same creed, as do many popular science writers. However, it has long been known that purely selective arguments are inadequate to explain many aspects of biological diversity." I’m not sure what "the same creed" references. Outside of that, I think we have agreed on this before.
I had me a dream last night, eh? Some seemingly self-propelled object had been seen flyin round our solar system at speeds approachin light for a spell, and then started zig-zaggin round in our atmosphere. Then it crashed. No sign of life was found on it.
Guys from NASA called me up to inspect the crash site, and come up with a theory/explanation of what this thing was, how it mighta come to be and how (and why, if possible) it landed here.
Turns out, when I got there, Richard Dawkins was the other guy assigned to the job. So I sez: "Hey, Dick, whatcha think, eh?" Then it kinda went like this here:
Dick: "I'm workin on a naturalistic theory right now, gimme a few minutes, eh?
Me: "OK, I guess I'll just mosey around here checkin things out for a spell. I'm assumin that just about everything about this huge craft was a product of intellingence and design, so mebbe I can make some sense of it if I study it.
Dick: Intelligence!? Ya mean Gawd?
Me: Naw, probly not God, but sumthin intelligent.
Dick: Do you have any evidence whatsover to prove that their is intelligence in this universe, apart from me, I mean, of course.
Me: Well, naw, not really, other than the fact that this thang is here.
Dick: Light comes here, at the speed of light, no less, but that don't mean it was designed by intelligence. We must assume, by default, that this here thing came into existence and got here by some kinda non-teleological natural process, fool. That's SCIENCE, chump.
Me: Well, I spect I best just head on home then, I aint no scientist, it seems. That’s somewhat amusing, but there are a couple of issues with your depiction. Design is a process conducted by natural beings, and Dawkins has no trouble acknowledging design by natural beings, when there are signs of it. However, the only test for signs of design seem to be analogy to known artifacts, and analogies are not reliable indicators. For example, let’s take the propulsion system on your object. We would recognize two shiny tanks filled with liquids that were individually stable, but combustible when mixed, and joined by a pipes with flow controls, as a designed fuel system. However, if the object contains a propulsion system completely unlike anything we have seen before, such as one liquid permeating through rock slowly to mix with a different sort of rock, how do you tell whether that permeation is natural or designed?
Of course, another issue is that life is not some object, but a continuum of changing circumstances, none of which seems to stand on its own.
Eric, I come round here most days to see if you have cared to respond to any of these evolution posts. You haven't, so I just generally post another one because I been thinkin bout this shit again. I kinda see this as an extension of the (in my mind unfinished) "debate" we had in the Jazzfanz thread. Since that time you have continued to make posts in your blog about the topic, so I guess I assumed you had a continuing interest in discussing the topic.
I realize, however, that an interest in expressin your own thoughts on a blog does not necessarily imply any desire to "discuss" the topic. So I don't know if you have just been busy, if you don't want to git "embroiled" in a debate, or if, for other reasons, you don't care to respond. In the meantime, I'm just kinda turnin this here comments section into my own personal blog, eh? No problem. If you think I have missed anything, just point it out.
One of my comments here quoted a science news article which stated: "The research, which appears to offer evidence of a hidden mechanism guiding the way biological organisms respond to the forces of natural selection, provides a new perspective on evolution, the scientists said."
One of your responses was: "the article involved does not even discuss mutations!"
Similarly, in another thread, you made a comment about the Cairns experiments, concluding, if I interpreted you correctly, that there was nothing to prove the mutations involved were non-random (I don't feel like lookin for the the exact wording of your reply).
To me, such responses are indicative of the thought patterns of those with a reductionistic approach. I think this approach often prevents one from "seein the forest" on account of all trees in the way, ya know? I have understood you to be arguing that we may be seeing evolution act in a purposeful way and or organisms directing their evolution, as opposed to a strictly random and/of reactive fashion. If you have not been arguing for the possibility of an organism directing its own mutations in some fashion, then of course my comments are moot. It certainly seems like you think this is a possibility, though. On a holistic level, there will certainly be feedback mechanisms engaged in at the organism level that can drive change such as sexual selection. I don't have a problem with any sort proposed mechanism that is more than untestable woo.
I think it also leads those who are purportedly advocating a theory to think that each part of the theory is totally and completely independent of each other, and enables them to believe that if one premise is incorrect, that in no way affects the "entire theory." A "minor" part of the theory, mebbe, but not the theory itself. Again, I see this as a failure to see the "big picture," and to appreciate the interdependence of the whole with the parts.Science is not a formal system. Everything is an approximation,and new data does not invalidate old relationships, it just limits them in scope. Newton's laws still apply to everyday experiences.
As we find situations that don't fit in with the current theory, we don't throw out the baby with the bath water. The tree of life remains an excellent illustration of evolution for chordates, insects, etc., so why replace it with something called a net when that net will wind up looking like the tree anyhow?
In one of my comments I responded as follows: "All "mutations" could be "random," but it seems they aint. Either way, that aint even the real point."
So, what is the "real point?" Well, I go on to elaborate, but I'm am not too confident that you will understand what I meant in my response. So let me elaborate more here.
Take the Cairns experiments. As I recall one, after another, after another, separate colonies of bacteria with defectives genes for digestin lactose startin digestin lactose when it was the only available source of nourishment. One neo-darwinist after another came out with papers designed to prove that this was all random, and that the observations in no way undermined, in the least, what has be called the "central dogma" of neo-darwinism (i.e., that all phenotypic variation is, initally, the result of mutations which are wholly undirected and random with respect to the needs of the organism). Again, they did so by trying to isolate parts of the theory from the whole, without payin much attention to the whole, as I see it.Apparently, Cairns himself .adopted the claim that the mutations themselves were not directed.
http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/full/186/15/4846
MUTATIONS ARE NOT DIRECTED
Fairly early on in our studies, Cairns and I eliminated the hypothesis that mutations were "directed" toward a useful goal. The first negative evidence was obtained not with FC40, but with SM195. SM195 has an amber mutation in lacZ and so reverts both by intragenic mutations and by the creation of tRNA suppressors (11).
I'm not going to make any claim that having directed mutations is impossible, I certainly don't know enough biochemistry. However, it seems reasonable to say all the observations so far are consistent with the existence of hypermutability and undirected mutations, and outside of the known machinery for genetic repair, we still don't have a mechanism that would direct mutations. Either of those things could change in the next year or in 50 years.
Let me make an analogy here. Spoze my pc operatin system crashes and I try to fix it (or have some expert, which I aint, do so). I may start out by lookin at what seem to be the most likely suspects for the cause of the crash. If I cannot detect a problem in those areas, I may well start lookin for problems in other possible, but seemingly less likely, areas. If I still have no success, I may be reduced to simply methodically checkin every coding function in the program, lookin for any kinda defect.
This is basically what we call "trouble-shooting," although I'm not sure that description is too apt when one is reduced to systematic checking of the functioning of every part of the object in "trouble."
Let's say that, after a few weeks I discover an unexpected and not easily predectable malfunction in some area of the program, correct it, and then once again have a workin operatin system. I'm now happy (except that the thang crashes again the next day, but that's a whole other tale).
Question is, was the process which resulted in the solution "directed?" It can be pointed out (as the critics of Cairn tried to do) that I did NOT know in advance what the solution was, with the inference that therefore the whole process was "blind," therefore purposeless and undirected. They can point out (although I'm not sure this was the case with Cairns) that in the end I simply resorted to an undirected "trial and error" form of trouble-shooting and conclude that the cure was therefore merely the result of "chance," not foreknowledge.
They would be correct, but they would be wrong in what they thought the implications of their conclusions were, if ya ax me. I even disagree that the process is undirected. At a minimum, you probably did not perform the same check more than twice, and many of them probably only once. Even during your trial-and-error process, you likely did not look in text-only documents and other things you knew ahead of time could not have any possible effect. Of course, you initiated the whole thing by forming a list of likely suspects. Incorporating random aspects does not make a process undirected.
All of the the colonies of bacteria in question "solved" their problem. They could all now digest lactose. Since the "end" was achieved, the "purpose" of their mutations was fulfilled.
Likewise, I solved by computer problems. The mere fact that I didn't know, and couldn't even accurately deduce, the "cause" of the problem did not prevent me from correcting the problem. As tedious and specifically (as opposed to generally) undirected as my search for a solution turned out to be, my actions in finding the problem were obviously both purposeful and directed when viewed from a broader perspective. I knew what I was trying to accomplish, even though I didn't know in advance how to accomplish it, and I recogized the cause of the problem (and hence the solution) once I saw it (even though I was just lookin "randomly").See, we agree. Evolution is not random. I read that over and over again, even from adaptationists. The (self-adopted) purpose of life is to live, simply because organisms that don't adopt this purpose tend to die.
It is simply not necessary that one have foreknowledge of the solution to a practical problem in order to solve it and attempts to find a solution are NOT undirected. They are deliberate and directed to a specific end, i. e., discovering a currently unknown solution to a specific problem. That's kinda what science is about, aint it? Know what I'm sayin?
Likewise, all "mutations" to dna could in fact be random and yet the neo-darwinistic hypothesis of random mutation could be completely disproven in spirit and substance if other intervening factors (which the genetic determinism of neo-darwinism forbids) give direction to which mutations and which functions of dna coding actually get expressed.If an viewpoint can't be completely proved (which we both agree upon), how can it be completely disproved? It seems much more appropriate to say that the neodarwinistic paradigm will only apply to a range of situations, or that it will only be an approximation, or that it will cease to provide useful predictions concerning life. I don't even claim Young-Earth Creationism is completely disproved, only that is offers no useful insights, that any predictions it makes which are both testable and different from evolution seem to turn out incorrect, and that iy adopts an assumption of inerrancy which is anathema to science (even to neo-Darwinists).
I've forgotten who now, but one respectable current scientist recently said sumthin like this:
"We thought that dna was the 'book of life' and that, once understood, we could read the book and have a complete understanding of heredity. As it turns out, it's not a book in the sense we thought all at. It's a dictionary, a tool list. It contains the words from which great books can be written by great authors, but it writes nothing itself."That's a great quote..
Eric, you may already be aware of this, but I just discovered that in late 2006 the National Academy of Sciences sponsered a two-day colloquim on "Adaptation and Design." The stated goal "is to synthesize recent empirical findings and conceptual approaches towards understanding the evolutionary origins and maintenance of complex adaptations."
Here is the general link, if you're interested: http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=SACKLER_Evolution
Near the top you can click on an option to "view presentations," which gets you here: http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=SACKLER_evolution_program
There you can see that there were a number of speakers, including Lynch and Gerhart, who I have cited. It seems that a videotape of each particular presentation was recorded and accessible by further clicking. I am listening to Gerhart's presentation now, and it's quite interestin. It's at this link:
http://progressive.playstream.com/nakfi/progressive/Sackler/sackler_12-01_06_new/JohnGerhart/JohnGerhart.htmlThat's a great quote.
To elaborate on earlier comments relating to the nature of a theory, ideological/ontological inclinations, etc., I would ask why anyone would call the "theory" (it aint no theory, but....) of common descent "darwinian." It goes back to Lamarck (and earlier), so why not call it "Lamarckian?" Contrary to what many believe, Lamarck did not believe in creation or vitalism.Like evolution, common descent is both a fact (it can be true or false) and a theory (there is a body of work, descriptions of mechanisms, experiments, tests, etc.).
Of course, the theory of evolution is a lot more than common descent. However, it is the implications of common descent that provides most of the impetus and funding to the anti-evolution movement. It may be unfair that Lamarck became so associated with his hypothesis of behaviorally acquired characteristics that his contributions to common descent were overlooked, but since when is history fair?
Yet Dawkins has said: “To be painfully honest, I can think of few things that would more devastate my world view than a demonstrated need to return to the theory of evolution that is traditionally attributed to Lamarck."
So it is clear that neo-darwinism has essential tenets that are completely independent of any notion of common descent.Is there some rule or program that says "neo-Darwinism" = "world view of Dawkins"? Dawkins and many others do claim that science contradicts theism, but many other atheists disagree. I don'tsee how this viewpoint relates to a specific view of the various mechanisms in biology.
Maynard Smith wrote a book called "The Theory of Evolution." It's "central idea" was not common descent. He says:
"The central idea that underlies this book is that the origin of new heritable variation is not adaptive."A statement that seems to .consistent with all the evidence so far.
Needless to say, Maynard Smith's central idea has been subjected to intense challenge due to recent findings. Accordin to at least one (there are many others) review of Jablonka and Lamb's book:
"The authors present good examples of non-random semidirected mutations. The neo-Darwinian dogma that all mutations are random must be refined. There are degrees of randomness. Some mutations occur at higher probabilities at specific locations in DNA. Furthermore, they are inducible by the environment and they have a higher probability of being adaptive. It is an open question how wide-spread these mechanisms are in evolution."
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof74.htm
Furthermore, this reviewer notes that: "Epigenetic inheritance is the second dimension in evolution. The authors present two convincing examples of non-genetic heritable variation (epigenetic) that is transmitted to the next generation...So, new ways of thinking about the neo-Darwinian dogmas and Lamarckism are required."
For some reason, it seems clear that virtually none of the scientists now questioning this aspect of the neo-darwinistic paradigm are "ID-ers," eh, Eric? Go figure.Probably because there is nothing of ID in these claims. There is no proposition of an outside intelligence directing course of epigenetic influences, no claim for a mutation out of thin air, etc., just a discussion of natural influences on a natural process. ID has no use for that.
With the possible exception of the geocentric astronomy of the medieval scholastics, I can think of no other "scientific" theory which has been so widely represented as "proven" and indubitable, on the basis of so little evidence and in the light of such extensive counter-evidence (both empirical and theoretical) as the modern synthesis.Why you persist in referring to enhancements as counter-evidence is still puzzling.
That alone makes it seem obvious that non-scientific motives are prevalent in the promotion of neo-darwinism. Einstein had trouble accepting the various random aspects or quantum mechanics, and the the predictions of relativity don't work at the quantum level. Does this mean all the physicists who teach relativity are bad scientists bent on imposing an ideological framework upon the universe and instilling a relativistic dogma, or does is mean that relativity is a highly useful tool that makes a wide variety of successful predictions and gives a reasonable approximation to how things work. This is what it means to be a theory.
With respect to Lamarck in particular: "C. H. Waddington, a distinguished
contributor to the Neo-Darwinian synthesis, observed that: “Lamarck is the only major figure in the history of biology whose name has become, to all intents and purposes, a term of abuse. Most scientist’s contributions are fated to be outgrown, but very few authors have written work which, two centuries later, is still rejected with an indignation so intense that the skeptic may suspect something akin to an uneasy conscience.” http://www.maverickscience.com/lamarck-vindicated.pdfWhat laughable nonsense. Just within biology, Lysenkoism is a much more highly invective term than Lamarckism.
Uneasy conscience indeed. In my view, the shamelessness with which the the over-reaching claims of neo-darwinists has been promoted by seemingly "objective" scientists over the last 70-80 years has been a travesty for evolutionary theory in general. Their dogmatic assurance of the validity of claims which strain all credulity has greatly undermined public confidence in the whole subject as a "scientific" discipline, I figure (well, except amongst the vast majority who readily accepted such claims, I spoze).This is an odd claim since even the most heterodox scientists, like Woese and Margulis, use the results and findings of the modern synthesis as a basis for their own remarkable work. If there had been no modern synthesis, their work would not have existed. Some people may have claimed a little too much (as people in every field of life are wont to do, and Margulis/Woese are not exceptions there either),but the modern synthesis was not some boondoggle that stopped progress, it was a foundation for further progress.
Lewontin helps explain why this is, and would seem to agree completely with Nagel in principle, at least:
"Sagan believes that scientists reject sprites, fairies, and the influence of Sagittarius because we follow a set of procedures, the Scientific Method, which has consistently produced explanations that put us in contact with reality and in which mystic forces play no part. For Sagan, the method is the message, but I think he has opened the wrong envelope.
"The case for the scientific method should itself be "scientific" and not merely rhetorical...we are told that science "delivers the goods." It certainly has, sometimes, but it has often failed when we need it most.
Carl Sagan's list of the "best contemporary science-popularizers" includes E.O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas, and Richard Dawkins, each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market. Wilson's Sociobiology and On Human Nature rest on the surface of a quaking marsh of unsupported claims about the genetic determination of everything from altruism to xenophobia.
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
...we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htmAre you advocating for the Divine foot? Even without this foot, we always have the option of having no answer. Why should we prefer divine interference to conditional acceptance of the inability to know? What does human knowledge gain from this? How can you tell one from the other?
I have no problem with calling out men on their unsupported ideas. I think it is beneath you to then claim that this disproves a particular idea they hold. For example, here is a Wikipedia description of the tenets of the modern synthesis:
The modern synthesis bridged the gap between experimental geneticists and naturalists; and between both and palaeontologists, stating that:
1. All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.
2. Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes, recombination ordered by natural selection. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction (not saltation).
3. Selection is overwhelmingly the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment. The role of genetic drift is equivocal; though strongly supported initially by Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from ecological genetics were obtained.
4. The primacy of population thinking: the genetic diversity carried in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. The strength of natural selection in the wild was greater than expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important.
5. In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from micro to macro-evolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change.
...
Almost all aspects of the synthesis have been challenged at times, with varying degrees of success. There is no doubt, however, that the synthesis was a great landmark in evolutionary biology.
Which of these positions do you claim to be completely discredited? When you add in discoveries like epigenetic inheritance, changes in mutation rates, or gene transfer, you just add to the list of known genetic mechanisms. Is anyone claiming evolution by hopeful monsters? Is selection (note not natural selection, just selection) been downgraded? Has the focus been removed from looking at populations? Have the first four methods proved inadequate for historical observations?
As far as presentation to the public goes, it seems that much of the "scientific" presentation of the neo-synthetic theory of evolution has been a polemical exercise, accompanied by any ole sophistic argument that seemed expedient, with the one objective being prevailing in a metaphyical debate and defeating the "enemy."
Sorry, but that aint science in my book. Even less scientific is the spew of the disciples which these methods successfully recruit.Is your complaint with the modern synthesis, or the proclamations of men making statements that go well beyond the science? Can we just stick to the former, because I don't dispute the latter.
As much as I think the exaggerated and irrational promotions of the purported predictive and explanatory powers of the modern synthetic theory have undermined "the theory" of evolution, I must say that those calling for a "3rd synthesis" do seem to offer hope for a sensible, non-dogmatic theory of evolution that is acceptable from a genuinely scientific point of view.
That said, it is still discouraging to see the enormous amount of dogmatic adherence to orthodox neo-darwinism in the scientific community. Even Lynch, who is quite orthodox himself in many respects, notes that: "The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations..."
I am led by some reviews to believe that he repeatedly draws unflattering comparisons between this "vast majority of biologists" and "creationists who advocate intelligent design." (see summary of Pigliucci's review, for example:
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evolution/selection/pigliucci_lynch_review_2007.htmlI don't see what the so-called third synthesis offers that modern synthesis can not adopt or accept. It sounds more like men talking up their own ideas than anything else. I agree that not every biological feature can be explained in adaptive terms, but I also think that looking for adaptive reasons is a good starting point for looking at any biological feature.
As far as our experience goes, it seems universal that "all life comes from life." It is therefore rather natural to conclude that even our ancestors's ancestors had ancestors and, ultimately that all life had a "common ancestor."
As natural as this logic may be, it is not necessary. But in any event, the problem of an infinite regression must be faced. If we are to say that life "began" on earth, then there was a time when there was no life, from which life came to be. But this denies the initial premise of our logic, so which is it? Does all life come from life, or not?Is this a quote of someone? Why is ti a part of this discussion?
Given the seemingly insuperable odds (based on what we know about the requirements for life) against life kinda "poppin up" from inanimate matter on earth, even hard-core neo-darwinians (and atheists) such as Crick (and even Dawkins) are willing to entertain, if not advocate, the notion of life comin here from outer space.How can you know the odds are insuperable when you can't even give them a number? How do you know the odds are not 5:1 in favor of life developing? There are lots of developments in abiogenesis, and even more mechanisms at play than in evolution.
But that merely postpones, without avoiding, the problem with infinite regression. It seems that one must decide between only two possibilities:
1. Either all life does NOT come from pre-existing life, or
2. Life has ALWAYS been present in the universe.
Intuitive notions upon which a conclusion of "common descent" seem to rely seem to dictate conclusion # 2.Common descent is not dependent upon an intuitive notion. It is the result of many types of evidence gathered over decades, and confirmed by thousands of experiments.
If you instead select option #1, then there is nuthin which necessarily suggests any "common ancestor." If life can arise spontaneously once, it could presumably do it repeatedly.In fact, life could have originated a million different times, and each of those million times could still have residual traces within us. This is completely compatible with common descent, which wold say that trees and humans share common ancestry with these million times.
Further, common descent is only true until we discover a form a life that does not show the signs of common descent. I think there are a few lifeforms on the ocean bottom to whom it is debated about whether common descent is true.
40 years a ago, Fred Hoyle, astonomer and world-class mathematician, said the "math" does not work for neo-darwinism. Bein an outspoken atheist, Hoyle went the panspermia route, but acknowledged some kinda "intelligence" behind life on earth in the process.Hoyle's specualtions in this have not borne any useful ideas.
Lynch and others are now drawin the same mathematical conclusions, but they are far from the first. One does not need to be an ID advocate to appreciate the serious challenges to neo-darwinism that their critiques pose.No, they have not reached mathematical conclusions, because we don't have a complete model of the chemistry of the earth of 4 billion years ago.
The defenders of neo-darwinism will insist, with liberal use of ad hominim arguments, insult, and epithets that their critiques are 100% WRONG. Methinks the Babe doth protesteth too much, know what I'm sayin?
Even Ruse sees the "religious" aspect to neo-darwinism, and Shapiro's phrase about the "dialogue of the deaf" rings true. One need not be an ID theorist to recognize that a whole lot more is goin on in evolution than the tired tale of the neo-darwinists would ever lead one to believe.
I agree with Nagel (and many others) who have noted that the rationale behind the recent court decision was weak and misguided. If ID theory is "not science," then neither is neo-darwinism. The ID/darwinist battles are over metaphysics, not science.Go back to the five items in the list of the modern synthesis and tell me which items are the untestable, philosophical positions similar to ID. Or, tell me what you mean by neo-Darwinism that goes beyond the modern synthesis.
As for the battles over ID, this is not a battle of competing theories, but of keeping science free of causes that can't be measured or compared. Think about it: if you can't predict the actions of the Intelligent Designer, then their actions are essentially random with respect to your experiments, and you lose nothing by proclaiming randomness except for some philosophical baggage. On the other hand, the actual ID movement will be dead-set against the position you can test for the designer.
"Today I am discussing another problem with the paper authored by Dr. Nagel, which supports teaching Intelligent Design in public schools."
Eric, I don't read his paper as supporting the "teaching of ID in public schools" at all. You do, so I guess that explains your 3-part attack on "Nagels' follies." Not sayin you're one, but why do radical extremists turn so quickly on generally friendly and sympathetic viewpoints which refuse to indulge in absolutism, I wonder?We cannot, however, make this a fundamental principle of public education. I understand the attitude that ID is just the latest manifestation of the fundamentalist threat, and that you have to stand and fight them here or you will end up having to fight for the right to teach evolution at all. However, I believe that both intellectually and constitutionally the line does not have to be drawn at this point, and that a noncommittal discussion of some of the issues would be preferable.
You cold make an argument that he does not specifically advocate teaching ID in biology class, but his paper is clear he thinks biology is an excellent place for this discussion of the interface between science and religion. By the way, you should also note that I don't oppose teaching ID in high school, and made no statement otherwise.
I am reminded of some of the gay activists who vilified Spitzer (a long time supporter of gays who assumed, on faith, that homosexuality was "innate" and unchangeable) as corrupt, senile, or both when he took a slight step back from this absolutist position. No "religion" is capable of bein more fanatical, doctrinaire, and intolerant than social/political/atheistic/sexual extremists.I was clear as to what I opposed in Nagel's papers and why. I don't believe they included any villification.
Nagel says, among other things:
"My own situation is that of an atheist who, in spite of being an avid consumer of popular science, has for a long time been skeptical of the claims of traditional evolutionary theory to be the whole story about the history of life...I do not regard divine intervention as a possibility, even though I have no other candidates .... I understand the attitude that ID is just the latest manifestation of the fundamentalist threat, and that you have to stand and fight them here or you will end up having to fight for the right to teach evolution at all."
Nonetheless he is capable of dispassionate reasoning about the vehement knee-jerk rejection of ID theory as "unscientific." He is objective enough to see that if ID theory is "unscientific," then so is neo-darwinism. And he is open-minded enough to object, on principle, to the attempt to suppress criticism and dissent.Is there some philosophical version of neo-Darwinism you are railing against here? Would it not be better to discuss scientism or generic materialism if that is what you mean?
"Sophisticated members of the contemporary culture have been so thoroughly indoctrinated that they easily lose sight of the fact that evolutionary reductionism defies common sense. A theory that defies common sense can be true, but doubts about its truth should be suppressed only in the face of exceptionally strong evidence..."
I guess he just aint devout enough to avoid being attacked for his "follies," eh?I don't recall anyone attacking him at all. Outside of myself and Pure Pendantry, who commented on this? Where are these attacks?
I realize I'm repeatin myself here, but Maynard Smith's book on the "theory" of evolution did not posit common ancestry, natural selection, or any other such collateral notion as it's "central idea."
Again, according to the author:
The central idea that underlies this book is that the origin of new heritable variation is not adaptive."
Look at that statment. Analyze it. Then tell me: It that a testable scientific claim? Is it a product of empirical reseach and evidence? Or is it merely a matter of metaphysics and ontology, posited "on faith?"It is a provisional claim that can be disproved by the discovery of new, heritable, adaptive variations. It is along the lines of saying that all crows are black. We know of only black crows, we know why they are black, and we know of an observation that would disprove the statement. The same is true for Smith's observation.
One Brow said: "How much more clear can "chaotic accidents" be on their positon?
Eric, I start to remember some of the reasons I have great difficulity in discussin things with you. You seem to have a strong penchant for tryin to resolve substantive issues by semantic means, as if definitions are the substance.
Why deduce so much from two specifically selected words? Why not at least put the words in SOME context? The entire phrase was "a black box of chaotic accidents." How, if at all, does the addition of the words "black box" modify or clarify the meaning intended, ya figure?
My point was about not confusing epistemology with ontology, and, as often occurs, you have totally ignored the substance of my response. You simply proceed to confuse epistemology with ontology, that's all.
The term "black box" generally indicates an acknowledgment that the one invoking it has no idea at all about the internal workings which occur between input and output.
Gerhart is sayin he simply doesn't know what happens in the "black box," not that he knows the inner workings to be a function of "chaotic accidents."
He is admitting his ignorance, rather than proclaiming his knowledge, as you want to infer.
Eric, you may be in the process of editing this thread, or sumthin, I dunno, but on my screen, many recent comments have disappeared.
Along these same lines, you have referred to black crows, and implied that one could disprove the proposition that "all crows are black" by simply producing a non-black crow.
That would be impossible, because, by definition (as you have provided it) all crows are black. Any bird, not black, which otherwise greatly resembled all known crows would simply not be a crow. Why? Because it's not black, that's why.
Likewise, any heritable variation which appeared to be non-random in implementation would simply not be "variation." When I said that genomic regulation of DNA coding disproved the neo-darwinian premise in "substance and spirit," you totally ignored my point and said that since randomness can't be (absolutely proved) it can't be disproved. I was not talking about strict proof or disproof of the randomness of mutations. I was merely noting the implications, on a theoretical level, for the neo-darwinistic theory of genetics (which theory includes, but, as I have noted over and over again, is not limited to the posited randomness of mutations).
I vaguely remember proposing some wild hypothetical in the Jazzfanz thread about a life form that could, on demand, transmute itself into any other species. I asked you what you thought the implications for evolution would be. Your response, as I recall, would that it would mean there is no "evolution."
Why is that? I have some ideas about why you would draw that conclusion, but I'm asking you for clarification. Somehow, I feel that semantics are at the bottom of it, ya know?
Eric, I start to remember some of the reasons I have great difficulity in discussin things with you. You seem to have a strong penchant for tryin to resolve substantive issues by semantic means, as if definitions are the substance.
I guess that's part of the reason we keep on going in this discussion. I often feel you are creating semantic differences in the same substantive positon, as if the re-definition alters the substance.
Why deduce so much from two specifically selected words? Why not at least put the words in SOME context? The entire phrase was "a black box of chaotic accidents." How, if at all, does the addition of the words "black box" modify or clarify the meaning intended, ya figure?
The term "black box" generally indicates an acknowledgment that the one invoking it has no idea at all about the internal workings which occur between input and output.
Gerhart is sayin he simply doesn't know what happens in the "black box," not that he knows the inner workings to be a function of "chaotic accidents."
I guess we could assume that he used the terms "chaotic accidents" to mean "unable to see inside". It's certainly not what I would expect. If he genuinely had no opinion on the nature of the contents of the box at all, I would typcially expect to see it called a black box of unknown mechanisms.
After all, some boxes are blacker than others. I don't know the exact components of the black box on an airline, but since I know it's function and the general level of technology, I can take a pretty reasonable guess of the types of mechanisms that you are likely to find. Similarly, while Gerhart and Kirschner are certainly sayingey don't have all the details on which changes affect phenotype or how they happen, the use of the term "black box" does not disavow all opinions on the inner workings. Now, if you want to say that their presumption of chaotic accidents is a metaphysical assumption without proof, I'll grant you that. But don't don't pretend they think the black box might be using digital recordings while they are using terminology that describes it as analog.
He is admitting his ignorance, rather than proclaiming his knowledge, as you want to infer.
Honestly, I see it as assmption more than knowledge.
My point was about not confusing epistemology with ontology, and, as often occurs, you have totally ignored the substance of my response. You simply proceed to confuse epistemology with ontology, that's all.
Yet, I keep telling you that the randomness used in evolution is in fact an epistomological randomness, a randomness that we have not be able to discard.
You know, when I tell you there is no test for randomness, that is true only on the ontological level. On the epistomological level, we can (and do) regualry run goodbness-of-fit tests to see if the behavior of an object meets the profile of a random occurence within a given probability distribution, such as any locus in a strand of DNA may be replaced with equal probability. When we fail such a test, we look for mechanisms (and have a very successful track record of finding them). This is certainly not ontological proof of randomness, but if a given behavior pattern continually matches a random behavior pattern, than it is a responsible choice to say the behavior is random.
Along these same lines, you have referred to black crows, and implied that one could disprove the proposition that "all crows are black" by simply producing a non-black crow.
That would be impossible, because, by definition (as you have provided it) all crows are black. Any bird, not black, which otherwise greatly resembled all known crows would simply not be a crow. Why? Because it's not black, that's why. Now who's confusing ontology with epistomology. I never made "black" part of the definition of being a crow. An organism is a "crow" becuase it is a descendent of a populaiton of other organisms also called crows. The statement "All crows are black" is epistomological, in that no one has seen a non-black crow so far.
Likewise, any heritable variation which appeared to be non-random in implementation would simply not be "variation." I believe I referred to variation which appears, disappears, and reappears in a predictable (at least statistically so) fashion as not being "new variation". The adjective was not a throw-in.
When I said that genomic regulation of DNA coding disproved the neo-darwinian premise in "substance and spirit," Didn't we both already agree that neo-Darwinism (under the definition you offered) was dead? I am happy to the Theory of Evolution in its current state (which you seem to feel is non-existent) and within that context the Modern Synthesis, but lets not retread that ground again, please.
Still, perhaps you think my claim is that any non-randomn change to the inheritible material is not variation. Not so. HGT is non-random (with respect to actions of the virus on the genetic code itself) variation, it is only random with respect to the needs of the organism. Syzygy is not random. Bacterial plasmoid exchange is not random. All of these produce variation, some even with an eye to the needs of the organism. None of them produce new variations.
I vaguely remember proposing some wild hypothetical in the Jazzfanz thread about a life form that could, on demand, transmute itself into any other species. I asked you what you thought the implications for evolution would be. Your response, as I recall, would that it would mean there is no "evolution."
Why is that? I have some ideas about why you would draw that conclusion, but I'm asking you for clarification. Somehow, I feel that semantics are at the bottom of it, ya know?
As I recall, the propostion was that the species could rewrite its heritible code at will. That this was beyond simply changing shape, size, and chemical produced, but went down to changing every molecule (except for not being able to lose this ability or the intelligence to use it). In a situation like that, what is there for a differential survival rate to act upon? Diseases can be eliminated, you can eat rock if you need to, and even survive with very little water. There is no variation between generations.
Burying neo-Darwinism does not mean that change between generations is out of evolution. You won't find statments from Woese, Margulis, etc. that natural selection has no effect. You don't have evolution without those two conditions.
In the early decades of this century (and earlier, of course), there were a variety of theories of evolution with which the neo-darwinists were competing. Among among these competing schools were the "mutationists" (aka "Mendelists), the neo-lamarckians, and saltationists (like Goldsmith).
After gaining an upper hand via Fischer, et al, the neo-darwinists engaged in a prolonged campaign of polemics and propaganda in an attempt to absolutely discredit, ridicule, and exterminate any remaining element of competing theories (insisting that natural selection, and only natural selection) "caused" evolution. They were not content to dismiss particular aspects of any particular opponent's thought, but insisted on the position that the fundamental idea(s) upon which the competing theories were based were per se nonsensical and repugnant. They were successful, and, for the most part, any remote notion of mutationism, lamarckism and saltationism has since been dismissed, a priori, with hand-waving contempt, by "orthodox" evolutionists.
Curiously enough, larmarckian, mutationist, and saltationist thought is being advanced by reputable, knowledgable scientists once again. By their own prior proclamations the neo-darwinists have made it clear that all such notions are contrary to their premises, and strictly prohibited in the theoretical context of their claims.
In other words, empirical evidence in favor of mutationalism, saltationism, and/or lamarckism would "disprove" their position. I have already quoted Dawkins (who is representative of orthodox neo-darwinism, whatever his religious beliefs) thoughts on lamarckism. I have not read his books, but I gather from second-hand sources that he is just as antagonistic to, and just as prone to ridicule, Gould for his "saltationist" leanings and mutationists (which leads to an emphasis on pure, random chance).
The reason for this appears to be basically the same as motivates Behe, i.e., the need to explain biological complexity, which, he too insists, simply could not have occurred "randomly" or "by chance." Of course, at the same time, he is philosophically committed to the obliteration all notions of "design" and teleology (the latter presumably explains his antagonism to lamarckism).
The point? Just the same old thing, I guess. As one philosopher has noted:
"We reached three general conclusions. First, that both the Dawkins and the Behe arguments are simply applications to biology from philosophical arguments from design, either for (in Behe’s case) or against (in Dawkins’ case) the existence of God. Two, all forms of arguments from design, both in the past as well as in the present, function as rhetorical means of persuasion and should never be confused with logical forms for demonstration. Third, at the heart of the dispute between Dawkins and Behe is confusion about the nature of modern science."
http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/tabid/68/id/9469/Default.aspx
You might find that entire article interesting, I dunno.
"As I recall, the propostion was that the species could rewrite its heritible code at will."
As I recall, the hypothetical was that the genetic code remained intact, i.e, every organism was born with the a genome which permitted it to "select" it's own form at any given moment. Either way, I guess your answer would be the same, to wit: "There is no variation between generations."
Obviously, you mean "genetic" (and only genetic) variation here. From a non-genetic perspective there would probably be a thousand times more diversity and (individual) variation in phenotype to be observed than there is now, eh?
By the way, I didn't know we agreed that neo-darwinism is dead. Perhaps you disagree, but most writers seem to agree that neo-darwinism and the "modern synthetic theory of evoluton" are identical things. If so, they the modern synthesis is just as dead (or alive) as neo-darwinsim, I figure.
"You might find that entire article interesting, I dunno."
It includes some extended comments about Newton's theory of gravity and the nature of science which I had not seen before today. I did post a prior comment about the unknown "mechanism" underlying Newton's theory of gravity which I don't recall you responding to. I asked you if that was "science." This author addresses that question also.
One Brow said: "You don't have evolution without those two conditions."
It's not entirely clear what you are referring to by "those two conditions," Eric, but it seems to be (1) natural selection, and (2) variation.
No one that I'm aware of denies that natural selection exerts a culling effect on all varieties of life. On the other hand, many, including Marquis as I understand her, "neutralists" such as the modern-day mutationist, Masatoshi Nie, and many others insist that evolution would have, and would continue to, occur even if their was no natural selection.
"The statement "All crows are black" is epistomological, in that no one has seen a non-black crow so far."
See, Eric, ya just keep shiftin, eh? You have stated that the assertion of randomness is a metaphsical one, not subject to proof or disproof. Fair enough, I agree.
But, why then, do you say Maynard Smith's assertion of randomness can be refuted in the same way "all crows are black" could be, if the latter is intended as a descriptive, empirical claim? Do you even see the inconsistency?
"We nontheless have a highly predictive model of what life does, and make a wide variety of successful predicitons base upon that model."
Highly predictive, eh? I am aware of many scientists that deny this is the case. Could you perhaps cite me to some work of scientists who make the claim that THE theory of evolution, whatever it is, provides a highly predictive model of what life does?
"You mean, stop the pretense there is such a thing at THE Theory of Atoms? Stop pretending there is such a thing as THE Theory of Continental Drift?"
Yeah, I mean just that. Are ya talking bout democritus' theory of atoms, or what, exactly? If one calls the mere speculation that some unseen material object bearing the property of indivisibility exists a "theory," as some laymen might, then I guess ya would say THE theory of atoms has been round bout as long as Howlin Wolf's theory of heavenly motion.
"The theory of the atom proposed by the ancient Greeks can be summed up in a single thought experiment: Suppose we take a solid object, and divide that object into two. Now we repeat the process over and over again, continually dividing the remaining piece into two. Will we be able to continue dividing the object indefinitely, or will we come to a point where we find a smallest indivisible particle? This led to a school of thought that believed that there was a smallest indivisible unit, called the atom. Adherents to this philosophy were called atomists."
Kinda funny that wiki starts out by callin this a "theory" and ends up callin it a "philosophy," eh?
I prefer to see some content to a theory, not just a speculation that some unseen material object may exist. For example:
"Some of the earliest known theories were developed in ancient India in the 6th century BCE by Kanada, a Hindu philosopher. In Hindu philosophy, the Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools developed elaborate theories on how atoms combined into more complex objects (first in pairs, then trios of pairs),[2] but believed the interactions were ultimately driven by the will of God (specifically, the Hindu Ishvara), and that the atoms themselves were otherwise inactive, without physical properties of their own."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory
Do ya mean THE theory of the atom which portrays it as a miniature solar system and which has been taught as "fact" to schoolboys for many decades even though it was outdated by the time it hit the first schoolbook, or what?
We've been through this before, of course, eh, Eric? Long ago we reviewed and discussed the distinction Gould made between a fact and a theory. He said evolution was both a fact and a theory. I don't think you have ever made a serious and/or consistent distinction between the two. In fact, I recall you citing Gould's definition of a "fact" as his description of the theory of evolution.
I saw a car on the street today, and I have developed a new "theory of cars." Here it is: Cars exist.
If ya wanna talk about "atomic theory" or "evolutionary theory" in terms of subjects of study, from both a theoretical and empirical standpoint, I have no problem with that.
But please, don't tell me that THE theory of evolution (or THE theory of the atom, for that matter) is as proven as is the "fact" that the earth orbits the sun.
Oddly enough, this may be literally true, however, since even the claim that the earth orbits the sun would seem to violate Einstien's dictum that all motion is relative, not absolute. It cannot be "proven" that the earth orbits the sun, so I guess all theories are unproven and similar in that gross respect.
As you know Darwin wrote a book called "Origin of Species," in which he had nothing to say about the literal "origin" of anything. He did speculate that speciation and macro-evolution was just "more of the same" type of thing seen in intra-species variation. Of course, population genetics could not, and did not even try to, use it's methods to analyze macro-evolution.
Despite all kinds of hyperbolic claims made by the neo-darwinists in the last 100 years or more about having "proven" the mechanics of speciation by means of random mutation and natural selection, the "proof" is little more than assuming your conclusion and then "finding" that conclusion in any "evidence" you see (all the while ignoring counter-evidence and the general lack of evidence).
Such are the mysteries of faith, eh?
Speakin of THE atomic theory, and all, it seems to have been disproven (in it's original sense of an indivisible chunk of matter) a long time ago.
Enter "particle theory" where the existence of seemingly endless types of sub-atomic "particles," such as "gravitrons," have been postulated.
If ya want real physics though, just forget particles. Fundamental reality aint particles at all, it's strings in 11 dimensions, or some shit, or at least so they been sayin for the last few decades.
Last I heard, there were at least 10,000 separate "string theories" which yielded the same ultimate results. Which one of them is the "right" string theory, I wonder?
I am not disapproving of such speculation and "investigation" but it sure seems a long way from "empirical science," know what I'm sayin? I wish I could have sat in on some of the old scientific disputes about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Those too would have been entertaining, I spect.
I find it curious that the same scientific mindset which gets wildly enthusiasic about string theory can be so dismissively contemptous of a fairly simple proposition like intelligent design.
"I don't recall anyone attacking him at all. Outside of myself and Pure Pendantry, who commented on this? Where are these attacks?
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I visited a few atheist/anti-ID websites and observed quite a few pretentiously rude and presumptively "expert" denunciations of Nagel and his "stupidity" from the faithful. Just what I would have expected by now.
Of course, the field of evolutionary theory aint the onliest place ya can find a social/political agenda masqueradin as science, eh, Eric? I made another post in the political correctness thread on this topic, mainly because I know you love NARTH, I spoze, but, still....
Ya see, here's the kinda thang I love about neo-darwinist theorists:
"The central dogma,
when it was first put forward in the mid-fifties, was commonly taken to mean that there is
a one-way information flow between DNA and its products (RNA, proteins, etc.)111 The
opinion of Jacques Monod, a Nobel-prize winning biologist, may be taken as
representative of the majority view at the time: “It is not observed, nor indeed is it
conceivable, that information is ever transferred the other way around…)”112
In 1970 the scientific world was stunned when Howard Temin announced the discovery of an enzyme which enabled RNA to synthesize its own DNA.114 Originally found in retrovirsuses known to induce cancer tumors, the enzyme in question—reverse transcriptase—has since been found in many different animals, and is believed to be a fundamental component of normal cells. Temin’s research initiated a revolution in the understanding of the workings of the genome and in 1975 he was awarded the Nobel
prize."
So, now what, eh? Well...
"Witness the following
statement of Monod, the very man who claimed that a reverse flow of information from
RNA/proteins to DNA was inconceivable: "It was discovered some years
ago that in some cases, the transcription step from DNA to RNA works in the reverse
direction. That is nothing surprising. This is a very simple step and even by the basic principle in physical chemistry of the reversability of microscopic events, it could be predicted that such events could occur."
http://www.maverickscience.com/lamarck-vindicated.pdf
Seems like every time their speculations and predictions are disproven, they take the tack that the new evidence is "nuthin new," that they knew it all along, and then proceed to claim that the new evidence is completely compatible with, and indeed explained and anticipated by, neo-darwinian theory.
With such methods, Eric, I agree that neo-darwinism can, in superficial appearance, at least, accomodate virtually any new finding.
They were successful, and, for the most part, any remote notion of mutationism, lamarckism and saltationism has since been dismissed, a priori, with hand-waving contempt, by "orthodox" evolutionists.
I suppose I would agree on that characterization of Lamarkism and saltationism. However, mutationism was actually incorporated in population genetics, and later the modern synthesis, by the proposal that many variation are the result of the actions of several genes as opposed to one, and the combined actions of these genes resulted in the normal curve of variation needed for the synthesis. Mutationists acknowledge selection occurred, neo-Darwinians acknowledge mutations as a source of variation. The biggest differences between mutationism and neo-Darwinism seem to have been of degree of importance of the mechanisms,
In other words, empirical evidence in favor of mutationalism, saltationism, and/or lamarckism would "disprove" their position. I have already quoted Dawkins (who is representative of orthodox neo-darwinism, whatever his religious beliefs) thoughts on lamarckism. I have not read his books, but I gather from second-hand sources that he is just as antagonistic to, and just as prone to ridicule, Gould for his "saltationist" leanings and mutationists (which leads to an emphasis on pure, random chance).
It would not surprise. However, while Dawkins is a representative of orthodox neo-Darwinism, his difficulty in accept new ideas is not really relevant to whether biology has demonstrated the mechanisms are predictable or not.
You might find that entire article interesting, I dunno.
I skimmed it. I agree that Behe and Dawkins have a different idea on how to conduct science. I disagree that Newton’s lack of hypotheses for the actions of gravity means is a precursor to Behe’s lack of mechanisms. Newton presented a testable, repeatable phenomenon while Behe makes a claim that a certain structure is impossible to build under certain conditions, without providing tests or mathematical proof to demonstrate this.
"As I recall, the propostion was that the species could rewrite its heritible code at will."
As I recall, the hypothetical was that the genetic code remained intact, i.e, every organism was born with the a genome which permitted it to "select" it's own form at any given moment. Either way, I guess your answer would be the same, to wit: "There is no variation between generations."
If the inheritable code can not be directed by the organism, but there is variation in that code between parent and offspring, then some sort of evolution would probably occur.
Obviously, you mean "genetic" (and only genetic) variation here.
Is that the only type of code I think is inheritable?
From a non-genetic perspective there would probably be a thousand times more diversity and (individual) variation in phenotype to be observed than there is now, eh?
Yes.
By the way, I didn't know we agreed that neo-darwinism is dead. Perhaps you disagree, but most writers seem to agree that neo-darwinism and the "modern synthetic theory of evoluton" are identical things. If so, they the modern synthesis is just as dead (or alive) as neo-darwinsim, I figure.
I’m not sure what to make of this. I brought in a 5-item list (L1) from Wikipedia concerning the modern synthesis, which if not authoritative is at least moderately reliable. You rejected that in favor of a two-item list (L2) you said represented neo-Darwinian thought. So, when I agreed it was dead, I meant L2. I don’t think usage of the term "neo-Darwinian" has ever been so consistent as to say every author which uses the term means L1, L2, or Lx; and probably the same can be said for the phrase “modern synthesis”. So, saying some authors are asserting neo-Darwinism is alive doesn’t really tell me much about their thoughts.
It includes some extended comments about Newton's theory of gravity and the nature of science which I had not seen before today. I did post a prior comment about the unknown "mechanism" underlying Newton's theory of gravity which I don't recall you responding to. I asked you if that was "science." This author addresses that question also.
Newton gave a quantifiable phenomenon, Behe’s is qualitative. You can make predictions from Newton’s tests, but none from Behe’s proclamation of IC. Newton’s lack of a mechanism was an open door, Behe’s is designed to close a door. I agree there is no one methodology you can call science. That doesn’t mean every statement about the world is science.
One Brow said: "You don't have evolution without those two conditions."
It's not entirely clear what you are referring to by "those two conditions," Eric, but it seems to be (1) natural selection, and (2) variation.
Selection does not need to be natural, and variation needs to be heritable.
"The statement "All crows are black" is epistomological, in that no one has seen a non-black crow so far."
See, Eric, ya just keep shiftin, eh? You have stated that the assertion of randomness is a metaphsical one, not subject to proof or disproof. Fair enough, I agree.
But, why then, do you say Maynard Smith's assertion of randomness can be refuted in the same way "all crows are black" could be, if the latter is intended as a descriptive, empirical claim? Do you even see the inconsistency? .
The meaning of a word can indeed shift when discussed by different authors in different contexts. When you are discussing assertions of randomness as opposed to design, you are making claims about the properties of life, ontological claims. These claims can be at best translated into expected epistemological claims, with a one-way implication. Ontological randomness would require epistemological randomness (the appearance of randomness), but you can have the latter without the former. Ontological design can emulate randomness.
Now, if we had an epistemological test for design, that would function as a test for ontological randomness. However, when you have 19+ different mechanisms acting on heritable code, many of which are non-random, I’m not sure such a test for design can even be conceived.
"We nontheless have a highly predictive model of what life does, and make a wide variety of successful predicitons base upon that model."
Highly predictive, eh? I am aware of many scientists that deny this is the case. Could you perhaps cite me to some work of scientists who make the claim that THE theory of evolution, whatever it is, provides a highly predictive model of what life does? .
You mean, the work of oncologists who develop chemotherapeutic agents? Of paleontologists who predict likely fossil finds based upon evolution? Of ecologists who predict the effects of climate change? Of evo-devos who test the actions of genes and proteins? All of these disciplines, and many more, use THE Theory of Evolution to create new hypotheses, design tests, etc. Or, did you think that corporations and the NIH fund a bunch of random guesses?
"You mean, stop the pretense there is such a thing at THE Theory of Atoms? Stop pretending there is such a thing as THE Theory of Continental Drift?"
Yeah, I mean just that. Are ya talking bout democritus' theory of atoms, or what, exactly? If one calls the mere speculation that some unseen material object bearing the property of indivisibility exists a "theory," as some laymen might, then I guess ya would say THE theory of atoms has been round bout as long as Howlin Wolf's theory of heavenly motion.
I have asked you this before, I think. Is there any field of science that possesses what you call a theory? Any that has all the explanations ready, all the answers at hand? If not, maybe scientists aren’t using "theory" the same way you are.
Kinda funny that wiki starts out by callin this a "theory" and ends up callin it a "philosophy," eh?
Since the ancient Greeks were just starting to think about science, and did not have a strong separation of science from philosophy, I don’t find that strange at all?
I prefer to see some content to a theory, not just a speculation that some unseen material object may exist. .
You think the ToE has no content, and/or that the objects and mechanisms within the ToE are only speculated to exist?
Do ya mean THE theory of the atom which portrays it as a miniature solar system and which has been taught as "fact" to schoolboys for many decades even though it was outdated by the time it hit the first schoolbook, or what? .
The miniature solar system is a good first approximation that allows for a discussion of basic chemistry. Does the fact that it does not give reliable measurements past a certain point mean there is no Theory of the Atom?
In fact, I recall you citing Gould's definition of a "fact" as his description of the theory of evolution. .
Facts are things that happen or are observed. Theories combine facts, mechanisms, and explanations into a generally cohesive view. Facts can be proved true, theories can (only) be validated to give reliable predictions. I’m well aware of the differences.
But please, don't tell me that THE theory of evolution (or THE theory of the atom, for that matter) is as proven as is the "fact" that the earth orbits the sun.
Oddly enough, this may be literally true, however, since even the claim that the earth orbits the sun would seem to violate Einstein's dictum that all motion is relative, not absolute. It cannot be "proven" that the earth orbits the sun, so I guess all theories are unproven and similar in that gross respect. .
Exactly so. The fact of evolution, or common descent, can be a proved as the fact of heliocentrism or gravity. The theory of common descent or evolution can be as well-validated as the theory of heliocentrism or gravity.
Despite all kinds of hyperbolic claims made by the neo-darwinists ...
Assuming we are discussing L2, I agree.
Last I heard, there were at least 10,000 separate "string theories" which yielded the same ultimate results. Which one of them is the "right" string theory, I wonder? .
Until any of them can offer testable results that differentiate them from other sets of assumptions, none of them are a theory in anything but name, and I have read many physicists who made that clear.
I find it curious that the same scientific mindset which gets wildly enthusiasic about string theory can be so dismissively contemptous of a fairly simple proposition like intelligent design. .
String theory is prettier, and no one is trying to teach it in high school as science.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I visited a few atheist/anti-ID websites and observed quite a few pretentiously rude and presumptively "expert" denunciations of Nagel and his "stupidity" from the faithful. Just what I would have expected by now. .
Well, I tried to be careful in my criticisms. However, even we atheists can’t stop stupid, rude, or immature people from speaking on our behalf, as much as we might sometimes wish it. I can sympathize with William Buckley’s reaction to Ann Coulter.
Of course, the field of evolutionary theory aint the onliest place ya can find a social/political agenda masqueradin as science, eh, Eric? I made another post in the political correctness thread on this topic, mainly because I know you love NARTH, I spoze, but, still.... .
I saw that, and have responded.
You didn't include the footnote:
111While the original formulation of Crick left the door open to the possibility that RNA might convey information to DNA, this possibility was generally regarded as unlikely by molecular geneticists. Thus Temin observed: “Although Crick’s original formulation contained no proscription against a ‘reverse’ flow of information from RNA to DNA, organisms seemed to have no need for such a flow, and many molecular biologists came to believe that if it were discovered, it would violate the Central Dogma.” H. Temin,
“RNA-Directed DNA Synthesis,” Scientific American 226 (1972), p. 25.Also, if the Dogma was never questioned, how did it get disproved?
Seems like every time their speculations and predictions are disproven, they take the tack that the new evidence is "nuthin new," that they knew it all along, and then proceed to claim that the new evidence is completely compatible with, and indeed explained and anticipated by, neo-darwinian theory.
With such methods, Eric, I agree that neo-darwinism can, in superficial appearance, at least, accomodate virtually any new finding.
Well, L1 certainly allows for the incorporation of new mechanisms.
Well, Eric, thanks for your responses. The more you respond, the more I tend to conclude that we agree, in substance, on many things. I don't know if you have changed your prior views or if they weren't actually your views at all but just practiced rhetorical responses designed to "persuade"(perhaps "intimidate" is the better word here) the "creationists" you seem to loathe so much.
I will respond a to more of your questions and responses later, to see if we can better pinpoint where we do disagree, but let me first intervene with a post I had prepared, but not yet published, regarding your response to my post about the cairns experiment, eh?
One Brow said: "Apparently, Cairns himself adopted the claim that the mutations themselves were not directed."
OK, and? So? Once again there is the appearance of attempting to dispose of a substantive problem by means of semantics, eh, Eric? Is "non-directed" the equivalent of "random," ya figure?
In anticipation of this response I made up a long-ass analogy to a broke-down PC operating system. The point was to show that "non-directed" does not equate to "random," and to urge you tolook at the overall substantive implications of the experiment, rather than focus on limited observations. You seemed to realize that, but nonetheless treat it as an issue of "directed mutations."
You may (or may not) have noticed that in the article you cite, the author calls the phenomenon "adaptive mutation' (alternately "selection dependent mutation") and makes some claims that might upset Dawkins' world view, such as: "Recent evidence strongly suggests that both adaptive mutation and hypermutation are induced responses to stress."
Elsewhere, the author elaborates on the intended distinction between "directed" and "adaptive" mutation, with the latter being basically a "trial and error" (as opposed to directed) process, but claims the implications are the same: "Although less efficient than a directed mechanism, “trial and error” would have equivalent implications....this mechanisim would provide a population with the means to evolve adaptively when confronted with adverse conditions. http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/148/4/1453.pdf
What is a scientific theory? Well, we can both get into elaborate philosophy of science nuances, I spoze, but I don't want to start with that.
Spoze Darwin claimed that he had discovered a mechanism sufficient to completely explain the "origin" of species. Spoze that, after 80 years of testin, pursuant to strict, dogmagtic hypothetico-deductive axioms, his (updated with genetics) theory had failed to explain the matter and, furthermore, that the fundamental axioms had proved suspect, thereby significantly undermining any realistic expectation that his theory would ever provide the explanations sought.
Now what? Is it a "theory" for the biological community to now say: "Hey, we're open to any new suggestions....we'd still like to find some theoretical framework which would seem to provide the answer to this question and explain the relevant mechanisms." Is that invitation to suggestions now THE Theory of Evolution? Is is a theory if these biologists add that: Hey, we united to study this question 80 years ago, were the "Modern Synthesis," aincha heard?
Spoze multiple, untested and unproven hypotheses are in fact advanced to shed some possible light on some aspects of the problem. Is this concoction of diverse and perhaps inconsistent hypotheses now, collectively, THE theory of evolution?
What now is THE theory of evolution, that's what I'm axxin? Is your response simply that, we claim it happened somehow, and THAT is THE theory? If so, there's a million theories advanced every day about many mundane matters. If that's a theory, then no feature of explanation is even relevant to what is called a "theory." Any old speculative claim is now THE theory of every conceivable subject matter. If I claim that there is life on Jupiter, then that is THE theory of life on Jupiter, etc.
"The theory of common descent or evolution can be as well-validated as the theory of heliocentrism or gravity."
Heh, Eric, ya mean all equally unproven as therefore each is just as proven as the other, eh? Throw in my theory that you are possessed by an evil demon as another that is just as proved, willya? I would just like it acknowledged, that's all, I won't even take credit for creatin the theory.
"Now, if you want to say that their presumption of chaotic accidents is a metaphysical assumption without proof, I'll grant you that."
Well, your interpretation could be right, I spoze. I guess I'm still enough of a chump to assume that professors at prestigious universities would not gratuitously throw metaphyical declarations into a presentation in their area of expertise, and therefore I naturally tend read their pronouncements, if possible, in a way that makes sense without such assumptions.
Of course, the whole paradigm of neo-darwinism refutes that assumption from jump street, so I guess I'm just a real slow learner, eh?
"For the last 10 years I have been searchin for a train ticket stub from Kintucky to NYC on that night. I aint found it yet, but when I do, case closed, I tellya what!
That will allow you to predict future discoveries about his behavior?"
Naw, I wouldn't need no more discoveries after that, see? It doesn't really take much (or anything, for that matter) to convince me of what I already know. It's just a question of provin it to others, that's all.
Once I have that train ticket I have the proof that no reasonable person can deny:
1. A person was killed in NYC on the night in question
2. My brother-in-law was not home that night, and
3. The train ticket stub proves he went to NYC.
4. Therefore, indisputably, he killed that girl whose murder is still unsolved. He was THERE, by God!
Q.E.D., eh?
What is a scientific theory? Well, we can both get into elaborate philosophy of science nuances, I spoze, but I don't want to start with that.
That's fine, but I did not ask that. Again, is there any field of science that possesses what you call a theory? Any that has all the explanations ready, all the answers at hand (or if you don't require that, what does this theory have that the ToE lacks)?
OK, and? So? Once again there is the appearance of attempting to dispose of a substantive problem by means of semantics, eh, Eric? Is "non-directed" the equivalent of "random," ya figure?
What I figure is that part of the paper is identifying regions of DNA where code is allowed to mutate faster than normal, sometimes even in non-reproducing cells, and that this is referred to as adaptive mutation. If you like, you can even call it Lamarckism. However, it bears no greater resemblance to the notions of Lamark than neo-Darwinism. The actual mutations themselves show no preference to aid the organism. The aid comes from increase the rate of mutation under selective pressure. It's fascinating, certainly well outside the scope of L2. It offers nothing to refute the philosophical (materialistic) foundations Dawkins, et. al., just their scientific implementation. I'm not sure what you expect to prove by showing Dawkins has trouble accepting recent scientific advancements, this is common in any decade in any field of scientific endeavor.
What now is THE theory of evolution, that's what I'm axxin? Is your response simply that, we claim it happened somehow, and THAT is THE theory?
The theory of evolution would certainly take longer than I care to put into a blog post or comment to completely describe. It is the collection of all the verified or proved facts, tested explanations for those facts, understandings of the mechanisms that generate the explanations, including when they do and not apply and the interactions they have with each other, which understanding have been validated by testing predictions based upon of data not yet collected. It includes biogeography, biophysics, and biochemistry.
Heh, Eric, ya mean all equally unproven as therefore each is just as proven as the other, eh? Throw in my theory that you are possessed by an evil demon as another that is just as proved, willya? I would just like it acknowledged, that's all, I won't even take credit for creatin the theory.
I didn't say proved, I said validated. Theories are validated by being useful in making predictions, especially about measurable behavior. It was not the fact of common descent that led to Tiktaalik Rosea, it was the theory of common descent that told good places to look and what to look for. Finding that fossil was not a proof of the theory (proofs are deductive), but it was a validation.
Tell me your objective behavior based upon the demonic hypothesis, and we'll see if we can promote it to a theory.
Naw, I wouldn't need no more discoveries after that, see? It doesn't really take much (or anything, for that matter) to convince me of what I already know. It's just a question of provin it to others, that's all.
Even the late, not-so-great neo-Darwinism (L2) came to acceptance not just because of how it explained the facts people already had, but also because it was so successful at predicting fracts they did not have.
"The theory of evolution would certainly take longer than I care to put into a blog post or comment to completely describe. It is the collection of all the verified or proved facts, tested explanations for those facts,....."
Eric, I previously made this assertion: "Nor is a concoction of postulated "mechanisms" a "theory." Galileo's rollin balls down inclined planes and timin them did not constitute a "theory of gravity," either." I have also referred to the centuries of recorded astronomical observations which ultimately provided a basis for the geocentric model, indicating that I did consider those "verified or proved facts" (to use your wording) to be a "theory of heavenly motion."
Do you see what I'm gittin at? Do you agree? I mean, Galileo wuz doin some intrestin, worthwhile fact collection there. Newton said he "stood on the shoulders" of such giants as Galileo, and rightfully so. The question is, were Galileo's investigations, experiments, measurements, and demonstrations (as from the leanin tower), tantamount to a theory of gravity? A coherent theory of mechanics? My understanding is the Galileo never quite got a firm grasp on the notion of inertia (Newton's first law). For this, and other, reason(s) most historians therefore do not credit him with any completed theory on such topics. That's not to say that he didn't do his share of speculation and "theorizing." His theories on the tides were also interesting, but ultimately insufficient to demonstrate any comprehensive insight on the topic.
Theory, by definition, is abstract and I think one general aspect of what is recognized as a "scientific theory" is that it serves to summarize (not merely enumerate) diverse empirical data under general principles. There are other criteria, too, accordin to most.
I don't see that in evolutionary theory right now, at least not in any comprehensive fashion. Your claims of the "highly predictive" capacity of THE theory of evolution is still a mystery to me, despite your brief and oblique reference to a couple of areas (which kinda sound like my train ticket to NYC, know what I'm sayin?) or the fact that evo-devos "test" the actions of genes and proteins. How does "testing actions," as Galileo did, constitute either a theory or a prediction? I just don't see the power of these examples.
I agree rolling balls down inclined planes and recording the details is not a theory. for one thing, it lacks mechanisms/predicitons.
Now, if you rolls balls of various densities and weights, come up with mathetatical relationships that fit the facts, and then successfully test those relationships against new balls of previously untested sizes and weights and different angles you have not tried before, you can get a workable Theory of Balls Rolling Down Planes, which will eventually be part of the Theory of Gravity. I don't know if Galieo devised such equations or made such predictions.
You don't think there are general principles that summarize the data in current evolutionary theory?
So far, you have only presented negative examples. Can you think of a field of science that does have an overarching theory according to your specifications?
So far, you have only presented negative examples. Can you think of a field of science that does have an overarching theory according to your specifications?
Well, Eric, I aint no scientist, but Newton's mechanics and Einstien's general relativity obviously come to mind. From what little I know, I would be reluctant to conclude that there is anything you could call THE theory of particle physics. QM strikes me as similar to population genetics (a statistical tool, and little more) and the mess in the attempts to integrate quarks, anti-electrons, etc., seems remotely reminiscient of the mess caused by geocentric epicycles. One cannot help but suspect that something very fundamental is as yet unknown/undetected. Of course the very concept of "matter" or "particles" seems to be become problematic at sub-atomic levels (or atomic levels).
I am not sayin that either particle physics or evolution are not legitimate areas of scientific investigation or that "scientific activity" is not occuring in both. I'm simply sayin that no integrating theory that I'm aware of has emerged from either discipline.
The orthodox neo-darwinistic model has most of the earmarks of an integrating theory, but I don't believe it is viable at this point. The fact that much worthwhile and useful reseach has occurred with neo-darwinism as a "guide" shows it did have value, independent of its general theorectical merit--we agree on that.
Research will continue, with various hypotheses, those of neo-darwinism included, being tested and evaluated. Evolutionary theory (to be distinguished from THE theory of evolution) will continue to exist, whatever the ultimate fate of neo-darwinism.
Biology, with all it open questions and unsolved mysteries will continue to be studied, too, of course. I would say that biology is another area of legitimate scientific inquiry, but I'm not aware of any general, integrating, "theory of life" that has emerged in that field, either. It may well be that the subject matter simply doesn't permit it. The same may be true of evolution.
Einstein spent the last half of his life workin on a "unified field theory," or whatever you call it, without success, and his successors have been doin the same ever since. It has not emerged. In one sense there is a "unified field theory"--i.e, in the sense that is it an identifiable goal. But there is no unified field theory" in the sense of an generally accepted, theoretical explanation has been produced.
There was a ferocius resistance from the orthodox classical physicists to relativistic theory around the turn of the last century. The same type of thing can be seen in the reactions of neo-darwinists today, I believe.
But even so, there has always been, and always will be, a substantial difference between the rationale and theoretical foundations of classical physics and neo-darwinism. I still believe that neo-darwinism had pre-determined ontological and metaphysical goals it was designed to achieve, and that this has caused many problems with evaluating it as a "scientific" proposition ever since.
I have known of Dawkins' positions only vaguely and by second-hand account. It was not until recently that I became aware of just how impressed he is by the need to provide an explanation for the intricate design to be seen in nature.
Like Behe and others, he is seems to be absolutely convinced such phenomena cannot have occurred randomly. That appears to be why he is so vehemently opposed to mutationist and saltationist approaches.
Of course he has other, self-imposed philosophical and metaphysical constraints on his need to explain "design." Not all of these are due to his anti-religious convictions, but they are related to the same sentiments, I believe.
Why the utter adversion to Lamarckism? Whether Lamarckian notions have any merit or not is a separate question. Why would Dawkins, and his type, have their world-views shattered if Lamarckian notions were valid?
I can't find it now, but I came across a passage where Dawkins described what he meant by lamarckian. Granted that there are many historical questions and ambiguities, he by-passed those, sayin whatever those were he simply meant "the notion that the variation was in any way responsive to the demands of the environment." I hope I am recalling this correctly, but I may not be.
Why would that be such a problem, factual questions aside? Why have such fundamental, philosophical objections to such a notion?
Back to the wasps for a minute, eh, Eric?
You ask: "What evidence is there that the wasp exhibits more than a pre-programmed action-reaction cycle, with many of the reactions being to internal, as opposed to external stimuli? ...what is the factor you accuse the reductionist, neo-Darwinians of over-looking?"
I don't pretend to have any answer; it's all quite mysterious, actually. It seems obvious that these creatures are simply born with some elaborate instructions, which instructions themselves require foreknowledge of the world the animal will be entering. I simply don't find the neo-darwinian explanation to be the least bit satisfactory, and I guess I feel somewhat insulted when someone tries, with a straight face, to persuade me of how convincing it is. What kinda chump do they think I am, anywaze?
From my experience, the closest anything comes to resembling FAP's is the analogy I used, a chess-playin computer program, for example. You yourself use the word "pre-programmed." Here again, the analogy to a computer program raises it's head, eh?
As with Paley's watch-finder, the impression one has is that some "intelligence" has guided this whole process. If one wants to use Occam's razor as the criterion, then the hypothesis of intelligent design is much simpler that some wild-ass neo-darwinian ad hoc tale, eh?
Some serious, able philosophers, A.N Whitehead, for example, have proposed that all matter, every molecule, atom, electron, etc. has consciousness. Sounds far-fetched, too, but it's possible, I spoze.
I don't see how one could get any sort of "intelligence" from a slab of granite or any other form of inanimate, non-living matter, if it wasn't somehow there to begin with. Ex nilio, nihil fit, as the old-ass greeks usta say, eh?
The fact that I don't have a satisfactory explanation for a given phenomenon does not make me feel compelled to accept any old explanation offered, sensible or not. It does seem common, however, for some people to take the position that, until proven wrong, any statement they make must be accepted as true.
Well, Eric, I aint no scientist, but Newton's mechanics and Einstien's general relativity obviously come to mind. Here's what I get from your examples: a series of laws that can be used to make precise calculations about behaviors. Also, these theories are a restrive set of the larger study of physics.
It has been said that biologists have "law" envy, because physicists/chemists can often express their model in fewer, more complete, more universal, more reductionistic laws. If you wanted to come up with a complete set of evolutionary laws you would probably need over 100, and there are definitely more to be developed, with many of these laws only referring to a tightly-defined set of circumstances. I agree that there may never be an integrative "theory of life" of the type you get in physics.
However, I don't think being big, full of material that only applies a fraction of the time, and requiring specialized knowledge to fully understand the body of work prevents it from being a theory. Its interesting that you have been regularly criticizing, or at least presenting criticisms of, the neo-Darwinists for being too reducitonistic, and now you seem to be saying that theories are reductionistic.
In one sense there is a "unified field theory"--i.e, in the sense that is it an identifiable goal. But there is no unified field theory" in the sense of an generally accepted, theoretical explanation has been produced.
However, this does not mean we don't have a Theory of Universal Forces. It means the theory is not unified.
Why would that be such a problem, factual questions aside? Why have such fundamental, philosophical objections to such a notion?
I can't speack for Dawkins, but I can speculate based upon history that you yourself describe.
One reason would be that Dawkins "grew up" scientifically in a time when randomness and the Central Dogma (with regard to protiens) were fruitful conjectures that explained all the experimental results at the time and seemed sufficient to explain the natural world as well. Much like the old-guard classical physicists who disliked relativity, he is comfortable with the notions he learned as a youth, and the change is hard on him.
Another reason would be that, as an atheist, he feels compelled to keep out any notion that could even be confused with foresight in biological evolution.
You could always email Dawkins and ask him directly. I have heard that he frequently responds to inqueries that have the resonence of sincerity.
From my experience, the closest anything comes to resembling FAP's is the analogy I used, a chess-playin computer program, for example. You yourself use the word "pre-programmed." Here again, the analogy to a computer program raises it's head, eh?
Well, chess of course is a formal system, I am not surprised the bvest chess players are designed.
However, chess programs don't have to be designed. You can actually program a chess computer by inputting only the rules of chess it has to follow, creating some very basic decisioning making code, making mostly random moves, that is allowed to vary randomly, and then having multiple copies of the program play each other, with winners surviving to create new, imperfect copies and losers being deleted. This is done regularly with simpler games (for reasons of resources, most likely). As the code grows, the computer becomes better and better at chess. The programming does not require intelligence to design.
As with Paley's watch-finder, the impression one has is that some "intelligence" has guided this whole process. If one wants to use Occam's razor as the criterion, then the hypothesis of intelligent design is much simpler that some wild-ass neo-darwinian ad hoc tale, eh?
Usually, Occam's razor is thought to refer to entities, not paragraphs. You can always shorten an expalnation down to "God did it." It takes more paragraphs to descirbe the transmission route and life cycle of the actual Polio virus. However, we don't think of the former as the best explanation for how people catch polio.
As ya might have expected, some theorists are now positing a "universal genome" which all species had at or near the time life began, from which every living creature ultimately developed merely by regulating it's genome differently (kinda like my Jazzfanz hypo). Others are suggesting that every phylum, class, order, etc. had independent origins, without common ancestry. These are indeed, "theories of evolution," as radically different as they may be. There are many other theories, involving novel "forces" and guiding conceptual principles, such as gaia theory of Lovelock, for example.
Which one is THE theory of evolution, that you claim has been so completely validated as to be tantamount to known fact, eh, Eric? Which one best explains the "mechanism(s)" by which the various phylum within kindgoms "evolved?"
Honestly, Eric, I suspect that what you call THE theory of evolution boils down to sumthin like this:
Life on earth evolved, somehow. We "know" this. Just how doesn't even matter. The "theory" is basically self-proving.
That may be one popular notion of what a "theory" is, but it aint no scientific theory, eh?
I predict that if you will hold an object out in front of you, doesn't matter what it is, a salt shaker, a cannon ball, a computer hard drive, whatever, then let go, it will move towards the floor.
I call it the "theory of gravity," and it's ability to make predictions is infallible. It is, for all intents and purposes, a fact. When do I get my Nobel prize, I wonder?
Honestly, Eric, I suspect that what you call THE theory of evolution boils down to sumthin like this:
Life on earth evolved, somehow. We "know" this. Just how doesn't even matter. The "theory" is basically self-proving.
Your suspicions would not be correct, then. It not a theory until, at the very lest, it gets validated by making predictions.
I predict that if you will hold an object out in front of you, doesn't matter what it is, a salt shaker, a cannon ball, a computer hard drive, whatever, then let go, it will move towards the floor.
I call it the "theory of gravity," and it's ability to make predictions is infallible. Oddly enough, physicists already have a theory of gravity that predicts this.
When do I get my Nobel prize, I wonder?
When you make predictions the current theory does not, which are validated by experiments, and then add 20 years or so.
I have another theory, eh, Eric, which I call the theory of evolution. It's a little more elaborate, though...see if ya can follow this, eh?:
I hypothesize that:
1. This planet did not always exist.
2. Therefore the millions of species of life forms that we see today did not always exist on earth.
3. There is a process by which these species came to be, and they did not all spring into existence simultaneously and instantaneously.
4. I call that process "evolution."
That is my theory of evolution. If you accept my premises, then you will agree with it. We know the species are here, so what's left to accept or reject?
I think my theory has been purty much proven, ya know? When do I git my Nobel Prize??
I got millions a theories, see? Here's another, which I call the "theory of human development." Here it is:
The fetuses which emerge from wombs are not the direct result of impregnation, because they developed (evolved, if ya will) over time from a single cell.
Nobel Prize material, ya figure? Here's a prediction: If you cut open a woman who is 3 months pregnant, you will not find a fully formed fetus.
One Brow said: "In fact, life could have originated a million different times, and each of those million times could still have residual traces within us. This is completely compatible with common descent, which wold say that trees and humans share common ancestry with these million times."
Eric, I really don't know what you're sayin here. Let me elaborate on what I'm sayin, and see if we're talkin about the same thing, eh?
I will hypothesize that, by some as yet unknown means, life appeared on earth from inanimate chemicals.
Now I will go further, and say that this phenomenon is a simple part of nature and speculate that it is happening (and has been happening) every minute of every hour of every day throughout history. Right now, perhaps on the ocean floor near a volcanic vent, it is happening.
Primitive cells are bein created from chemicals. These cells have reproductive capacity, and have some form on heritable information base, RNA, or whatever.
Some of these cells are predestined to turn into a cow, or something closely similar to it. Some will turn into creatures that are kinda shark-like, and so on. Happens alla time---happened yesterday, day before, will happen tomorrow.
Would you say all of these creatures therefore share a common ancestor, with the "ancestor" bein the required chemicals?
In response to: "We don’t have a theory of interactions and until we do we cannot have a theory of development or a theory of evolution;" One Brow said: "That was a decade ago he wrote that...There is a wide-ranging theory of interactions developing."
Can I take your response, Eric, to mean that we didn't have a theory 10 years ago, or at any time in the 70 years before (when development was ignored by neo-darwinists because, given their presumptions of strict genetic determinism, it was totally irrelevant)? And that we are now "developing" a theory of evolution?
If so, then I guess we agree...and I won't keep asking you what THE (proven to the point of bein fact) Theory of Evolution is. We will agree that there aint none, right now.
Much of the prior inference about common descent, the "branching off" via random mutation and natural selection, which was based on morphological and presumed genetic similarites/differences is now rendered totally suspect by using moderns knowledge and techiniques. Taxonomy just aint whatit usta be. For example:
"The Cetomimidae (whalefishes), one of the most speciose bathypelagic fish families (nine genera, 20 species), were described by Goode & Bean (1895)....The Mirapinnidae (hairyfish and tapetails) were described as a new order by Bertelsen & Marshall (1956) and comprise five species in three genera...Megalomycteridae (bignose fishes), described by Myers & Freihofer (1966), comprise four monotypic genera."
Very scientific-soundin, eh? Well, turns out...
"We resolve a long-standing biological and taxonomic conundrum by documenting the most extreme example of ontogenetic metamorphoses and sexual dimorphism in vertebrates. Based on morphology and mitogenomic sequence data, we show that fishes currently assigned to three families with greatly differing morphologies, Mirapinnidae (tapetails), Megalomycteridae (bignose fishes) and Cetomimidae (whalefishes), are larvae, males and females, respectively, of a single family Cetomimidae.
Morphological transformations involve dramatic changes in the skeleton, most spectacularly in the head, and are correlated with distinctly different feeding mechanisms."
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/2/235.long
It seems all these different "species" were just the same fish observed at various transient stages in it's ongoing process of metamorphosis. That's what I'm talkin about--these constantly-created single celled life forms are pre-programmed to go through a series of metamorphological development stages before they emerge as a cow, or sumthin, see?
It seems that estimates of the number of cells in the human body range from 10 trillion to 100 trillion. That's a purty big range (90 trillion), eh?
Either way it's a shitload, all to come out of a simple-ass zygote, doncha think? I mean, like, that's "self-replication" gone plumb hogwild. And, just think, they're all doin their own thing to "co-operate" in helpin me git my next bottle of wine. Ya might think that biologists would at least have a better idea of how many cells are even in a body before they hauled off and declared that each cell is, ultimately, the product of random mutation directed by natural selection, but, then again, what fun would that be, I ax ya?
Eric, I noticed you have added a new mechanism to your (formerly) "18 mechanisms" post, eh? If I'm not mistaken, the new mechanism is sumthin called "genetic drive." What's that?
I see that Robert Reid, a biologist who recently wrote a book called "Biological Emergences," uses the term "genetic drive" (more on this below). It that what ya mean?
Over 20 years ago, this guy also wrote a book called "Evolutionary Theory: the Unfinished Synthesis." One reviewer of this older book, apparently now out of print says "it is one of the best critiques of Darwinian theory by a professional in the field. Now that the developmental tradition is resurfacing in the age of the genome, these clear warnings of the difficulties of theory are useful for putting the issues of evolution in perspective without the confusions of more popular anti-Darwin tracts."
Of his lastest book, the MIT press says:
"In Biological Emergences, Robert Reid argues that natural selection is not the cause of evolution... indeed, he suggests, natural selection may get in the way of evolution... Without selectionism, Reid argues, evolutionary innovation can more easily be integrated into a general thesis. . Reid proposes an alternative theory...a biological synthesis of rapid emergent evolutionary phases and the prolonged, dynamically stable, non-evolutionary phases imposed by natural selection."
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11165
Is this "alternate theory" now THE Theory of Evolution, Eric, or is it "just another mechanism?"
Among other things, with respect to what he calls "anticipation," Reid claims that it is a fact, not speculation, and goes on to assert: "It is orthogenesis by another name."
Them neo-darwinists sho nuff aint gunna like that! From a wiki article (no doubt written by a neo-darwinist) on "orthogenesis":
"Orthogenesis, orthogenetic evolution, progressive evolution or autogenesis, is the hypothesis that life has an innate tendency to move in a unilinear fashion due to some internal or external "driving force"...Both scientists proposed mechanisms whereby evolution proceeded in unilinear fashion, but neither saw goals (instead they made pseudo-scientific appeals to unknown genetic driving processes).
This is important because similar flaws occur recurrently at the fringes of science, typically taking the form of mysterious molecular drives that supposedly are pushing phenotypic evolution in certain directions or forcing the formation of new species."
"Pseudo-scientific appeals," eh? Unlike Neo-darwinism, no doubt. Recurring flaws at the "fringes of science," eh? Well, I guess that settles it! Can't be right!
I know very little about biology and am therefore in an inferior position to appreciate just how complex and amazing it is. Even given what little I know, I do know this much: My "body" knows (and does) a whole lot of things of which I am totally ignorant and unaware. Respiration, heartbeat, blood circulation, the whole gamut of parasympathetic nervous system activities, and a host of other wonderous things.
I don't have to be the least bit religious to entertain the thought that there may well be some type of direction, "purpose," and, if ya wanna call it that, "intelligence," behind it all. As a matter of fact, it simply strikes me as an ideological position to claim that such couldn't possibly be the case.
Those who immediately reject that possibility do so out of a metaphysical inclination, not a "scientific" one. Anything they see (correctly or not) as even remotely telelogical is instantly rejected. Orthogenesis, lamarckism, emergent theory, mutationism (some forms) and a host of other possibilities are ridiculed out of hand by that brand of metaphsyician. What else is new? I just resent the double standard and self-delusion they try to perpetuate. As if neo-darwinistic "thought" isn't full of teleological notions, ya know? As if their premises are "empirical." As if they, and only they, know what is "possible." As if their brand of metaphysics IS science. Like I've said before, just the kinda faith I expect from the religious perspective, but at least they aint kiddin themselves.
Eric, I'm sure you don't see it this way (and am not sure you'd admit it even if you did) but I suspect that your casual notions of what THE theory of evolution is was formed in creationist chatrooms. At bottom, I know you know better, but still....
I get the impression that in those rooms (not that I ever really go there) there are only two theories: 1. Special Creation, and 2. THE theory of evolution.
From what I gather, it is common for those in such forums who adhere to THE theory of evolution to have very little true appreciation of theoretical nuances, to be totally close-minded, and to make extravagant claims about what has been "proven" about THE theory.
When even prominent scientists start claimin that the theory has been factually proven, you instantly know two things: 1. They don't have a firm grasp on the nature of a scientific theory, and 2. their "motives" for making such claims are themselves "non-scientific," whether they know it, or not.
It has often been noted, and it is just common sense, that darwinism, from the git-go, relies on a tortuously twisted line of "logic" to begin with. There is a reason for this, no doubt, but that doesn't improve the logic at all.
Natural selection, to be "operative" at all, must have something pre-existent to operate on. And, if it to operate on variaton, then the variation must precede it.
"Natural Selection" creates nothing, yet the darwinists insist it is the "creative force" in evolution. I don't care if its 100% random, or not, it seems obvious that, whatever is behind novel variation is what does all the "creating." If random mutations ultimately result in a complex human being the conclusion can be no different--it is the variation itself (no matter how long the chain) that must be credited with "creating" the human being.
This same logical incoherency tends to lurk in the background of all neo-darwinistic conceptions of "causation," at least in their informal discussions on the topic. Natural selection is the "cause" of evolution, they say. That's kinda like me sayin that the 8-ball goin into the corner pocket is what "caused" the cue ball to hit it at a certain angle, with certain force, etc.
When you have to struggle that much to get your "reasoning" to support your pre-selected premises, desires, and Weltanschauung, the probability of "rationalization," in the Freudian sense, being at the bottom of it all seems high.
There is a line of "reasoning" which I have observed often which goes sumthin like this. First it is argued, and generally agreed, that a certain proposition is at least theoretically and logicall "possible." For those with a pre-existing desire to accept the truth of that proposition, it only seems natural to replace the term "possible" with "plausible." Given strong desires, "plausible" quickly turns into "probable," and before long "probable" becomes "proven," or "certain."
Once one has achieved this certainty, they usually cannot even comprehend any counter-argument...they just don't think that way, and no argument against their position "makes any sense" to them.
Having achieved certainty in their conclusions, such people will also invariably take the position that the burden is entirely on the person opposing them to utterly refute their position. The mere "possibility" or "plausibility" of some counter-argument/evidence being true is woefully insufficient to cast any doubt on their favored proposition. It must be conclusively proven that they are wrong. Even then, the only thing that counts as "conclusive proof" is that which they deem to be such. Of course there never is, nor can there be, any amount of evidence that would be tantamount to "conclusive proof" in their view.
All very comfy, I'm sure.
Heh, just came across this quote, which I found entertaining, for some perverse reason, eh?
"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'."
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London.
Keynote address: American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/odesign/od171/colpat171.htm
Accordin to neo-darwinists, palaeontology has provided tons of "irrefutable" evidence in favor of their theory. For some damn reason, palaeontolgists themselves often seem to dispute this claim, eh? Henry Gee, for example, who was undoubtably corrupted by his heretical teacher, Colin Patterson (see last quote). I think history, from Socrates to Bruno, has shown us how these types should oughta be dealt with, eh?
"Henry Gee is an editor for the weekly science magazine Nature and has been trained as a palaeontologist in the group of Colin Patterson at the Natural History Museum in London. According to Henry Gee a revolution has been going on in palaeontology. Gee is a critic of old fashioned 'missing link' palaeontology: the well-known type of palaeontology that constructs trees of ancestors and descendants. The fossil evidence is unable to support evolutionary narratives. Traditional palaeontology is story telling."
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho49.htm
"Without cladistics, palaeontology is no more of a science than the one that proclaimed that Earth was 6,000 years old and flat - and then had the effrontery to claim divine sanction for this view." (Henry Gee)
Of course, the entire methodology of cladistics assumes common ancestry, which raises some interesting questions: "Common descent of organisms must be a necessary assumption of cladistics...if cladism presupposes evolution, how can cladism be evidence for evolution?"
"In the first edition of "The Origin of Species" in 1859, Charles Darwin speculated about how natural selection could cause a land mammal to turn into a whale. As a hypothetical example, Darwin used North American black bears, which were known to catch insects by swimming in the water with their mouths open:
"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale," he speculated."
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/051109_evolution_science.html
Well, if Darwin could "see no difficulty," I guess that settles it, eh!? If ya like brazen assertions of fact without any semblence of supporting detail, just read the rest of that article cited, or watch this here PBS video, especially if you have faith in the tales spun by traditional palaeontologists, eh?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2C-3PjNGok
Only the other hand, if ya wanna ax any critical questions about whales, and shit, watch this here vid (my ole homey, Davy Berlinski):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2C-3PjNGok
Oops, wrong Berlinski link, eh?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iFnyCjcodY
One Brow said: "So, he claimed randomness was essential, and that evoltuion was non-functional if the condition of random change was violated? I find that hard to believe, in no small reason because evolution works perfectly well, just differently, when you control various means of introducing variations."
His book was not entitled "Evolution." It was entitled "The Theory of Evolution." You seldom seem to make any distinction between the two.
Randomness of mutation is absolutely central, crucial, and indispensable to neo-darwinism. Their "theory' (again to be distinguished from evolution itself) would crumble without it.
We agree that there is nuthin necessary, nor even scientific, about this "central dogma" of neo-darwinism. The fact that they see it as such really just shows how ideological in nature neo-darwinism really is, I figure.
I have another theory, eh, Eric, which I call the theory of evolution. It's a little more elaborate, though...see if ya can follow this, eh?:
I hypothesize that:
1. This planet did not always exist.
2. Therefore the millions of species of life forms that we see today did not always exist on earth.
3. There is a process by which these species came to be, and they did not all spring into existence simultaneously and instantaneously.
4. I call that process "evolution."
That is my theory of evolution. If you accept my premises, then you will agree with it. We know the species are here, so what's left to accept or reject?
I think my theory has been purty much proven, ya know? When do I git my Nobel Prize??
Accepting and rejecting are rather minor functions when relating to a theory. What predictions does your theory make about observations we don’t possess? What avenues of research does it suggest? What mechanisms have been validated in it?
The Theory of Evolution is much more that a bunch of randomly assembled observations. It is about mechanisms, suggestions for research, predictions of findings, interpretations, reproducible effects, etc. I’m not sure why you keep bringing up examples of a few random facts and comparing them.
I will hypothesize that, by some as yet unknown means, life appeared on earth from inanimate chemicals.
Now I will go further, and say that this phenomenon is a simple part of nature and speculate that it is happening (and has been happening) every minute of every hour of every day throughout history. Right now, perhaps on the ocean floor near a volcanic vent, it is happening.
It is highly unlikely to be happening right now, or at any time in the past 3 billion years. Life has been omnipresent and feeding everywhere on earth, including near the volcanic vents, and current life would gobble up raw materials long before new life had a chance to form. Before that time, this could certainly be true.
Primitive cells are bein created from chemicals. These cells have reproductive capacity, and have some form on heritable information base, RNA, or whatever.
Some of these cells are predestined to turn into a cow, or something closely similar to it. Some will turn into creatures that are kinda shark-like, and so on. Happens alla time---happened yesterday, day before, will happen tomorrow.
Would you say all of these creatures therefore share a common ancestor, with the "ancestor" bein the required chemicals? ?
I did not refer to a common ancestor, but common ancestry. When you account for effects such as horizontal gene transfer, endosymbiosis, the creation of the first multi-cellular colonies, syzygy, and other ways that life can or could share heritable information, many of these independent lines can contain what we would consider to be legitimate candidates for ancestry in all or part of the cow.
Can I take your response, Eric, to mean that we didn't have a theory 10 years ago, or at any time in the 70 years before (when development was ignored by neo-darwinists because, given their presumptions of strict genetic determinism, it was totally irrelevant)? And that we are now "developing" a theory of evolution?
The Theory of Evolution is developing, has been developing for 150 years, and will continue to develop for at least 150 more. We had a Theory of Evolution 10 years ago, we have a more specific, better-verified version today.
It seems all these different "species" were just the same fish observed at various transient stages in it's ongoing process of metamorphosis. That's what I'm talkin about--these constantly-created single celled life forms are pre-programmed to go through a series of metamorphological development stages before they emerge as a cow, or sumthin, see?
Which is why the Theory of Evolution is stronger, and a better theory, with addition of analysis tools such as genetic testing.
It seems that estimates of the number of cells in the human body range from 10 trillion to 100 trillion. That's a purty big range (90 trillion), eh?
Either way it's a shitload, all to come out of a simple-ass zygote, doncha think? I mean, like, that's "self-replication" gone plumb hogwild. And, just think, they're all doin their own thing to "co-operate" in helpin me git my next bottle of wine. Ya might think that biologists would at least have a better idea of how many cells are even in a body before they hauled off and declared that each cell is, ultimately, the product of random mutation directed by natural selection, but, then again, what fun would that be, I ax ya?
I think you’d find that specialists in evolutionary development, such as P. Z. Myers, would cluck at the notion that fate of individual cells within an organism is now or has ever been thought to be the result of random mutation and natural selection.
Now, if you are referring to the process of cell differentiation being a product of these forces, then random mutation plus natural selection is a decent starting point, although certainly not the whole story.
Eric, I noticed you have added a new mechanism to your (formerly) "18 mechanisms" post, eh? If I'm not mistaken, the new mechanism is sumthin called "genetic drive." What's that? ?
I meant molecular drive. Thanks for catching that.
May 3, 2009 2:08 PM
Anonymous said...
I see that Robert Reid, a biologist who recently wrote a book called "Biological Emergences," uses the term "genetic drive" (more on this below). It that what ya mean?
. . .
Is this "alternate theory" now THE Theory of Evolution, Eric, or is it "just another mechanism?"
It seems to be that even the hard-core neo-Darwinists would have acknowledge that the absence of selection leads to widespread incorporation of mutations, and the natural selection can act to preserve stasis in species that are well-adapted (crocodiles beign the typical example). The difference seems to be one of emphasis, not mechanisms.
Among other things, with respect to what he calls "anticipation," Reid claims that it is a fact, not speculation, and goes on to assert: "It is orthogenesis by another name."
Them neo-darwinists sho nuff aint gunna like that!
. . .
"Pseudo-scientific appeals," eh? Unlike Neo-darwinism, no doubt. Recurring flaws at the "fringes of science," eh? Well, I guess that settles it! Can't be right! ?"
Traditionally, orthogenesis denied common descent. So no, it can’t be right.
I don't have to be the least bit religious to entertain the thought that there may well be some type of direction, "purpose," and, if ya wanna call it that, "intelligence," behind it all. As a matter of fact, it simply strikes me as an ideological position to claim that such couldn't possibly be the case. ?"
I agree. In fact, so does Dawkins. He differentiates between his ideological atheism and the notion of random mutation, and acknowledges the second does not require the first.
Orthogenesis, lamarckism, emergent theory, mutationism (some forms) and a host of other possibilities are ridiculed out of hand by that brand of metaphsyician. What else is new? ?"
All of those have failed for a lack of mechanism in being instituted. If you find a Lamarckian mechanism that is testable and verifiable, with will eventually become part of the body of accepted scientific knowledge. We know random mutations happen, and we have a variety of test mechanisms for it. We know recombination happens, and we have a variety of tested mechanisms for it. Even if Dawkins is uncomfortable with it, adaptive mutation (which is not classical Lamarckism by any means) happens, and we know this because we have tested mechanisms to demonstrate it.
Eric, I'm sure you don't see it this way (and am not sure you'd admit it even if you did) but I suspect that your casual notions of what THE theory of evolution is was formed in creationist chatrooms. At bottom, I know you know better, but still.... ?"
If you mean chat rooms about creationists, that was a jumping-off point for a lot of reading, so you could say they inspired me to form these notions. However, my notions have been more largely formed by reading popular disseminations of science by scientists and science writers.
When even prominent scientists start claimin that the theory has been factually proven, you instantly know two things: 1. They don't have a firm grasp on the nature of a scientific theory, and 2. their "motives" for making such claims are themselves "non-scientific," whether they know it, or not. ?"
I agree.
"Natural Selection" creates nothing, yet the darwinists insist it is the "creative force" in evolution.
Natural selection is said to be creative in the same sense a sculptor of marble is said to be creative. The sculptor takes away the marble he doesn’t want, natural selection removes that which reproduces less well.
I don't care if its 100% random, or not, it seems obvious that, whatever is behind novel variation is what does all the "creating." If random mutations ultimately result in a complex human being the conclusion can be no different--it is the variation itself (no matter how long the chain) that must be credited with "creating" the human being. ?"
That’s like saying it’s the geological processes that need to credited with producing the Venus De Milo. Certainly, every single molecule was organized and arranged by the geological processes, but until they were shaped, it was just a hunk of marble.
This same logical incoherency tends to lurk in the background of all neo-darwinistic conceptions of "causation," at least in their informal discussions on the topic. Natural selection is the "cause" of evolution, they say. That's kinda like me sayin that the 8-ball goin into the corner pocket is what "caused" the cue ball to hit it at a certain angle, with certain force, etc. .
I agree that is sloppy thinking. Natural selection is a facet and mechanism of evolution, not a cause.
Heh, just came across this quote, which I found entertaining, for some perverse reason, eh?
"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ...
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London.
Keynote address: American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/odesign/od171/colpat171.htm.
Perverse is a good word choice.
Patterson’s reaction.
Accordin to neo-darwinists, palaeontology has provided tons of "irrefutable" evidence in favor of their theory. For some damn reason, palaeontolgists themselves often seem to dispute this claim, eh? .
No, they don’t. Creationists will quote-mine to make it *seem* like they do, but they don’t.
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho49.htm .
On that same website, Gee is criticized for his clear acceptance of evolution.
Of course, the entire methodology of cladistics assumes common ancestry, which raises some interesting questions: "Common descent of organisms must be a necessary assumption of cladistics...if cladism presupposes evolution, how can cladism be evidence for evolution? "
By the process of developing mechanisms, making predictions, and testing those predictions.
"In the first edition of "The Origin of Species" in 1859, Charles Darwin speculated about how natural selection could cause a land mammal to turn into a whale.
. . .
Well, if Darwin could "see no difficulty," I guess that settles it, eh!? .
Does it register at all that, on the basis of such predictions, we did in fact find a variety of fossils that resembled the creatures Darwin predicted, and in the geologic time frames indicated, for a transition from a land form somewhat bear-like to actual whales.
Randomness of mutation is absolutely central, crucial, and indispensable to neo-darwinism. Their "theory' (again to be distinguished from evolution itself) would crumble without it.
We agree that there is nuthin necessary, nor even scientific, about this "central dogma" of neo-darwinism. The fact that they see it as such really just shows how ideological in nature neo-darwinism really is, I figure. .
The end of all random mutations would certainly be a second death to the already-dead neo-Darwinism.
Of course, to the Theory of Evolution it is a new information input to the mechanisms that exist, a source of new predictions, new tests, and possibly even new mechanisms. The Theory of Evolution would get on just fine sans randomness.
In response to: "Of course, the entire methodology of cladistics assumes common ancestry, which raises some interesting questions: "Common descent of organisms must be a necessary assumption of cladistics...if cladism presupposes evolution, how can cladism be evidence for evolution? "
One Brow said: "By the process of developing mechanisms, making predictions, and testing those predictions."
====
Ya mean kinda like when your computer simulation "proved" the odds a second child bein a boy in one of our past debates? Of course the computer simulation only operated according to the presumptions it was given, and could prove nuthin about the validity of those assumptions. It can't "prove" what it presupposes.
As I understand it cladistics does not even purport to "predict" anything. It merely classifies on the basis of certain knowledge and assumptions, and, given those assumptions, gives an idea of how closely "related" to each other different organisms are.
Eric, your continued reference to THE theory of evolution (as opposed to, say, "evolutionary theory")still makes me think that your idea of a scientific theory is much different than mine.
Let's try an analogy, eh? First let me define a topic, to wit, God.
God is the common ancestor of all that exists, living and non-living, material and immaterial.
Others may have different definitions, and that's fine, but this is my definition. Now suppose you ask me: "Do you have, or is there, a Theory of God?"
Suppose I say, yeah, but it kinda depends on whatcha mean by "theory," I spoze. There are at least 3 ways I can respond. See following posts.
One answer is this: Understand that God is not a tangible object that you might see lyin around in the world, like a chair or a dog. It is, like "evolution" an abstraction, a concept. It is what you might call a "theoretical construct," a product of the mind, and it is strictly "theoretical" in that sense.
God therefore IS a theory. When we say God, we really mean THE theory of God, but for the sake of convenience we generally leave the "THE theory of" part implied.
In short, "God" is THE theory of God, they are identical things.
Sometimes I think you must use the term "theory" is this sense.
Another way in which THE theory of God is sometimes uses is like this: Some people go beyond view God a an abstract (theoretical) concept and assert that God actually exists. If one says God exists, that is a theory of God. To assert that something exists (like gravity or evolution) is a theory, a theory which entails existence.
To say "God exists" is therefore to present THE theory of (THE theory of) God, see?
Again, sometimes I get the idea that this is what you mean when you talk about THE theory of evolution. But there is also another possibility.....
A third form of "theory of God" consists of claims, assertions, speculations, hypothesises, etc., which are purportedly explanatory in nature. Claims which purport to tell you sumthin about the nature, form, character, powers, knowledge, and general M.O. of God.
Over the centuries, many such claims have been made, some with such frequency and similarity as to have been turned into "isms," such as deism, pantheism, manicheanism, judism, calvinism, etc.
There are revealed religions which claim, for example, that God's M.O. has, at least on historical occasion,been to take on human form, first as a baby, then a pre-pubescent child, etc. God lived several decades in the form of a human being, performed a series of miracles, died, and then rose from the dead. This is just one example.
Now, these are, collectively, THE theory of God. You may point out that many of these propostions about God are inconsistent with, and/or contradictory to, each other. You may then ask if I don't really mean that these are all different theories (plural) about God.
My answer would be NO. They are not "different" theories, they are all the same theory, because they are THE theory of God and each one of the various speculations purports to hypothesize sumthin about God's nature, making them all identical in that sense, and all equally a part of THE theory of God.
Of course, THE theory of God is constantly being supplemented and expanded. If some 7 year old Japanese child asserts tomorrow that God lives inside the rock of Gibraltar, that too will be THE theory of God (or a part of THE theory).
This is not definition that I would adhere, but seems to be another one which you advance when you talk about THE theory of evolution.
Is that your definiiton? That any speculation which purports to explain evolution is (part of) THE theory of evolution (which itself merely serves as compilation point for the plethora of speculations offered)?
That is what I gather from your current reference to listing proposed "mechanisms" as comprising THE theory of evolution.
"Does it register at all that, on the basis of such predictions, we did in fact find a variety of fossils that resembled the creatures Darwin predicted, and in the geologic time frames indicated, for a transition from a land form somewhat bear-like to actual whales."
Well, in that respect, a few things have occurred to me. Assuming, which I don't, necessarily, that a "variety of fossils have been found which "resemble precisely what neo-darwinism predicts" it occurs to me that another question is "so what?" What of all the thousands of other predicted forms which have not been found? Did you even listen to the Berlinski video? I suspect not, because I'm sure you knew in advance that anything he said had to be hogwash.
If I tell you that I can predict the outcome of coin flips, and then proceed to correctly predict one out of the next ten flips, then I can bray that I made a correct prediction and have conclusively demonstrated the awesomeness of my predictive ability, if I wish to be that selective in what I consider.
What about all the "predictions" of "evolutionary theory" that have been wrong? Such as the number of human genes, the "junk" nature of the vast majority of the non-coding genome, etc? Are those to be considered?
Gould (a [palaeontologist) on the specific topic:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology...Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_Jay_Gould
This "quote-mining" exercise (if you quote someone, that's "quote-mining," at least if you want to reject the quote, aint it?), merely reiterates what Gee and Patterson wuz sayin, eh? With a distorted enough view, and enough faith, anything, and, for that matter, everything, you see "proves" your prior beliefs.
I don't know if you looked at the PBS video I cited, but here are a couple of quotes from a textual summary of it:
"In 1978, paleontologist Phil Gingerich discovered a 52-million-year-old skull in Pakistan that resembled fossils of creodonts -- wolf-sized carnivores that lived between 60 and 37 million years ago, in the early Eocene epoch. But the skull also had characteristics in common with the Archaeocetes, the oldest known whales. The new bones, dubbed Pakicetus, proved to have key features that were transitional between terrestrial mammals and the earliest true whales. One of the most interesting was the ear region of the skull. In whales, it is extensively modified for directional hearing underwater. In Pakicetus, the ear region is intermediate between that of terrestrial and fully aquatic animals."
The conclusion?: "Some details remain fuzzy and under investigation. But we know for certain that this back-to-the-water evolution did occur, thanks to a profusion of intermediate fossils that have been uncovered over the past two decades."
"Know for certain," eh? Because a wolf had some supposed structural similarities to a whale, eh? Now we know that this wolf was destined to become a whale, eh? The referenced "profusion of intermediate fossils" hardly amounts to much (other than wild-ass speculations presented as "knowledge"). Of that "profusion," even PBS admits that: "None of these animals is necessarily a direct ancestor of the whales we know today; they may be side branches of the family tree. But the important thing is that each fossil whale shares new, whale-like features with the whales we know today."
Share "whale-like features," eh? That may seem like "strong," even conclusive evidence to some. If you're one of those, help yourself. But don't go callin yourself no "skeptic" if that's all it takes to convince you.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html
One Brow said: "Patterson's reaction" (link).
Thanks for the link, eh, Eric? I especially like this part, ya know?:
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations 'It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test." (Colin Patterson).
It is noteworthy, I think, that nothing in that "reaction" denies the substance of the statements Patterson made. In essence, Patterson says he was unknowingly tape recorded by a "creationist" and that they wouldn't stop disseminating the contents of the recording even those he asked them to stop. He further asserts that "I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school curricula. In short the article does not fairly represent my views."
He aint no creationist, and opposes their aims, so, therefore, "the article (containing the views of the creationists) does not represent his views," eh? Fair enough, but what does that have to do with anything. He also speculates that the creationists may be confusing the doctrine of common descent (which,Patterson believes in but which, strictly speaking, has nothing to do with evolution, i.e., change itself) with "Darwin's special theory of mechanism, natural selection." But where's the alleged "misuse" of his quote? On what basis does Eugenie Scott assert that: "The 'Patterson story' illustrates two common creationist enthusiasms: taking statements out of context, and refusing to recognize corrections when made."
What "corrections" is she even talking about? Would the "context" change the words, or the meaning thereof? Would those words mean sumthin different if they were presented at a cub scout gathering, or sumthin? Who's quote-mining who here, I ax ya?
One Brow said: "Traditionally, orthogenesis denied common descent. So no, it can't be right."
Heh, "can't be right," eh, Eric? Now you, too, elevate the status of your personal convictions to ontological certainty, including what is, and is not, even possible, eh?
Colin Patterson does not go near that far, but he does say this: "If he knows of evidence inconsistent with the general theory of common descent, he should tell us what it is. I know of none."
Woese has presented such evidence, as have others, but that aint even really the point. Point is "the evidence" is not inconsistent with other, contradictory views either. This would include, but not be limited to, views which posit intelligent design (not that "design" has anything to say about "common descent," but then again, neither does random mutation plus natural selection). Does a lack of "inconsistent evidence" guarantee that the contradictory views are right? Of course not. Just as it in no way proves that "common descent" is right.
Once again, the viewpoint expressed here seems to be one that I alluded to earlier, i.e., "I am certain of my beliefs, therefore they must be accepted as irrefutable until conclusively refuted."
Eric, I am unable to cut and paste it, but I would be hard-pressed to think of an analogy that would be more supportive of "intelligent design," that the one you used comparing "natural selection" to a sculptor. A sculptor has a distinct plan, a vision, and an end in mind as he skillfully chisels away one bit after another. If "natural selection" creates in the same sense that a sculptor does, then there IS a design (and a designer).
It is interesting that some of Darwin's most ardent supporters (Huxley among them, as I recall) urged Darwin to abandon the phrase "natural selection" on the grounds that it implied some "selection" was occuring, and was therefore purposeful and teleological in it's implications.
Not really relevant to anything in particular, but this site contains some interesting information about Huxley (Darwin's bulldog), I think. For example:
"Huxley did not fully accept natural selection as a competent explanation of evolution. He disagreed with Darwin on the tempo of evolution, on the analogy between artificial selection and natural selection, on hybridism, and on Darwin's hypothesis of Pangenesis, that development of features in a parent would be passed on to its offspring. But to calm his friend's anxiety, Huxley often reassured Darwin that he really was a champion of natural selection, as he did in the letter of January 20, 1862, referred to above....[Huxley] finds natural selection as the best explanation available of evolution, but imperfect because its analog, artificial selection or breeding, had not yet produced a species and because Darwin had insisted too much on gradualism, disregarding too much the probability of saltation...Huxley noted that Buffon and Lamarck were equal to Darwin in "genius and fertility."
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/guide4.html
Ya mean kinda like when your computer simulation "proved" the odds a second child bein a boy in one of our past debates? Of course the computer simulation only operated according to the presumptions it was given, and could prove nuthin about the validity of those assumptions. It can't "prove" what it presupposes.
No, I mean by making predictions whole results would be determined by observation, not calculation. For example, predicting the amino acid sequence of a protien in a newly discovered plant.
As I understand it cladistics does not even purport to "predict" anything. It merely classifies on the basis of certain knowledge and assumptions, and, given those assumptions, gives an idea of how closely "related" to each other different organisms are.
If cladistics indeed predicts nothing, I agree it can not offer support to its assumptions, except for the meager fact that do not lead to contradicton up to a certain point.
Eric, your continued reference to THE theory of evolution (as opposed to, say, "evolutionary theory")still makes me think that your idea of a scientific theory is much different than mine.
Let's try an analogy, eh? First let me define a topic, to wit, God.
God is the common ancestor of all that exists, living and non-living, material and immaterial.
Others may have different definitions, and that's fine, but this is my definition. Now suppose you ask me: "Do you have, or is there, a Theory of God?"
Suppose I say, yeah, but it kinda depends on whatcha mean by "theory," I spoze. There are at least 3 ways I can respond. See following posts.
Let's ignore the first two (which are not the sense I mean) and look at the third.
A third form of "theory of God" consists of claims, assertions, speculations, hypothesises, etc., which are purportedly explanatory in nature. ... There are revealed religions which claim, for example, ... Now, these are, collectively, THE theory of God. You may point out that many of these propostions about God are inconsistent with, and/or contradictory to, each other. ... Of course, THE theory of God is constantly being supplemented and expanded. If some 7 year old Japanese child asserts tomorrow that God lives inside the rock of Gibraltar, that too will be THE theory of God (or a part of THE theory).
This is not definition that I would adhere, but seems to be another one which you advance when you talk about THE theory of evolution.
Is that your definiiton? That any speculation which purports to explain evolution is (part of) THE theory of evolution (which itself merely serves as compilation point for the plethora of speculations offered)?
That is what I gather from your current reference to listing proposed "mechanisms" as comprising THE theory of evolution.
I think it is rather insulting that you take all the predictions and deductions of men who labor for years to become specialized in a highly technical fashion, and compare it to the musings of a 7-year-old. So, let's be clear: subtract from your "Theory of God" anything that does not yield testable predicitons, explains some observable phenomenon in an accessible fashion, or is in some other way unfalsifiable. This is what happens to ideas in science: if they are completely untestable, they can be put to the side. When your Japanese child makes some verifiable, repeatable prediciton based on God living in the Rock of Gilbraltar, then it can become partfo a theory.
There's lots of lively debate among biologists about the limits of various mechanisms, when they are ascendent or submerged, etc. however, none of it comes from people just making it up, and none of it is meaningful unless you can devise a testto tell the difference. Meanwhile, there are mountains of common threads throughout all biology that are the basis for the Theory of Evolution.
"Does it register at all that, on the basis of such predictions, we did in fact find a variety of fossils that resembled the creatures Darwin predicted, and in the geologic time frames indicated, for a transition from a land form somewhat bear-like to actual whales."
Well, in that respect, a few things have occurred to me. Assuming, which I don't, necessarily, that a "variety of fossils have been found which "resemble precisely what neo-darwinism predicts" it occurs to me that another question is "so what?" What of all the thousands of other predicted forms which have not been found? Did you even listen to the Berlinski video? I suspect not, because I'm sure you knew in advance that anything he said had to be hogwash.
Fossilization is a rare process. It only occurs in certain climates and certain soil conditions. Of course there are some major gaps. Insisting on every gap being filled is mere denialism, putting you in the company of the tobacco industry.
If I tell you that I can predict the outcome of coin flips, and then proceed to correctly predict one out of the next ten flips, then I can bray that I made a correct prediction and have conclusively demonstrated the awesomeness of my predictive ability, if I wish to be that selective in what I consider.
If you sucessfully predict one flip and the other nine receive no guess, it makes you look lucky. Unless you happen to have a detailed reasons why only that one flip is predicatable and the others are not, of course. Now, if there are a million flips, and you predict two hundred of them, with one hundred being correct and the other hundred not yet having been flipped, while the other 999,800 get no prediction based upon established criteria, is that luck?
What about all the "predictions" of "evolutionary theory" that have been wrong? Such as the number of human genes, the "junk" nature of the vast majority of the non-coding genome, etc? Are those to be considered?
Yes, although you are changing the topic from fossils.
Gould (a [palaeontologist) on the specific topic:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology...Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_Jay_Gould
This "quote-mining" exercise (if you quote someone, that's "quote-mining," at least if you want to reject the quote, aint it?), merely reiterates what Gee and Patterson wuz sayin, eh? With a distorted enough view, and enough faith, anything, and, for that matter, everything, you see "proves" your prior beliefs..
It's quote-mining if you are using it for a purpose the author would oppose, in a way the author never intended. I wish such dishonesty was beneath you.
Yes, we are missing many gradual transitions among lineages. Gould would have been just as quick to point out we have documentation for the transition of all vertabrate orders and a wide variety of other organisms. He was no friend of Paley's arguments and a staqunch supporter of common descent being proven.
"Know for certain," eh? Because a wolf had some supposed structural similarities to a whale, eh?
You think Pakicetus is the only transitional, or even the only stage of transition, found in the line from land to sea mammal?
Now we know that this wolf was destined to become a whale, eh?
No destiny implied.
Share "whale-like features," eh? That may seem like "strong," even conclusive evidence to some. If you're one of those, help yourself. But don't go callin yourself no "skeptic" if that's all it takes to convince you.
You're descending from critic to denialist right before my eyes.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations 'It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test." (Colin Patterson).
It is noteworthy, I think, that nothing in that "reaction" denies the substance of the statements Patterson made.
Well, except for the part where he says he was referring only to the more narrow field of systemics, and was misleadingly quoted as referring to all aspects of evolution. That part fly over your head?
In essence, Patterson says he was unknowingly tape recorded by a "creationist" and that they wouldn't stop disseminating the contents of the recording even those he asked them to stop. He further asserts that "I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school curricula. In short the article does not fairly represent my views."
He aint no creationist, and opposes their aims, so, therefore, "the article (containing the views of the creationists) does not represent his views," eh? Fair enough, but what does that have to do with anything.
Again, it's dishonest to take questions over a small field and portray as applying ot all of evolution. Patterson is confirming his understanding and acceptance of the Theory of Evolution. He would not be supporting keeping it in the classroom if he thought it was untrue.
He also speculates that the creationists may be confusing the doctrine of common descent (which,Patterson believes in but which, strictly speaking, has nothing to do with evolution, i.e., change itself) with "Darwin's special theory of mechanism, natural selection." But where's the alleged "misuse" of his quote? On what basis does Eugenie Scott assert that: "The 'Patterson story' illustrates two common creationist enthusiasms: taking statements out of context, and refusing to recognize corrections when made."
What "corrections" is she even talking about? Would the "context" change the words, or the meaning thereof? Would those words mean sumthin different if they were presented at a cub scout gathering, or sumthin? Who's quote-mining who here, I ax ya?
The corrections are to the meaning of the quote within the field of systemics, not the Theory of Evolution as a whole. Yes, context changes the meaning of words. A talk concerning systemics should be interpreted as referring to the state of the art regarding systemics. Who is quote-mining here are the creationists.
One Brow said: "Traditionally, orthogenesis denied common descent. So no, it can't be right."
Heh, "can't be right," eh, Eric? Now you, too, elevate the status of your personal convictions to ontological certainty, including what is, and is not, even possible, eh?
Well, anything is possible positing a supernatural being of unlimited power. However, given the assumption that we can actually rely on the physical evidence, common descent is factual.
Colin Patterson does not go near that far, but he does say this: "If he knows of evidence inconsistent with the general theory of common descent, he should tell us what it is. I know of none."
Woese has presented such evidence, as have others, but that aint even really the point.
That is not even correct. Woese's theory challenges the idea of common descent from a single universal common ancestor, but it is not replaced with orthogenesis. It is replaced wild transferrence of genetic material through HGT at teh early stages of life, making pretty much all of those life forms ancestors of all the life here on earth.
Point is "the evidence" is not inconsistent with other, contradictory views either. This would include, but not be limited to, views which posit intelligent design (not that "design" has anything to say about "common descent," but then again, neither does random mutation plus natural selection).
The difference is that there is no evidence that could possibly exist which would contradict intelligent design, while you can at least conceive of evidence that could contradict common descent and/or HGT.
Does a lack of "inconsistent evidence" guarantee that the contradictory views are right? Of course not. Just as it in no way proves that "common descent" is right.
What shows common descent to be correct is the way that, when we use methods of identifying new species and placing them in a clade on the basis of one type of evidence (say, morphological), the chance of thembeing placed in that same node by a different sort of evidence (say, amino acid chain) is better than 99%.
Once again, the viewpoint expressed here seems to be one that I alluded to earlier, i.e., "I am certain of my beliefs, therefore they must be accepted as irrefutable until conclusively refuted."
The viewpoint is, "We have a highly successful paradigm that is still generating new, useful information and which has been validated in dozens of ways by many different branches of science, so we will keep using it until something better comes along."
Eric, I am unable to cut and paste it, but I would be hard-pressed to think of an analogy that would be more supportive of "intelligent design," that the one you used comparing "natural selection" to a sculptor. A sculptor has a distinct plan, a vision, and an end in mind as he skillfully chisels away one bit after another. If "natural selection" creates in the same sense that a sculptor does, then there IS a design (and a designer).
I think if you broach the notion of "unintelligent design", you'll find the Dawkins of the world see that as a decent analogy.
It is interesting that some of Darwin's most ardent supporters (Huxley among them, as I recall) urged Darwin to abandon the phrase "natural selection" on the grounds that it implied some "selection" was occuring, and was therefore purposeful and teleological in it's implications.
You could say that, metaphoorically, the purpose of life is to produce more life.
One Brow said: "You're descending from critic to denialist right before my eyes."
"Denialist," eh? That seems to be a favorite term of yours these days. I suspect it's on the list of "talking points" at some PC website, ya know?
Why is it that the PC types always try to find some pseudo-psychological term, such as "homophobe," (impying unfitness, neurosis, pyschosis, or some sort of mental defect) to characterize those who disagee with their pronouncements of "indisputable truth," I wonder?
What, exactly is a "denialist?" Best I can figure it is anyone who refuses to accept another's claim of possession of absolute truth and fact, as being, well, absolute truth, eh? Just like ANYONE who could conceive of denying the obvious proof that my brother-in-law (da bastid) killed a Babe in NYC if I could produce a train ticket stub would be a "denialist," eh?
Newsflash: what those with special general assumptions consider conclusive proof of their deductions does not necessarily, and generally will not, have the same probative value to the unindoctrinated. Again, if you think the speculation which neo-darwinist story-tellers engage in are "obvious proof" of their premises, help yourself.
More from our homey, Colin Patterson, on the topic, eh?:
"Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else." Evolution (1999) p.109
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science." The Listener October 8, 1981 p.392
"Gillespie shows that what Darwin was doing was trying to replace the creationist paradigm by a positivist paradigm, a view of the world in which there was neither room nor necessity for final causes. Of course, Gillespie takes it for granted that Darwin and his disciples succeeded in this task. He takes it for granted that a rationalist view of nature has replaced an irrational one and of course, I myself took that view about eighteen months ago. Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way." "Evolutionism and Creationism" November 5, 1981 p.2
http://bevets.com/equotesp.htm
Patterson is obviously a deranged "denialist," eh?
"Patterson was speaking to systematists, but the implications go far beyond that. I take it that you understand that what he calls "a very prestigious body of evolutionists," to wit: "the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago" are not systematists.
But, in any event, the context of our discussion is about what neo-darwinism purportedly "precisely predicts" and "proves" on the basis of the fossil record. Any such claims are based upon the application of neo-darwinist presumptions to systematics (as opposed to, for example, embryology or genetics).
He says he was "only" talking about systematics in that one letter. Elsewhere he emphasizes that he was talking to a group so systemtists, and he may mean the same thing by each claim. Needless to say, Patterson received a great deal of scorn and rebuke from evolutionists after his statements became public, and he continues to be defensive and embarrassed by it to some degree.
He said what he said. It means what it means. It seems clear to me that he had strong doubts about neo-darwinism, in general, not just as it may be applied to systematics. He does not appear to have similar reservations about the doctrine of common descent, however.
A point I have touched on, and that I think is worth noting again, is that, standing alone, the doctrine of common descent has no more to do with "evolution" than does, say, abiogenesis. Patterson makes it clear that he agrees in the quote you provided when he talks about the possible confusion of two (not one) theories under the name of Darwinism, i.e., 1. common ancestry, and 2. natural selection. He seems to accept common ancestry, and reject (or reserve judgment, due to serious doubts) the second.
Why do you conclude that Patterson wants neo-darwinism taught in schools? All he says is that he doesn't want creationism taught in schools, while noting the opinion of one of his peers that neo-darwinism shouldn't be taught in schools, either.
Your responses have, as they always do, taken the line of an attack on "intelligent design," but none of my comments had anything to do with intelligent design. And, as always, you start talking about "testable" theories. Patterson's position is that their is nothing "testable" whatsover about evolution:
"Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test." Evolution (1978) pp.145-146
Do you reject evolution on the same grounds? Why not?
And tell, me Eric, even assuming one presents a "testable" theory about some supposed "mechanism" of evolution, and even assuming that hypothesis is now THE theory of evolution, how does that make it (something "testable, but untested) "as true as the fact that the earth circles the sun." How does "testability" somehow turn into "known fact," I wonder?
The "facts" about Jerry Sloan, insofar as they relate to actions taken in games (such as taking, or not taking, a time-out; playing one player versus another; etc.) are easily observable to anyone who cares to watch.
Those same "facts" lead different persons to radiically different conclusions. Some believe Sloan is an utterly incompetent fool, devoid of any basketball knowledge or acumen, who should have been fired years ago. Others conclude, on the basis of the same easily observable facts, that he is one the all-time great NBA coaches. Of course, this is all just a matter of emphasis. Both sides are just kinda agreein with each other, except for the fact that they disagree. Both views are probably just as proven as is the claim that the earth revolves around the sun, I spect, eh?
I'm repeating myself, but let's assume that (thereafter self-replicating) life can be created from non-living chemicals (perhaps the correct mixture is 50% ammonia, 50% sulpher, and a splash of Kintucky moonshine). Like snowflakes, all forms of life so created are similar, yet unique. Each organism so created may then thereafter be modified through descent and other factors, but that would not retroactively alter the nature of their origin, would it?
When we look at any particular organism, fossil, dna analysis, or any other type of empirical evidence to be "tested," such evidence is not "inconsistent with" such a hypothesis. Many other considerations may nonetheless seem to make the hypothesis unlikely but the raw "evidence" cannot disprove it, and is not "inconsistent with" such a hypothesis.
Any objection you may want to make can, with enough mental gyrations, be countered with some type of "explanation," however implausible. Looking at the sun, and other cosmic body from the earth, cannot present evidence which is "inconsistent with" the view that the sun is "circling" the earth. That is not to say that a geocentric theory is correct. It's simply to say that "looking at" the objects is not "inconsistent with" any such hypothesis one might want to present (such as all bodies actually revolve around Saturn).
While it is true that some obviously inaccurate suppositions can be easily "disproven," that is an entirely different issue than the one raised by sayin "unless there is some evidence which is "inconsistent with" my hypothesis, it must be taken as factually true."
The exact same "evidence" can be "consistent with" virtually an infinite number of different theories (witness string theory, just for one example).
One Brow said: "What shows common descent to be correct is the way that, when we use methods of identifying new species and placing them in a clade on the basis of one type of evidence (say, morphological), the chance of thembeing placed in that same node by a different sort of evidence (say, amino acid chain) is better than 99%."
Eric, can you elaborate upon, and provide some authority for, this claim? What is a "node," in this context.
Frankly, that's not the impression I get at all from what I read. As I understand it, some organisms with highly similar morphology are quite different from a genetic standpoint, and, conversely, some with very similar genomes are quite morphologically diverse.
Even if your claim is accurate, just how would that show common descent to be "correct?" Once again, cladism presupposes common descent. Here are my premises:
1. All life on earth came from a common ancestor,
2. Bears, pea plants, and bacteria are all forms of "life on earth",
3. Therefore each such creature had a common ancestor.
The premises dictate the conclusion, and it appears to be logically valid, although perhaps unsound. In a sense, the premise IS the conclusion, restated. If "logic" could prove it's own assumptions, then every logically sound proposition ever made would have to be (factually) "correct."
I know you would not make such a claim, but, beyond some form of "logic," what could prove the doctrine of common descent to "correct?"
I am truly incapable of following the various verbal presentations you make which purport to show that, even if life originated independently a million times, all resulting creations would still have a "common ancestor."
Correction:
"If "logic" could prove it's own assumptions, then every logically valid (not "sound") proposition ever made would have to be(factually) "correct."
A few excerpts from our old homey, Carl Woese, on the topic of "common descent," eh?:
What elevated common descent to doctrinal status almost certainly was the much later discovery of the universality of biochemistry, which was seemingly impossible to explain otherwise (49). But that was before horizontal gene transfer (HGT), which could offer an alternative explanation for the universality of biochemistry, was recognized as a major part of the evolutionary dynamic.
In questioning the doctrine of common descent, one necessarily questions the universal phylogenetic tree. That compelling tree image resides deep in our representation of biology. But the tree is no more than a graphical device; it is not some a priori form that nature imposes upon the evolutionary process....Under conditions of extreme HGT, there is no (organismal) "tree." Evolution is basically reticulate.
By now the lesson is obvious: hold classical evolutionary concepts up to the light of reason and modern evidence before weaving an evolutionary tapestry around them."
http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/68/2/173
Woese, just another deranged "denialist," eh?
As I read Woese, the "logic" wuz sumthin like this:
1. We observe a "universality of biochemistry" in living things.
2. Only the doctrine of common descent can explain this fact
3.Therefore, the doctrine of common descent must be true.
For reasons stated before, premise number 2 is inherently suspect. In any case, Woese's syllogistic paradigm seems to be:
1. We observe a "universality of biochemistry" in living things.
2. HGT can explain this fact,
3. Therefore there is no reason to conclude that only the doctrine of common descent can explain it.
Surprise, surpise, eh? I can think of other explanations which could account for the "universality of biochemistry," but not if I presupposed the exclusive truth of common descent as the only conceivable explanation from the git-go, of course.
Once you start with an unquestioned premise, all your "logic" will conclude with that premise. The premise IS the conclusion. They just aint nowhere else to go with it, ya know?
Once I start with the premise that God created all things, then I will invariably and necessarily conclude that everything I see wuz "created by God." All "logic" will dictate that, and only that, conclusion.
One Brow said: "You're descending from critic to denialist right before my eyes."
"Denialist," eh? That seems to be a favorite term of yours these days. I suspect it's on the list of "talking points" at some PC website, ya know?
I know of a couple of sites where they distinguish between genuine debate and denialism, with the former relying on using honest quotations, accepting the data, and a willingness to be persuaded by evidence; the latter features misquotes, saying some or most of the data is irrelevent, and being determined to accept one particular point fo view despite any amount of evidence to the contrary.
For example, the following quote is classic denialism:
'Assuming, which I don't, necessarily, that a "variety of fossils have been found which "resemble precisely what neo-darwinism predicts" it occurs to me that another question is "so what?" What of all the thousands of other predicted forms which have not been found?'
Why is it that the PC types always try to find some pseudo-psychological term, such as "homophobe," (impying unfitness, neurosis, pyschosis, or some sort of mental defect) to characterize those who disagee with their pronouncements of "indisputable truth," I wonder?
Why is it denialists take perfectly good descriptive words like "homophobe" and try to imbue them with meanings you would not impute to, for example, "Francophobe".
What, exactly is a "denialist?" Best I can figure it is anyone who refuses to accept another's claim of possession of absolute truth and fact, as being, well, absolute truth, eh?
I think you can figure better than that, when you care to. Denialism happens in defense of claims of truth that have no reliable evidentiary support, such as anti-vaccination positions or claims tobacco does not cause cancer.
Newsflash: what those with special general assumptions consider conclusive proof of their deductions does not necessarily, and generally will not, have the same probative value to the unindoctrinated. Again, if you think the speculation which neo-darwinist story-tellers engage in are "obvious proof" of their premises, help yourself.
We have already both agreed neo-Darwinism, as a broad-ranging and complete ToE, is dead and buried. Why would I support a dead theory?
More from our homey, Colin Patterson, on the topic, eh?:
"Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else." Evolution (1999) p.109
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science." The Listener October 8, 1981 p.392
"Gillespie shows that what Darwin was doing was trying to replace the creationist paradigm by a positivist paradigm, a view of the world in which there was neither room nor necessity for final causes. Of course, Gillespie takes it for granted that Darwin and his disciples succeeded in this task. He takes it for granted that a rationalist view of nature has replaced an irrational one and of course, I myself took that view about eighteen months ago. Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way." "Evolutionism and Creationism" November 5, 1981 p.2
http://bevets.com/equotesp.htm
Patterson is obviously a deranged "denialist," eh?
His remarks seem entirely mainstream to the modern ToE, based on evidence, and he was certainly willing to change his mind on that basis. So I don't see him as being a denialist.
"Patterson was speaking to systematists, but the implications go far beyond that. I take it that you understand that what he calls "a very prestigious body of evolutionists," to wit: "the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago" are not systematists.
Not according to Patterson himself.
That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
But, in any event, the context of our discussion is about what neo-darwinism purportedly "precisely predicts" and "proves" on the basis of the fossil record. Any such claims are based upon the application of neo-darwinist presumptions to systematics (as opposed to, for example, embryology or genetics).
He says he was "only" talking about systematics in that one letter. Elsewhere he emphasizes that he was talking to a group so systemtists, and he may mean the same thing by each claim. Needless to say, Patterson received a great deal of scorn and rebuke from evolutionists after his statements became public, and he continues to be defensive and embarrassed by it to some degree.
Back in the early 80s, there was a little more naivte about what creationists would do with quotes. I'm not surprised people put him on the defensive, however incorrectly.
He said what he said. It means what it means. It seems clear to me that he had strong doubts about neo-darwinism, in general, not just as it may be applied to systematics.
I have no problem taking Patterson's word at it. There have been plenty of biologists who attacked neo-Darwinism (otherwise it would not be dead), I don't see why Patterson would be reluctant to say so if he shared their opinions.
Why do you conclude that Patterson wants neo-darwinism taught in schools? All he says is that he doesn't want creationism taught in schools, while noting the opinion of one of his peers that neo-darwinism shouldn't be taught in schools, either?
I did not mention neo-Darwinism in my conclusion, and Patterson said something much stronger than "no creationism". He said he does not support efforts to modify the curriculum, which included teaching the ToE.
Your responses have, as they always do, taken the line of an attack on "intelligent design," but none of my comments had anything to do with intelligent design. And, as always, you start talking about "testable" theories. Patterson's position is that their is nothing "testable" whatsover about evolution:
"Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test." Evolution (1978) pp.145-146
Do you reject evolution on the same grounds? Why not?
Patterson is not rejecting evolution, but claims about specific, historical, unobserved instances of species-splitting. For eaxmple, a claim that zebras and horses split at time X in location Y because of factor(s) Z is not testable. Summing up a bunch of untestable events does make the whole untestable. As above, what is based in science, but does not make predictions, add avenues of research, etc., is not science. In fact, this is just another way of saying that cladistics offers no support to evolution, which we already agreed about above.
And tell, me Eric, even assuming one presents a "testable" theory about some supposed "mechanism" of evolution, and even assuming that hypothesis is now THE theory of evolution,
No one hypothesis will ever be the Theory of Evolution, life is too complicated for that.
how does that make it (something "testable, but untested) "as true as the fact that the earth circles the sun." How does "testability" somehow turn into "known fact," I wonder?
It can't. The fact of evolution can be as proven as the fact the earth circles the sun. The Theory of Evolution can be as validated as the Theory of Heliocentrism, but neither theory will even descend to the level of "fact".
Both views are probably just as proven as is the claim that the earth revolves around the sun, I spect, eh??
Well, it's possible to set objective criteria to measure whether the earth circles the sun. Whether one is a great coach, not so much. Most of the disagreement over how gtood Sloan is, and how much of an impact he has, is as much about impressions copncerning the talent he coached.
I'm repeating myself, but let's assume that (thereafter self-replicating) life can be created from non-living chemicals (perhaps the correct mixture is 50% ammonia, 50% sulpher, and a splash of Kintucky moonshine). Like snowflakes, all forms of life so created are similar, yet unique. Each organism so created may then thereafter be modified through descent and other factors, but that would not retroactively alter the nature of their origin, would it?
When we look at any particular organism, fossil, dna analysis, or any other type of empirical evidence to be "tested," such evidence is not "inconsistent with" such a hypothesis. Many other considerations may nonetheless seem to make the hypothesis unlikely but the raw "evidence" cannot disprove it, and is not "inconsistent with" such a hypothesis.?
Maybe you had not heard, but the tree of life is being put to the side, especially at the early stages of life. Replacing one tree with multiple trees does not address this issue.
Two bacteria, one of whom can digest lactose but is killed by penicillin, the other survives penicillin and but can't digest lactose, meet, share their cytoplasm, and copy genetic information. Two bacteria emerge who can both digest lactose and survive penicillin. Can you identify either prior bacteria as being the same one as the either subsequent bacteria? Or, are both the prior bacteria "parents" to both subsequent bacteria?
Even if there were 100 separate origination events, or even more, the best evidence is that life today has ancestry among all 100 (or more) such events.
The exact same "evidence" can be "consistent with" virtually an infinite number of different theories (witness string theory, just for one example)?
Agreed. Until you can differentiate and test the differences of these theories, none have a claim to having scientific support.
One Brow said: "What shows common descent to be correct is the way that, when we use methods of identifying new species and placing them in a clade on the basis of one type of evidence (say, morphological), the chance of thembeing placed in that same node by a different sort of evidence (say, amino acid chain) is better than 99%."
Eric, can you elaborate upon, and provide some authority for, this claim? What is a "node," in this context?
When referring to morphology and molecular composition, this is called the Twin-nested heirarchy. Theobald refers to this as Consilience of independent phylogenies.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr00.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
I know you would not make such a claim, but, beyond some form of "logic," what could prove the doctrine of common descent to "correct?"
I am truly incapable of following the various verbal presentations you make which purport to show that, even if life originated independently a million times, all resulting creations would still have a "common ancestor."?
You are still thinking in terms of "trees". What I am saying is that they would have a million "common ancestors", to the degree you have ancestors at all in the "net of life".
A few excerpts from our old homey, Carl Woese, on the topic of "common descent," eh?:
...
Woese, just another deranged "denialist," eh??
Actually, I changed my understanding a while ago to incorporate Woese's work.
One Brow said: For example, the following quote is classic denialism:
'Assuming, which I don't, necessarily, that a "variety of fossils have been found which "resemble precisely what neo-darwinism predicts" it occurs to me that another question is "so what?" What of all the thousands of other predicted forms which have not been found?' Denialism happens in defense of claims of truth that have no reliable evidentiary support, such as anti-vaccination positions or claims tobacco does not cause cancer.
Once again we have "claims of truth," eh? And now any opposition to the purported "claims of truth" must themselves be proven. Suppose one simply questions the insufficiency of the "proof" upon which the "claims of truth" purportedly rest, eh, Eric?
Tell me, what exact fossils "exactly resemble" the "PRECISE predictions" of neo-darwinism? That's two questions:
1. What were the precise (not approximate) predictions made by neo-darwinism?
2. How did the fossil EXACTLY resemble those "precise" predictions?
You don't think you have vastly over-stated your claims?
Patterson again: "...after more than another hundred years of assiduous fossil collecting, the picture still has extensive gaps. Evolution (1999) p.106 "Most of the major groups of animals (phyla) appear fully fledged in the early Cambrian rocks, and we know of no fossil forms linking them. Evolution (1999) p.109
Gould: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology ... Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument."
If I state this "trade secret," your response is that "insisting on every gap being filled is mere denialism, putting you in the company of the tobacco industry."
Who's the denialist here? Who insisted that EVERY gap be filled? Probably 999 of out 1000 "links" are missing. You act as though 999 out of 1000 have been found.
With the imputed "links" being so rare (and themselves subject to many gaps) it is precisely that "evidence" which fails to establish some obvious "truth," as you claim it to be.
Patterson: "It seemed obvious to [Darwin] that, if his theory of evolution is correct, fossils ought to provide incontrovertible proof of it, because each stratum should contain links between the species of earlier and later strata, and if sufficient fossils were collected, it would be possible to arrange them in ancestor descendent sequences and so build up a precise picture of the course of evolution. This was not so in Darwin's time, and [is not so] today..."Most of the major groups of animals (phyla) appear fully fledged in the early Cambrian rocks, and we know of no fossil forms linking them. Evolution (1999) p.109
Most major groups appear "fully fledged," eh, with no fossil forms linking them.
Patterson's (early)conclusion: "These gaps might be due to failure in fossilization, or to mistakes in the genealogy, or to wrongly identified fossils; or they could be (and have been) taken to show that the theory of evolution is wrong. Evolution (1978) p.133
Nowhere does he assert that evolution is a "claim of truth." On the contrary:
"Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me... {Evolutionists today plead ignorance of the means of transformation but affirm only the facts, knowing that it's taken place (comparing them to "creationists")...[Gillespie] takes it for granted that a rationalist view of nature has replaced an irrational one and of course, I myself took that view about eighteen months ago. Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."
Patterson is suggesting that the two are equally "irrational," it seems. But he aint no "denialist," ya say, eh? Go figure.
By the way, tobacco does not, strictly speakin, "cause cancer." Many heavy users of tobacco never git cancer. Some non-users git (lung) cancer. Can it be a contributing factor? No doubt, but I would never agree that tobacco use "causes" cancer. Increases the general risk of it, sure, but.....
Of course, you and I have always seemed to have a different sense of what "cause" means, goin way back to our .350 hitter, Pedro, on the 3rd Sundays of the month between the hours of 3:30 and 4:15, ya know? You invariably pay lip service to the notion that correlation does not prove causation, but your claims often seem to be to the contrary.
One Brow said: "Why is it denialists take perfectly good descriptive words like "homophobe" and try to imbue them with meanings you would not impute to, for example, "Francophobe".
Because the founder of the term presented in Freudian terms, as an irrational phobia, as opposed to the more general meaning of "adversion" or "dislike." Now those who created the definition want to accuse others of misinterpreting their meaning and intentions by saying their own definition should be ignored?
"Psychologist and gay activist George Weinberg coined the term homophobia in his 1972 book Society and the Healthy Homosexual...He describes the concept as a medical phobia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
Likewise, "denialism" has Freudian associations with mental irrationality:
"Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead...denial is one of the most controversial defense mechanisms, since it can be easily used to create unfalsifiable theories: anything the subject says or does that appears to disprove the interpreter's theory is explained, not as evidence that the interpreter's theory is wrong, but as the subject's being "in denial".
A commonly-cited example of spurious denial is the psychologist who insists, against all evidence, that his patient is homosexual: any attempt by the patient to disprove the theory (as by pointing out his strong desire for women) is evidence of denial and thus evidence of the underlying theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
Hmmm, that's kinda sayin that the one's accusing others of "denialism" are (or can be) the denialisits, aint it?
One Brow said: Can you identify either prior bacteria as being the same one as the either subsequent bacteria? Or, are both the prior bacteria "parents" to both subsequent bacteria?"
Heh, Eric, you only want to go forward, but who was the "parent" of the resulting synthesis? In what way did that "parent" genetically pass on those traits to it's offspring? Where is the "descent with modification" for those novel traits acquired from the environment?
One Brow said: Even if there were 100 separate origination events, or even more, the best evidence is that life today has ancestry among all 100 (or more) such events."
Oh, I see. Stupid me. Here all this time I thought the concept of the "common ancestry" of all life implied that everything came from one ancestor. You're just sayin that everyone has an ancestor. How insightful!
So, all apes could have had their own idiosyncratic ancestor (an ape) and all human could have had a different one (a human), and you would call that "common ancestry," eh? Common to your kind is all you're sayin, aint it? If chickens come from chickens and goats come from goats, then both types have a "common ancestor," it just aint the same ancestor for each, eh?
My point about all this was two-fold:
1. Common ancestry is a presumption, not a "fact" that can be proven, and
2. It is undercut by any assumption that a form of life can spontanteously arise, ex nihilo.
On the other hand, you have consistently treated the notion of common ancestry as unquestioned truth. That's where we differ, I spect. It could be true, but it don't hafta be, and any conclusion that its indisputably true is based on deduction, not observation. Of course, that deduction basically decides the issue in advance, depending on one's chosen premises, as all logic does.
Does the theory dictate the "facts," or do the facts dictate the theory? Well, I spoze that depends in large part on one's addiction to his own assumption's I spoze. To once again quote Patterson:
"So what about the tree here and the numbers on the branches? ... it is produced by a program. Those numbers don't pop out of the data in any way, so I suppose those come from massaging the data with evolutionary theory. It is a program that assumes evolution to be true and tells the computer to find a tree. So my question will be: What is the tree telling us about? Is it telling us something about nature or something about evolutionary theory?" "Evolutionism and Creationism" November 5, 1981 p.10
Purty good question, aint it?
One Brow said: "When referring to morphology and molecular composition, this is called the Twin-nested heirarchy. Theobald refers to this as Consilience of independent phylogenies."
I looked at this article and thought I would make a few quick comments, not all of which are totally related, but...
To begin with, Theobald defines "common descent" differently than you now do. He says: "According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past." That is also how I always understood the evolutionary claim, too. Whether it is right or wrong, just keep in mind that this is what Theobald means by the phrase.
Now, he goes on to claim such things as: "Nothing in biology prevents these various species from having a hitherto unknown genetic material or a previously unused genetic code—nothing, that is, except for the theory of common descent."
This strikes me as a rather obvious case of the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. For example:
1. If God took a big piss, the ground would be wet.
2. Looky here, the ground is wet!
3. Therefore God just took a big piss.
Needless to say, there are ways in which the ground could get wet other than those posited by one's pet theories. But not for those addicted to their assumptions, of course. To them, their explanation is the only conceivable explanation.
Your claim gives a misleading impression. You say: "when we use methods of identifying new species and placing them in a clade on the basis of one type of evidence (say, morphological), the chance of thembeing placed in that same node by a different sort of evidence (say, amino acid chain) is better than 99%."
I don't read him as sayin that at all. In fact, he says: "When two independently determined trees mismatch by some branches, they are called "incongruent". In general, phylogenetic trees may be very incongruent... In fact, two different trees of 16 organisms that mismatch by as many as 10 branches still match with high statistical significance... The stunning degree of match between even the most incongruent phylogenetic trees found in the biological literature is widely unappreciated."
He is claimin that even the most incongruent trees still "prove" common descent, but he is hardly sayin that there is a 99% chance that different methods of predicting hypothesized ancestors will place new species on the exact same "node."
In fact, he warns that the two different methods (morphology vs molecular) are not comparable when he says: "A common premise of all molecular phylogenetic methods is that genes are transmitted via vertical, lineal inheritance, i.e. from ancestor to descendant. If this premise is violated, gene trees will never recapitulate an organismic phylogeny.... Thus, it is questionable whether molecular methods are applicable, even in principle, to resolving the phylogeny of the early evolution of life near the most recent common ancestor of all living organisms." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html#fig1
So, then, to kinda sum up, and all:
1.Even the most incongruent trees prove common descent, but
2. Since those "trees" are only meaningful with VERTICAL descent, it aint gunna tell ya nuthin to support the claim that "modern living organisms...are the progeny of one single species in the distant past."
The article I cited in the other thread certainly did not conclude that HGT only occurred in the distance past, to single-celled organisms. On the contrary, the claim was: "...: it is becoming increasingly apparent that HGT plays an unexpectedly big role in animals too... HGT has been documented in insects, fish and plants, and a few years ago a piece of snake DNA was found in cows...In fact, by some reckonings, 40 to 50 per cent of the human genome consists of DNA imported horizontally by viruses, some of which has taken on vital biological functions (New Scientist, 27 August 2008, p 38).
In spite me citing this article a long time ago you say: "Maybe you had not heard, but the tree of life is being put to the side..."
Ironic that this whole line of debate started with your claim that "What shows common descent to be correct is the way that, when we use methods of identifying new species and placing them in a clade on the basis of one type of evidence (say, morphological), the chance of thembeing placed in that same node by a different sort of evidence (say, amino acid chain) is better than 99%." As I have said, that claim appears to be misleading, but, either way, it would apply only if there is a true "tree of life" (with one universal common ancestor and strictly vertical inheiritance). If you know the "tree of life" is being cast aside, why do you rely on it in an attempt to butress your repeated assertion that common ancestry is "correct?"
Eric, we have both (me especially, though) spent a lot of time on this thread (what else is new, eh?). Whether noticable to you or not, I had a couple of primary themes I wuz tryin to present. One of those is the religious/political/ideologicalcharacter of "science" in certain contexts.
From Michael Ruse, a rabid anti-creationist and a staunch neo-darwinist, to mild-mannered Carl Woese, to Colin Patterson (the self-admitted dupe), to ultra-conservative Lynch, and others cited, there is a strong current of criticism of, by, and from sypathetic professionals of their peers in this regard. They all criticize the irrationality and "religious" zealotry of their peers with respect to evolutionary theory (metaphysics, Weltgeist).
It is an open secret that evolutionists conspire to discourage their colleagues from any open criticism of evolutionary theory to prevent crazed creationists and ID theorists from using it as "ammuntion." This is sad, and those who are confident in their own objectivity and sensibleness do not act in this way. It disturbs me to see professional scientists acting so subjectively, so dogmatically, and so defensively in connection which their chosen specialty.
It seems that people with an ideological agenda now want to pick "science" as the ulimate arbiter and law-giver in connection with the "truth" of their personal convictions. Whether the issue be religion, global warming, homosexuality, or any other social/political issue or controversy, it seems every hack partisan advocate suddenly sees himself as a scientific genius and asserts (second-hand, with little actual understanding of the subject) that science proves his point. This can only be done by pretentious, self-absorbed, unscrupulous types of ignoramuses, but they are on every street corner and all over every website, it seems. Unfortunately, they are often egged on by professional scientists of the same ilk.
If and when science can ever just be science again, instead of a perceived polemical tool, I will find discussion about science more interesting and stimulating. I leave the idiotic "culture wars" to others who feel the call to duty. To me it is all a stupid waste of time.
Those who desire and adhere to a "party line" strike me as sorry, very sorry. As Freddy Nietzsche done said: "The will to a system is the will to a lack of integrity."
Of course Freddy also done said: "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid."
Once again we have "claims of truth," eh? And now any opposition to the purported "claims of truth" must themselves be proven. Suppose one simply questions the insufficiency of the "proof" upon which the "claims of truth" purportedly rest, eh, Eric?
If you are questioning the truth that ocean mammals descended fromland mammals, yes.
Tell me, what exact fossils "exactly resemble" the "PRECISE predictions" of neo-darwinism? That's two questions:
1. What were the precise (not approximate) predictions made by neo-darwinism??
You want a listing of all of them? They would involve the expectation of finding fossils with certain characteristics, in feature showing certain types of geological histories, such as led tothe discovery of Tiktaalik rosae.
2. How did the fossil EXACTLY resemble those "precise" predictions??
By showing limb bones contructed in certain ways, various muscle atachment points, etc.
You don't think you have vastly over-stated your claims?
Only if you assume by exact and precise that implies some sort of measurment in inches or millimeters, when we can't even be that precise about the offspring of current generations.
Who's the denialist here?
I don't think you're fully in that camp,but you are starting to borrow their tactics.
Who insisted that EVERY gap be filled? Probably 999 of out 1000 "links" are missing. You act as though 999 out of 1000 have been found.
Every time we discover a new "link", two more "gaps" get created, one in each direction. They will never all be filled. Which of trh current gaps do you find so large as to be arguemnts against evolution?
With the imputed "links" being so rare (and themselves subject to many gaps) it is precisely that "evidence" which fails to establish some obvious "truth," as you claim it to be.
Does evidence become stronger when it is used to predict other evidence?
Most major groups appear "fully fledged," eh, with no fossil forms linking them..
The Cambrian era is when life first started acquiring hard parts, making fossilizaiton more likely. Despite that, just about all those major groups now have evidence of precursors in the Edicarian.
Patterson is suggesting that the two are equally "irrational," it seems. But he aint no "denialist," ya say, eh? Go figure.
Continuing to quote Patterson out of context and against his expressed opinions will only send you further down the denialism pathway. He was careful to recognize what wasadn was not established, and to point out that prts fo the Theory of Evolution needed further development, while still affirminhg the ToE as highly reliable and verified, a trustworthy guide to reality. Looking at one part and not the other is not honest nor clever.
By the way, tobacco does not, strictly speakin, "cause cancer." Many heavy users of tobacco never git cancer. Some non-users git (lung) cancer. Can it be a contributing factor? No doubt, but I would never agree that tobacco use "causes" cancer. Increases the general risk of it, sure, but......
This is like saying cold viruses don't cause a fever, jumping off a cliff does not cause death, and the voting public does not cause a President of the US to be elected. Causes can be indirect as well as direct.
Of course, you and I have always seemed to have a different sense of what "cause" means, goin way back to our .350 hitter, Pedro, on the 3rd Sundays of the month between the hours of 3:30 and 4:15, ya know? You invariably pay lip service to the notion that correlation does not prove causation, but your claims often seem to be to the contrary.
Whereas, you seem to overlook that reason you separate correlation from causation is not an assumpiton of chance, but a lack of knowledge of potential linking variables. In the case of tobacco, we know a decent amount about the actual effect of tobacco on cells and how these effects lead tomore frequent cancers. In Pedro's case, we had no knowledge, but the question was, as his manager, do you assume the relationship is valid or not? Managers make similar assumptions about being able to hit against lefties versus righties, for example.
Because the founder of the term presented in Freudian terms, as an irrational phobia, as opposed to the more general meaning of "adversion" or "dislike."
Further down you specifically discount the meaning of the term "denialism" as used by the primary proponentsof the term, in favor of expounding of\n the psycological implucations of a root word, while up here you say the root word is not important compared to the intent of the coiner.
Now those who created the definition want to accuse others of misinterpreting their meaning and intentions by saying their own definition should be ignored?
Did language become a staid, unchanging thing when I was not paying attention? What some guy meant in 1972 is not necessarily reflective of how the word is used or meant today.
Hmmm, that's kinda sayin that the one's accusing others of "denialism" are (or can be) the denialisits, aint it?
It's certainly possible. A mere claim of denialism is not proof of denialism.
Heh, Eric, you only want to go forward, but who was the "parent" of the resulting synthesis?
That was my question to you.
In what way did that "parent" genetically pass on those traits to it's offspring? Where is the "descent with modification" for those novel traits acquired from the environment?
Exactly so. Stop thinking in term of trees.
One Brow said: Even if there were 100 separate origination events, or even more, the best evidence is that life today has ancestry among all 100 (or more) such events."
Oh, I see. Stupid me. Here all this time I thought the concept of the "common ancestry" of all life implied that everything came from one ancestor.
The work of men like Woese showed that wasnot true.
You're just sayin that everyone has an ancestor. How insightful!
Eventually you'll get this. I am saying that everyone has the same set of ancestors, but that this ancestry is in part through mechanisms other than direct descent.
So, all apes could have had their own idiosyncratic ancestor (an ape) and all human could have had a different one (a human), and you would call that "common ancestry," eh? Common to your kind is all you're sayin, aint it? If chickens come from chickens and goats come from goats, then both types have a "common ancestor," it just aint the same ancestor for each, eh?
No, the same set of ancestors.
My point about all this was two-fold:
1. Common ancestry is a presumption, not a "fact" that can be proven, and
2. It is undercut by any assumption that a form of life can spontanteously arise, ex nihilo.
Common descent is a both a fact and a theory. It is a fact in that it iether is or is not true (in this case it is) and a theory in that it incorporates a range of observations, mechanisms, etc., produces conjectures and hypotheses, suggests tests that can verify or disprove it, etc. It is not undercut by life spontaneoulsy arising on separate occasions, because each organism today is descended from all of those separate origins.
On the other hand, you have consistently treated the notion of common ancestry as unquestioned truth. That's where we differ, I spect. It could be true, but it don't hafta be, and any conclusion that its indisputably true is based on deduction, not observation. Of course, that deduction basically decides the issue in advance, depending on one's chosen premises, as all logic does.
It's true to the degree that there is no reasonable dissent based in science. There are no forms of life that show signs of having independent origins, that look they they would be immune to HGT.
Does the theory dictate the "facts," or do the facts dictate the theory.
The facts dictate teh theory and can contradict, while the theory feeds into the seatrch for new facts which can confirm or dispute it.
To begin with, Theobald defines "common descent" differently than you now do. He says: "According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past." That is also how I always understood the evolutionary claim, too. Whether it is right or wrong, just keep in mind that this is what Theobald means by the phrase..
That is what we thought of as common descent for decades, and the idea Woese was trying to change.
Now, he goes on to claim such things as: "Nothing in biology prevents these various species from having a hitherto unknown genetic material or a previously unused genetic code—nothing, that is, except for the theory of common descent."
This strikes me as a rather obvious case of the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. For example:
1. If God took a big piss, the ground would be wet.
2. Looky here, the ground is wet!
3. Therefore God just took a big piss.
Needless to say, there are ways in which the ground could get wet other than those posited by one's pet theories. But not for those addicted to their assumptions, of course. To them, their explanation is the only conceivable explanation.
Well, it might be hard to disprove God taking a piss, but it would be ludicrously easy to disprove common descent.
He is claimin that even the most incongruent trees still "prove" common descent, but he is hardly sayin that there is a 99% chance that different methods of predicting hypothesized ancestors will place new species on the exact same "node."
I was referring to the discovery of new species, but I probably did overstate the percentage. As the link you provide below indicates, the accuracy is probably closer to 80-85%.
In fact, he warns that the two different methods (morphology vs molecular) are not comparable when he says: "A common premise of all molecular phylogenetic methods is that genes are transmitted via vertical, lineal inheritance, i.e. from ancestor to descendant. If this premise is violated, gene trees will never recapitulate an organismic phylogeny.... Thus, it is questionable whether molecular methods are applicable, even in principle, to resolving the phylogeny of the early evolution of life near the most recent common ancestor of all living organisms." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html#fig1
So, then, to kinda sum up, and all:
1.Even the most incongruent trees prove common descent, but
2. Since those "trees" are only meaningful with VERTICAL descent, it aint gunna tell ya nuthin to support the claim that "modern living organisms...are the progeny of one single species in the distant past."
I am not claiming there was a single species.
In spite me citing this article a long time ago you say: "Maybe you had not heard, but the tree of life is being put to the side..."
That was sacasm, but you were still trying to use tree notions to disprove common descent, when you should have known better.
If you know the "tree of life" is being cast aside, why do you rely on it in an attempt to butress your repeated assertion that common ancestry is "correct?"
I don't, and have not been.
Eric, we have both (me especially, though) spent a lot of time on this thread (what else is new, eh?). Whether noticable to you or not, I had a couple of primary themes I wuz tryin to present. One of those is the religious/political/ideologicalcharacter of "science" in certain contexts.
Even the more aggressive atheistic preachers are generally careful o distinguish waht is really science from what they conclude based upon mixing science with judgment.
It is an open secret that evolutionists conspire to discourage their colleagues from any open criticism of evolutionary theory to prevent crazed creationists and ID theorists from using it as "ammuntion." This is sad, and those who are confident in their own objectivity and sensibleness do not act in this way. It disturbs me to see professional scientists acting so subjectively, so dogmatically, and so defensively in connection which their chosen specialty.
Actually, the "conspiracy" is to carefully frameteh arguments to make it as clear as possible that the objections are to the specific, small areas of science to the objecftors are ususally refering to (Woese with Edicarian life, etc.) so that their comments are not quoted more broadly than the objectors intend. I agree it is sad,though probably for different reasons than you, and find that "those who are confident..." are generally those who are careful, as well.
It seems that people with an ideological agenda now want to pick "science" as the ulimate arbiter and law-giver in connection with the "truth" of their personal convictions.
To me, it seems most of them recognize science is not capable of assuming that position. Rather, the concern is that any positions that assume things that science finds incorrect are bound to fail.
In this country alone, in the last five years alone, thousands of people have joined the military and have died in combat.
They really aint but one possible conclusion, then, eh? To wit: Joinin the military causes death.
If ya likes "indiect" causation as an explanation, I gotz one they aint just true sometimes, but always, ya know?
Living (being born) causes dying.
Well, joining the military certainly puts you in the path of death more often, and living is a necessry prerequisite to death. If your point is that the connection is too indirect to make these valid, that's just not true of tobacco/lung cancer.
One Brow said: "To me, it seems most of them recognize science is not capable of assuming that position. Rather, the concern is that any positions that assume things that science finds incorrect are bound to fail."
Well, I don't see it that way at all (for the primary "antagonists," at least). Even in making your assertion, you make reference to what "science finds incorrect." That's where the problem usually comes in.
Science is science, and of course, certain things are obviously incorrect (like, for example, the claim that the earth is only 10,000 years old). That said, metaphsyics is metaphysics and many, including brilliant scientists, often seem incapable of separating the two (in practice, I mean, they can distinguish "in theory," I would assume, but that doesn't mean they implement the distinction in their statements/thinking).
Many who claim that "science" shows x to be incorrect are actually just calling their particular brand of metaphysics/ideology "science."Gay activists who insist that "science" shows that homosexuality is innate, for example. Neo-darwinists who insist that the premises of their theory are known virtually "for certain," for another.
So much talk (on each side, but particularly from the "scientific" faction) is about the evilness of their adversaries, which tells you at jump street that they are engaged in an ideological battle, not science. For you, the very mention of NARTH or Discovery brings out unmitigated contempt and ad hominen attacks, and this is totally irrespective of the merits (or lack thereof) of the points they make in support of their position. I can recall you writing off reputable and respected scientists, such as James Shapiro, immediately as a crazed "ID-er" after reading one sentence of his. This type of thing strikes me as an emotional, knee-jerk, doctrinaire response, and little else.
ID theory is not "crazy." I agree that, strictly speaking, it is not a "scientific" theory. But I have never regarded neo-darwinism as such either, because it builds metaphysical presumptions into it's most fundamental premises.
ID theory offers a metaphysical (as opposed to scientific) alternative to the metaphysics which neo-darwinists insist is science. It also brings forth some very worthwhile critical analysis of the metaphysical dogmatism of neo-darwinism, which the neo-darwinist always seem to want to dismiss as something that could only be considered by a "religious nut."
Why drag one's own brand of metaphysics, dubbed as "science" into it? Just call everyone a homophobe and a religious nut, and be done with it. Trying to pretend that "science" has settled the issue is either ignorant, dishonest, or perhaps both. You have a different metaphysical/ideological view than do those you oppose. That's what the fight is about, not science. Science really only comes into it when (as happens constantly) metaphysics is brought in and called science, which it aint.
"If your point is that the connection is too indirect to make these valid, that's just not true of tobacco/lung cancer."
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Maybe it's merely semantics, but I don't think so. I believe that what is generally considered to be a "cause" (not that anyone really knows what cause is, as David Hume showed centuries ago), is something more direct than "a contributing factor." Given your past useage of the word "cause" I assume you disagree.
I will stand by my claim that cancer has not been shown to "cause" cancer, at least not in the way I (and most people, including scientists) use it.
Tobacco "causes" cancer in about the same way that joining the military "causes" death. As you noted, it can increase the risk of (certain forms of) death, but it does not, per se, "cause" death. Riding in an automobile does not "cause" death by my definition, notwithstanding the fact that many thousands die in car accidents each year.
Let me elaborate a little, eh, Eric? As I've told you before, I use the word "cause," in its proper sense, as follows: If I say "A causes B," then I am sayin "If A, then (necessarily) B," or, put another way, "A implies B."
If a say: "Lighting a match and putting it near enough to gasoline will cause an explosion and/or a fire," that would not be correct, strictly speakin. A match is not enough, there must also be oxygen. But, given that second condition, it would be correct. Under general conditions lighting gasoline will invariably lead directly to a fire. The lit match "causes" the gas fire.
Say a guy had a big night at the blackjack table and then claimed "Counting cards caused me to win big." That would be wrong. If he had said "Counting cards helped me win big" then, fine, I agree. But counting cards is not a sufficient condition for winning at blackjack. On a different night the same guy could perfectly count every card and still lose.
People may resort to the notion of causation more casually on occasion in everyday language, but when you're talkin with supposedly scientific precision, "cause" does not mean: "is correlated with," or "can sometimes lead to."
Science is science, and of course, certain things are obviously incorrect (like, for example, the claim that the earth is only 10,000 years old). That said, metaphsyics is metaphysics and many, including brilliant scientists, often seem incapable of separating the two (in practice, I mean, they can distinguish "in theory," I would assume, but that doesn't mean they implement the distinction in their statements/thinking).
Certainly, some of the more proselytic atheists make it easy to think they are confused about this. However, among the Americans you'll often read that, for example, teachers who say "evolution disproves God" or similar things are going too far. They'll say people who believe in both are self-deceiving, but not support teaching such a position in school, whihc indicates to me that at some level they recognize the difference.
Many who claim that "science" shows x to be incorrect are actually just calling their particular brand of metaphysics/ideology "science."Gay activists who insist that "science" shows that homosexuality is innate, for example.
Activists are not always scientists.
Neo-darwinists who insist that the premises of their theory are known virtually "for certain," for another.
Neo-Darwinism is dead, remember?
So much talk (on each side, but particularly from the "scientific" faction) is about the evilness of their adversaries, which tells you at jump street that they are engaged in an ideological battle, not science. For you, the very mention of NARTH or Discovery brings out unmitigated contempt and ad hominen attacks,
Contempt, perhaps, but no ad hominem attacks. I feel free to comment on the past history of unreliability and denialism these sites exhibit, but that is not an attack on the person.
and this is totally irrespective of the merits (or lack thereof) of the points they make in support of their position. I can recall you writing off reputable and respected scientists, such as James Shapiro, immediately as a crazed "ID-er" after reading one sentence of his. .
Actually, I read a couple of Shapiro's position papers on his "21st Century View of Evolution" before I made my determination. Just becasue you did not link does not mean I did not read them.
ID theory offers a metaphysical (as opposed to scientific) alternative to the metaphysics which neo-darwinists insist is science. It also brings forth some very worthwhile critical analysis of the metaphysical dogmatism of neo-darwinism, which the neo-darwinist always seem to want to dismiss as something that could only be considered by a "religious nut."
Neo-Darwinism is dead, remember? Even when it was alive, the biological version relied on epistomological randomness, specifically of the type where mutations are not controlled by the organsim, not ontological randomness.
I believe that what is generally considered to be a "cause" (not that anyone really knows what cause is, as David Hume showed centuries ago), is something more direct than "a contributing factor." Given your past useage of the word "cause" I assume you disagree..
Tobacco causes chemcial changes in the composition of cells, including to the DNA. The changes make cancers more likely. All of this is fairly well documented. Please present some reference definition of cause that this does not qualify for.
I will stand by my claim that cancer has not been shown to "cause" cancer, at least not in the way I (and most people, including scientists) use it.
I have read doctors who specialize in scientific research who use that exact word.
Let me elaborate a little, eh, Eric? As I've told you before, I use the word "cause," in its proper sense, as follows: If I say "A causes B," then I am sayin "If A, then (necessarily) B," or, put another way, "A implies B."
Can you supply any sort of reference for this usage?
In response to this: "Let me elaborate a little, eh, Eric? As I've told you before, I use the word "cause," in its proper sense, as follows: If I say "A causes B," then I am sayin "If A, then (necessarily) B," or, put another way, "A implies B," One Brow asked this: "Can you supply any sort of reference for this usage?"
I'm surprised that you even ask, eh, Eric? How's this?:
"According to Sowa (2000),[2] up until the twentieth century, three assumptions described by Max Born in 1949 were dominant in the definition of causality:
1. "Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of an entity B of a certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A of another class, where the word entity means any physical object, phenomenon, situation, or event. A is called the cause, B the effect.
2. "Antecedence postulates that the cause must be prior to, or at least simultaneous with, the effect.
3. "Contiguity postulates that cause and effect must be in spatial contact or connected by a chain of intermediate things in contact." (Born, 1949, as cited in Sowa, 2000)...However, according to Sowa (2000), "relativity and quantum mechanics have forced physicists to abandon these assumptions as exact statements of what happens at the most fundamental levels, but they remain valid at the level of human experience."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal
Until certain people wanted to redefine entire concepts to match their preconceptions, this has always been the standard notion of causality, as far as I know. Note that Sowa says that, quantum mechanics notwithstanding, "they remain valid at the level of human experience." Earlier in the wiki article, it says: "Causality denotes a necessary relationship between one event (called cause) and another event (called effect) which is the direct consequence of the first" (citing Random House Unabridged Dictionary). Necessary relationship, see? Direct consequence.
I read where 3 out of 1000 people who smoke at least 1 1/2 packs of cigaretters a day get lung cancer. This is a much higher rate than applies non-smokers. But even so, the chances seem to be 997/1000 that you can smoke 1 1/2 packs a day and not git lung cancer.
What statistical "level of confidence" would that be for the proposition that you can smoke and not contract lung cancer, eh?
Those with a personal/political agenda (such as suing tobacco companies for billions)have tried to reverse common sense, claimin that if two things are correlated 3 out of 1000 times, then the first "causes" the second. Utter hogwash.
One can say that smoking increases the risk of contracting cancer without the hyperbole (and total bastardization of scientific notion of causality). But that's just not good enough for em, eh? They gotta go on head and say, "By God, tobacco CAUSES cancer!"
Orwell woulda been proud, eh?
"Actually, I read a couple of Shapiro's position papers on his "21st Century View of Evolution" before I made my determination. Just becasue you did not link does not mean I did not read them."
Did you read enough about Shapiro to find out that he utterly rejects ID theory, I wonder?
"Neo-Darwinism is dead, remember? Even when it was alive, the biological version relied on epistomological randomness, specifically of the type where mutations are not controlled by the organsim, not ontological randomness."
You can tell yourself that til Kingdom Come, but it still won't be true. Neo-darwinism, as a theory, rejected the ontological possiblity of non-random mutation. This explains why Mayard Smith writes a book called "the Theory of Evolution" in which the "central idea" is that variation is in no way related to the needs of the organism. This has been the neo-darwinist "gospel" from the git-go, and not a mere matter of postulating methodological ignorance.
The theory precludes any suggestion that it could be otherwise, as a fundamental premise. Are a few scientists startin to re-assess this premise? Sure, but it appears they are still a vast minority. They are also heretics with no faith, and should be treated accordingly, ya know?
Magulis said that when she realized she wasn't a darwinist, it was like she had "just confessed to a murder." That's how strong the demand for adherence to orthodoxy has been from the neo-dawwinist camp virtually throughout the last 70 years of the 20th century. In many respects, neo-darwinist is simply a secular religion for many of its adherents.
One Brow said: "Tobacco causes chemcial changes in the composition of cells, including to the DNA. The changes make cancers more likely."
Just as I suspected. Your definition of "cause" is anything that makes something "more likely." So, then, in fact, riding in an automobile "causes death" by your definition, eh? Any loose or remote association is now a "cause," and the concept loses all meaning. Having electrical circuits in your house "causes death," because it increases, however slightly, your chances of dying from smoke inhalation in the event of an electrical fire, and so on. And, needless to say, anything which "causes death" should be illegal. This is utterly sloppy thought and expression, in my book.
I just found out that I caused my great-great grandbaby, Pasty Gangsta, to fail his vocabulary test. I said goodnight to him while he was studyin his vocab list. This broke his concentration, thereby makin it "more likely" that he would fail his test. Well, at least it wasn't his own damn fault, ya know?
One Brow asked this: "Can you supply any sort of reference for this usage?"
I'm surprised that you even ask, eh, Eric?
Let's supply the context for that question:
I will stand by my claim that cancer has not been shown to "cause" cancer, at least not in the way I (and most people, including scientists) use it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal
Until certain people wanted to redefine entire concepts to match their preconceptions, this has always been the standard notion of causality, as far as I know.
If you like. Did you read down the page to the point were is discusses biology and medicine?
Biology and medicine
Austin Bradford Hill built upon the work of Hume and Popper and suggested in his paper "The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?" that the following aspects of an association be considered in attempting to distinguish causal from noncausal associations in the epidemiological situation:
1) strength, 2) consistency, 3) specificity, 4) temporality, 5) biological gradient, 6) plausibility, 7) coherence, 8) experimental evidence, and 9) analogy.
So, in what item on that list do I find If A, then (necessarily) B," or, put another way, "A implies B,"
Or, were you suggesting that the formal models of causality be applied to the real world? Usually you disapprove of assuming the real world reflects models in that fashion. Sorry, but the very article you quote makes it clear many scientists do not use causality exclusively in the way you mean.
I read where 3 out of 1000 people who smoke at least 1 1/2 packs of cigaretters a day get lung cancer. This is a much higher rate than applies non-smokers. But even so, the chances seem to be 997/1000 that you can smoke 1 1/2 packs a day and not git lung cancer.
What statistical "level of confidence" would that be for the proposition that you can smoke and not contract lung cancer, eh?
I would rate that at 100%.
Did you read enough about Shapiro to find out that he utterly rejects ID theory, I wonder?
I did not see that at the time. If so, good for him, and if I misjudged what he was saying, shame on me. I'll try to be more careful in the future. However, I am curious where you picked up this piece of information. For example, in his review of Darwin's Black Box for the National Review, he characterized Behe's position as "premature" and "looking backward", and he rejected irreducible complexity, but I didn't see any rejection of ID.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v48/ai_18667140/pg_2/?tag=content;col1
Is there some other place he rules it out? By the way, any genuinely new "Third Way" yet?
"Neo-Darwinism is dead, remember? Even when it was alive, the biological version relied on epistomological randomness, specifically of the type where mutations are not controlled by the organsim, not ontological randomness."
You can tell yourself that til Kingdom Come, but it still won't be true. Neo-darwinism, as a theory, rejected the ontological possiblity of non-random mutation.
You can claim this until the death of humanity, but it still will not be true.
This explains why Mayard Smith writes a book called "the Theory of Evolution" in which the "central idea" is that variation is in no way related to the needs of the organism. This has been the neo-darwinist "gospel" from the git-go, and not a mere matter of postulating methodological ignorance.
There is nothing in Intelligent Design, per se, that says the designed changes must be related to the needs of the organism. Thus, a statement that the changes are not related to the needs of the organism contradicts neither ontological randomenss nor Intelligent Design.
The theory precludes any suggestion that it could be otherwise, as a fundamental premise. Are a few scientists startin to re-assess this premise? Sure, but it appears they are still a vast minority.
When they can produce research to support otherwise, they'll get results.
They are also heretics with no faith, and should be treated accordingly, ya know?
No, they are farmers who don't tend fields, and then complain when no one buys the weeds that grow.
Magulis said that when she realized she wasn't a darwinist, it was like she had "just confessed to a murder." That's how strong the demand for adherence to orthodoxy has been from the neo-dawwinist camp virtually throughout the last 70 years of the 20th century. In many respects, neo-darwinist is simply a secular religion for many of its adherents.
Yet, today Margulis is a respected scientist given wide acknowledgement for her vision. She tended her field.
And, needless to say, anything which "causes death" should be illegal.
???
This is always a risk/reward situation.
"Austin Bradford Hill built upon the work of Hume and Popper and suggested in his paper "The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?" that the following aspects of an association be considered in attempting to distinguish causal from noncausal associations in the epidemiological situation. Sorry, but the very article you quote makes it clear many scientists do not use causality exclusively in the way you mean."
"Many scientists?" You mean a certain Austin Bradford Hill (who may or may not be a "scientist" for all I know).
In the source which wiki quoted from, Sowa says:
"This definition is a realist view of the laws of nature, which is widely
accepted by practicing scientists and engineers. Aronson, Harre, and Way
(1994) presented a more recent, but essentially compatible view: Laws are invariant relations between properties."
Of course the earlier part of the article cited Born's views about "laws" in causality.
There may be some who try to argue that "casuality" should be redefined to mean "correlation," but that is far from the mainstream view, so far as I know.
"Or, were you suggesting that the formal models of causality be applied to the real world?"
There may or may not be such a thing as a "cause" in the real world, that aint even the point. The question is about what the concept of "cause" entails, its meaning and definition. Without a deterministic conceptualization of causality, the "scientific method" is useless.
"Thus, a statement that the changes are not related to the needs of the organism contradicts neither ontological randomenss nor Intelligent Design."
Of course it doesn't "contradict" ontological randomness-it posits it. That is their doctrine of "random mutation." It doesn't have to contradict any other particular form of metaphsics (such as ID) to be it's own brand of metaphysics.
"When they can produce research to support otherwise, they'll get results."
There have been plenty of observations which support the conclusion that changes in phenotype (both genetic and epi-genetic) are not always "random" with respect the needs of the organism and that environmental pressures can such changes.
As I have repeatedly noted, random mutation is just a portion of the neo-darwinist dogma. Neo-darwinism is often abbreviated as RM (random mutation) plus NS (natural selection). But this leaves implicit a third, and essential, neo-darwinist doctrine: strict genetic determinism.
On it's own, the doctrine of random mutation to the genetic code is rather insignificant. It's significance becomes paramount only when you add in the postulate that ONLY genetic coding can affect phenotype and gratuitiously throw in the Weissmann barrier to boot (that nuthin in the environment can affect the "germ" cells).
"Is there some other place he (Shapiro) rules it (ID) out?"
There are a variety of places where he indicates that he does not subscribe to ID theory (I guess that's what you mean by "ruling it out").
The following video contains a presentation by Robert (not James) Shapiro, pertaining to ID and the origin of life. This Shapiro explicitly claims to be agnostic, and disavows any resort to supernatural causes as being a part of science (which he describes as merely a "method"). He nonetheless believes that the "RNA first" neo-darwinists are way off base, and advocates a view of "metabolism first," implying increasing levels of self-organization.
But, more pertinent to your question, Dembrowski also speaks here, and relates that James Shapiro told him that he (Shapiro) in no way subscribes to ID theory and does not want Dembrowski to represent him as otherwise.
http://www.veritas.org/media/streaming/130/video
I just finished watching that vid. I had never heard Dembrowski speak, and answer questions, at any length before. He strikes me as very thoughtful, articulate, circumspect, and non-dogmatic. He definitely says that ID can not lead to (prove, or even "support") the concept of a personal god as portrayed in revealed religions such as christianity, judaism, etc.
He in no way argues that the nature, form, powers, or intent of the "intelligence" which he thinks is revealed in biology can be known by any methodology for detecting "design" or evidence of intelligent agency.
I seriously doubt that you could give him a fair hearing on that score, though, Eric, because I'm sure you and your homies have long idenified him as a "creationist" and a religious nut, deserving only of scorn, contempt, and ridicule.
"By the way, any genuinely new "Third Way" yet?"
Aint nuthin "genuinely new," and any 3rd (or 4th, or 5th) way which emerges will have been anticipated by scientists at least 100 years prior, no doubt.
But this just proves my position, I figure. There aint no one and onliest Theory of Evolution, and never has been, really, despite the period of near-universal acceptance of neo-darwinism as THE theory of evolution.
An interestin observation about the ramifications of a "third" (4th, 5th) way" for both ID theory and neo-darwinism:
"Other proposals that are neither design-based nor fully Darwinian come from
Stuart Kauffman (self organization and autocatalysis), Brian Goodwin (morphogenesis and developmental constraints), Richard Watson (compositional
evolution), Shapiro (natural genetic engineering), Conway Morris (genotype convergence), and a host of neo-Lamarckian geneticists arguing for
various types of directed mutation (Jablonka and Lamb 1995). This list is far from complete....My point in this section is to show that these non-Darwinian and quasi-Darwinian proposals in fact undermine the viability of ID. Even if orthodox neo-Darwinism collapses, design obviously is not the only alternative. More important, the rivals are more conservative vis a vis the reigning theory. . If any one of them is capable of resolving
the problems posed by complex structures and macroevolution, ID is a more radical solution than is needed. In short, if scientific conservatism is a defensible, normative principle of theory change, it undermines the acceptability
of ID."
http://www6.svsu.edu/~koperski/Two%20Bad%20Ways%20to%20Attack%20Intelligent%20Design%20and%20Two%20Good%20Ones.pdf
Of course those who want to adhere to the falsely dichotomous "either ID theory or neo-darwinism (THE theory)" stance and the over-simplified adversarial approach it generates in the culture wars will want to scoff at the possibility of a "third way," I spoze.
This same author concludes his piece with my sentiments exactly, eh, Eric? To wit:
"Thus we arrive full circle at the culture wars. In my view, the leading proponents of ID often have been too quick to spot enemies and too slow at finding common ground with others. Similarly, to ID critics there can be no honest skeptics of Darwinism, only Creationists who have gone to
extremes to appear dressed and in their right minds.
I doubt that the tone and tactics will change on either side. Too many rhetorical bombs have been dropped. The enemy has already been demonized. Surrounded by sophists, we are left without a Socrates. My appeal is to fair-minded academics, those who believe that logic and truth are more important than persuasion and power: Let us do better."
"Many scientists?" You mean a certain Austin Bradford Hill (who may or may not be a "scientist" for all I know).
In the source which wiki quoted from, Sowa says:
"This definition is a realist view of the laws of nature, which is widely
accepted by practicing scientists and engineers. Aronson, Harre, and Way
(1994) presented a more recent, but essentially compatible view: Laws are invariant relations between properties."
However, do scientists limit their use of "A caases B" to laws? Not from what I have seen.
There may be some who try to argue that "casuality" should be redefined to mean "correlation," but that is far from the mainstream view, so far as I know.
It's so much easier to make your argument when you exlude the middle, I suppose.
When you take group A of x two-pack-a-day-smokers and group B of x non-smokers, saying the smokers are y times more likely to get cancer is mere correlation, and certainly you can be subject to unknown linking variables. However, when you can include group C of x former two-pack-a-day smokers who, the further in their past their smokiing is, the more their cancer incidence resembles B than A, when you demonstrate a sliding scale from B to A, and beyond, when you have a mechanism for cancer generation, just about every step for which has been individually tested and confirmed, then you have much more than mere correlation.
Your argument brings to mind a defense of murder that runs like this, "Lots of peole get shot in the heart and survive. Just because I put a bullet in his heart, and the heart seemedto be perfectly heathly before, that doesn't mean I caused his death. You've got good reason to doubt my guilt."
There may or may not be such a thing as a "cause" in the real world, that aint even the point. The question is about what the concept of "cause" entails, its meaning and definition. Without a deterministic conceptualization of causality, the "scientific method" is useless.
Deterministic conceptualizations do not require A => B for every time A occurs, to say A causes B. For one thing, there can be multiple causes, so that ~(A => B) and ~(C => B), but A&C => B. Then A and C are both causes of B.
In your own video below, the first speaker refers to the "chemical causes of cancer".
"Thus, a statement that the changes are not related to the needs of the organism contradicts neither ontological randomenss nor Intelligent Design."
Of course it doesn't "contradict" ontological randomness-it posits it. .
Wrong. It can not posit ontological randomness and simoultaneously be compatible with Intelligent Design.
It doesn't have to contradict any other particular form of metaphsics (such as ID) to be it's own brand of metaphysics.
Are you saying that ontological randomness is a compatible positon to Intelligent Design? If so, you are using the ID in a manner I have never seen.
There have been plenty of observations which support the conclusion that changes in phenotype (both genetic and epi-genetic) are not always "random" with respect the needs of the organism and that environmental pressures can such changes..
The existence of these mechanisms don't really alter the question of whether said mechanisms arose through ontologically random processes or not.
Why do you keep dragging neo-Darwinism into the discussion, when it is dead?
But, more pertinent to your question, Dembrowski also speaks here, and relates that James Shapiro told him that he (Shapiro) in no way subscribes to ID theory and does not want Dembrowski to represent him as otherwise.
Well, I read Shapiro's review of Darwin's Black Box, so I know he does not subscribe to the notion of IC, but he did not rule outthe general notion of ID. I can't read what he told Dembski in some conversation at some point.
I just finished watching that vid. I had never heard Dembrowski speak, and answer questions, at any length before. He strikes me as very thoughtful, articulate, circumspect, and non-dogmatic. He definitely says that ID can not lead to (prove, or even "support") the concept of a personal god as portrayed in revealed religions such as christianity, judaism, etc.
He in no way argues that the nature, form, powers, or intent of the "intelligence" which he thinks is revealed in biology can be known by any methodology for detecting "design" or evidence of intelligent agency.
I am well aware of that. I'm surprised you are not. ID claims to be able to detect design without having any knowledge of the designers or design process, something branch of science claims to be able to do.
I seriously doubt that you could give him a fair hearing on that score, though, Eric, because I'm sure you and your homies have long idenified him as a "creationist" and a religious nut, deserving only of scorn, contempt, and ridicule.
Well, as long as you are sure it is based on prejudging, as opposed to Dembski's own history of published and posted material, I doubt you can be persuaded otherwise. By the way, Dembski in your video refers to HGT, and the other new mechanisms, as just being part of the same old Darwinian mechanisms. Also, his claim that there has been no attempt to explain the flagellum in evolutionary terms is false.
Aint nuthin "genuinely new," and any 3rd (or 4th, or 5th) way which emerges will have been anticipated by scientists at least 100 years prior, no doubt.
Well, 10-20 years prior, anyhow.
But this just proves my position, I figure. There aint no one and onliest Theory of Evolution, and never has been, really, despite the period of near-universal acceptance of neo-darwinism as THE theory of evolution.
Except acceptence of neo-Darwinism was never universal among scientists. You have posted events that add up to the creation of neo-Darwinims in the 50-60s and the quoted questioning of this paradigm in the early 70s. When is this universality?
The Theory of Evolution had room for neo-darwinism, but was never identical to it.
Of course those who want to adhere to the falsely dichotomous "either ID theory or neo-darwinism (THE theory)" stance and the over-simplified adversarial approach it generates in the culture wars will want to scoff at the possibility of a "third way," I spoze.
I didn't see a third way in your quote, just the standard addition of new methods, new understanding, new ideas to an existing theory, using pretty much teh same ways that have always been used.
In my view, the leading proponents of ID often have been too quick to spot enemies and too slow at finding common ground with others. .
If the leading proponents of ID were genuinely interested in the science, I would agree with this.
aintnuthin said: "Of course it doesn't "contradict" ontological randomness-it posits it. .
One Brow said: "Wrong. It can not posit ontological randomness and simoultaneously be compatible with Intelligent Design."
===
We're talkin past each other here. The original statement you made, to which this particular reply was addressed, was this: "Thus, a statement that the changes are not related to the needs of the organism contradicts neither ontological randomenss nor Intelligent Design."
You, not I, brought in the ID/neodarwinist dichotomy as if it were somehow significant. It aint. Not to my point. Neo-darwinism posits ontological randomness as a metaphysical (meta-scientific, if you wish) program-defining premise. ID does the same with design. I agree they're not compatible. My point in this particular post was to agree with you that neo-darwinism does not CONTRADICT ontological randomness. It fully embraces that proposition.
One Brow said: "I didn't see a third way in your quote, just the standard addition of new methods, new understanding, new ideas to an existing theory, using pretty much teh same ways that have always been used."
Yeah, it has long been apparent to me that you see no difference between one theory and another, because its all just one theory to you, no matter how contradictory the particulars may be.
Hence my posts about Howlin Wolf, etc. I have no clue how you are using the term "theory," other than the way in which you consistently appear to use it.
For you, it seemingly would be senseless to say that Einstein spent the latter years of his life trying to develop a unified field theory. It would seem that, for you, he "developed the theory" the second he said to himself: "Ya know, mebbe it's possible to unify all of these seemingly disparate forces and fields."
Eric, you seem to completely be missing the my point about whether cigarettes cause cancer.
Let me try an analogy. Spoze some guy's Babe takes up with another man and dumps him. As a result, he commits suicide. In his particular case, it may be somewhat meaningful to say: "the broken romance caused his suicide."
But even if it were, that would not entitle one to go absolutely beserk with the fallacy of composition, and claim that (in general) "Broken romance causes suicide."
Again, 997 out of 1000 who smoke 1 1/2 packs a day do NOT git lung cancer. It is absurd to say, as a general proposition, that "cigarettes cause cancer," if you assign any meaningful content to the term "cause."
Mebbe it "caused" (in a loosely defined and imprecise sense) lung cancer in 3 out of 1000, but even that is likely a gross overstatement, based merely on correlation. Quite probably it would be much more accurate to say that cigarettes were a (perhaps major) "contributing factor" (as opposed to strict cause) in some or all of those 3 out of 1000. It would presumably not be a "contributing factor" in those cases where non-smokers develop lung cancer.
To complete the analogy, I would also say that the broken romance was, at most, a contributing factor in the cuckold's suicide. Without doubt, many other relevant factors also played their part is "causing" his suicice.
One Brow said: "I am well aware of that. I'm surprised you are not. ID claims to be able to detect design without having any knowledge of the designers or design process, something branch of science claims to be able to do."
Well, I didnt' say I wasn't aware of it. I have often suggested to you that, on it's face, ID has nuthin to do with "God" in the fundamentalist christian sense. You invariably seem to reject this, though, as you seem to do here:
One Brow said: "If the leading proponents of ID were genuinely interested in the science, I would agree with this."
Who are the "leadin proponents?" Denton? Behe? Dembski? What are they interested in, according to you? Teaching creastionism in schools, that it? If your assessment of a "theory" depends on the motives you impute (no doubt wrongly, in many cases, to boot) to it's adherents, how can you possibily claim that your "responses" are not merely of the ad hominem variety?
Koperski said: "In my view, the leading proponents of ID often have been too quick to spot enemies and too slow at finding common ground with others."
To which One Brow replied: "If the leading proponents of ID were genuinely interested in the science, I would agree with this."
What Koperski is sayin is that the ID theorists have not embraced the religious creationists/religious evolutionists. Again, what is it that they (the leadin ID proponents) are truly interested in, according to you?
The context of Koperski comments:
"Dembski criticizes non-ID proponents of teleology, mainly on theological grounds. Although ID purports to have a "big tent" approach, the tent apparently is not big enough for theistic evolutionists. Mere teleology
is too abstract for Dembski. If design is not empirically detectable, he believes, there is no ID."
While of the topic of Koperski (a philosopher of science, he agrees with Nagel and many others (including me) about one topic we seem to disagree on, eh, Eric? To wit:
"we examine here two bad arguments used against ID ... The second argument comes from the philosophy of science: using questionable--and sometimes repudiated--claims in order to brand ID as a kind of pseudoscience...
That [methodological naturalism] is responsible for rescuing science from supernatural design is
doubtful...The problem has to do with the wielding of MN to define ID as religion. As Judge Jones put it, "ID's failure to meet the ground rules of science is sufficient for the Court to conclude
that it is not science" (2005, 91). Scientists, teachers, and textbook writers therefore need not consider it...
...A crucial assumption in all of this is that once a concept achieves the status of shaping principle it becomes an immutable axiom for all future science. That is a false assumption, if the history of science is any guide....
It is undeniable that shaping principles have been suspended and changed throughout the history of science. Aristotelian principles were replaced by Cartesian ones. Cartesian principles did not survive the Newtonian revolution ... MN is not an
immutable principle either in theory or in fact, and it does not separate science from nonscience."
aintnuthin said: "It would presumably not be a "contributing factor" in those cases where non-smokers develop lung cancer."
It kinda goes without no sayin, of course, but presumably smokin cigarettes would not be a "contributing factor" to the onset of lung cancer in the vast majority of smokers who never experience any such "onset" either, ya know?
One Brow said: "I can't read what he told Dembski in some conversation at some point."
As I said in my original post, Shapiro has disavowed ID theory many times, in many places (the Dembski vid was just one example, as I said), including the Panda's Thumb website, which I assume you are familiar with.
Dear Mr. Evans,
"I felt that Professor Behe’s book has done a better job of explaining existing science than others of its kind. I agree with him that conventional scientific origin-of-life theory is deeply flawed. I disagreed with him about the idea that one needed to invoke intelligent designer or a supernatural cause to find an answer. I do not support intelligent design theories. I believe that better science will provide the needed answers.
Sincerely yours, Robert Shapiro"
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/robert-shapiro.html
Oops, wrong Shapiro there, eh? Well, mebbe if ya would go to the Discovery Institute's website ya would know about Shapiro, eh?
Dembski: "University of Chicago molecular biologist James Shapiro regards Darwinism as almost completely unenlightening for understanding biological systems and prefers an information processing model. Design theorists take this one step further, arguing that information processing presupposes a programmer."
http://www.discovery.org/a/86
Dembski himself distinguishes Shapiro's "informational processing model" from ID.
Likewise, Behe concludes that Shapiro aint exactly "on board," ya know?:
"Shapiro appears to think that irreducibly complex biochemical structures might be explained in a non-Darwinian fashion without invoking intelligence beyond the cells themselves."
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_philosophicalobjectionsresponse.htm
That is all Shapiro meant by "third way:" Explanations that are neither darwinist nor design in premise.
One Brow said: "[Dembski's] claim that there has been no attempt to explain the flagellum in evolutionary terms is false."
Well, I don't recall the exact sentence you're referring to, but I suspect he meant there had been no satisfactory attempts to explain it.
Dennett, who, needless to say, opposes Behe's resort to ID with every ounce of his being, nonetheless says:
"Behe is right that evolutionary biology will be seriously incomplete until detailed accounts can be found of the actual steps that created the various fascinating molecular phenomena he describes. I must say that I myself had certainly not appreciated how difficult these problems were, or how little had been figured out about them, before reading his book, and I daresay I am not alone."
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/behe.htm
And, indeed, it seems Dennett aint alone. In a footnote, Behe summarizes the comments of several prominent evolutionists which echo some of Dennett's sentiments:
In Nature, the University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne stated, "There is no doubt thatthe pathways described by Behe are dauntingly complex, and their evolution will be hard to unravel. [W]e may forever be unable to envisage the firstproto-pathways" (Coyne 1996, 227). In a particularly scathing review in Trendsin Ecology and Evolution, Tom Cavalier-Smith, an evolutionary biologist at the University of British Columbia, nonetheless wrote, "For none of the cases mentioned by Behe is there yet a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the probable steps in the evolution of the observed complexity. The problems haveindeed been sorely neglected - though Behe repeatedly exaggerates this neglectwith such hyperboles as 'an eerie and complete silence' " (Cavalier-Smith 1997,162). The Evolutionary biologist Andrew Pomiankowski, writing in New Scientist,agreed: "Pick up any biochemistry textbook, and you will find perhaps two or three references to evolution. Turn to one of these and you will be lucky to findanything better than 'evolution selects the fittest molecules for their biological function' " (Pomiankowski 1996, 44)."
But we keep hearin the nonsense that evolutionary theory has completely explained all the important questions about evolution, eh?
We're talkin past each other here. The original statement you made, to which this particular reply was addressed, was this: "Thus, a statement that the changes are not related to the needs of the organism contradicts neither ontological randomenss nor Intelligent Design."
You, not I, brought in the ID/neodarwinist dichotomy as if it were somehow significant. It aint. Not to my point. Neo-darwinism posits ontological randomness as a metaphysical (meta-scientific, if you wish) program-defining premise.
No, neo-Darwinsim only posited randomness with respect to the needs of the organism involved, to the degree that this is measurable. Ontological randomness is not something science can ever prove, and that neo-Darwinism ever tried to prove. Further, if A & ~B is possible, then in A => B is not true.
ID does the same with design. I agree they're not compatible. My point in this particular post was to agree with you that neo-darwinism does not CONTRADICT ontological randomness. It fully embraces that proposition.
I would agree that many neo-Darwinists fully embrace(d) ontological randomness for non-scientific reasons, and the neo-Darwinism is completely compatible with ontological randomness. In fact, most of those same people still fully embrace ontological randomness, and ontological randomness is also compatible with the work of Woese, James Shapiro, etc. However, by "posit" I understood you to mean that ontological randomness was a necessary precursor for neo-Darwinism, and this is not true. If I misunderstood, I apologize.
One Brow said: "I didn't see a third way in your quote, just the standard addition of new methods, new understanding, new ideas to an existing theory, using pretty much teh same ways that have always been used."
Yeah, it has long been apparent to me that you see no difference between one theory and another, because its all just one theory to you, no matter how contradictory the particulars may be.
Adding new mechanisms, new knowledge, etc. does not create contradictions. When relativity was replacing Newton's Laws, you could at least point to experiements conducted under the older system and say "these predictions don't match the experimental data". I'm not aware of this happening as neo-Darwinism has been expanded/killed. There were no inappropriate fossils, no biochemical experiments who results were altered, no bacterial cultures that grew differently. The closest thing to this was the inclusion of epigentic influences for a handful of generations, which I don't see as contradictory to population genetics.
I have no clue how you are using the term "theory," other than the way in which you consistently appear to use it.
A theory is a continuing accumlation of facts, mechanisms, predicitons, and experimental results brought together in an explanatory fashion, the explanation having itself generated ideas for new predictions and experimentals results, which it survives without change.
For you, it seemingly would be senseless to say that Einstein spent the latter years of his life trying to develop a unified field theory. It would seem that, for you, he "developed the theory" the second he said to himself: "Ya know, mebbe it's possible to unify all of these seemingly disparate forces and fields."
To my knowledge, Einstein was never able to bring together the elements of the different forces in an explanatory fashion, and thus such explanation never reached the level of generating new predicitons and experiements. Also, it is a category error to refer to theories as "developed", as far as I can tell. I don't know of any scientific theory that has reached a final stage.
Again, 997 out of 1000 who smoke 1 1/2 packs a day do NOT git lung cancer. It is absurd to say, as a general proposition, that "cigarettes cause cancer," if you assign any meaningful content to the term "cause."
I understand your analogy and what you are tryinjg to say. However, you claimed your usage is the same as the usage of scientists. I can offer you many quotes from people who understand the same statistics, and use them as evidence that smoking causes cancer.
Mebbe it "caused" (in a loosely defined and imprecise sense) lung cancer in 3 out of 1000, but even that is likely a gross overstatement, based merely on correlation.
No, it is based on more than correlation.
Who are the "leadin proponents?" Denton? Behe? Dembski? What are they interested in, according to you? Teaching creastionism in schools, that it?
Certainly, any fellow of the Discovery Institute who speaks on the matter would be a leading figure. Denton probably no longer qualifies in that regard. You can add Johnson, Luskin, and Egnor to the list, though.
While many of them would probably like to teach creationism, I would characterize the current goals as the inclusion of pseudo-scientific objections to evolution in an attempt to convince students that the open questions in evolutionary theory are central, as opposed peripheral.
If your assessment of a "theory" depends on the motives you impute (no doubt wrongly, in many cases, to boot) to it's adherents, how can you possibily claim that your "responses" are not merely of the ad hominem variety?
As a hypothetical question, you can't. However, since ID is not a (scientific) theory, and it is not ad hominem to judge the motives of an organization by looking at where it focuses its time and energy, I don't believe this hypothetical applies to me. I have repeatedly mentioned that I think high school philosophy classes are an accpetable place to include ID as a topic, so I'm not sure why you think I am judging ID based on its proponents.
What Koperski is sayin is that the ID theorists have not embraced the religious creationists/religious evolutionists.
By the quote you offered below, I saw no rejection of religious creationists.
Again, what is it that they (the leadin ID proponents) are truly interested in, according to you?
The context of Koperski comments:
"Dembski criticizes non-ID proponents of teleology, mainly on theological grounds. Although ID purports to have a "big tent" approach, the tent apparently is not big enough for theistic evolutionists. Mere teleology
is too abstract for Dembski. If design is not empirically detectable, he believes, there is no ID."
I agree, from the standpoint of ID becoming science.
While of the topic of Koperski (a philosopher of science, he agrees with Nagel and many others (including me) about one topic we seem to disagree on, eh, Eric?
No, I don't think he disagrees with me, actually. Koperski provides examples of when founding priciples were abandoned in order to create a working model, using the examples of D'Alembert/Euler and Bohrs/Einstein. I have consistently maintained IDs primary failure is one of an ability to produce a meaningful test. Koperski also says this is an excellent criticism of ID, in the very same article you quoted from. While he would use the term scientific, and I would not, his article also acknowledges that this term is not well-defined.
One Brow said: "I can't read what he told Dembski in some conversation at some point."
As I said in my original post, Shapiro has disavowed ID theory many times, in many places (the Dembski vid was just one example, as I said), including the Panda's Thumb website, which I assume you are familiar with.
Considering his disavowal in the review of Behe's book was rather tepid, I see no reason to assume any other disavowals were more emphatic. If you care to link to a couple, I'd be much obliged either way.
Dembski himself distinguishes Shapiro's "informational processing model" from ID.
OK.
Likewise, Behe concludes that Shapiro aint exactly "on board," ya know?:
...
That is all Shapiro meant by "third way:" Explanations that are neither darwinist nor design in premise?
Accepting what you say at face value, this would mean that Shaprio is invoking non-design explanations for the appearance of design, which is not that different from Dawkins, it would seem, and is using high-flying rhetoric rather freely.
One Brow said: "[Dembski's] claim that there has been no attempt to explain the flagellum in evolutionary terms is false."
Well, I don't recall the exact sentence you're referring to, but I suspect he meant there had been no satisfactory attempts to explain it.
How would you judge an attempt to be "satisfactory"?
"Behe is right that evolutionary biology will be seriously incomplete until detailed accounts can be found of the actual steps that created the various fascinating molecular phenomena he describes. I must say that I myself had certainly not appreciated how difficult these problems were, or how little had been figured out about them, before reading his book, and I daresay I am not alone."
...
But we keep hearin the nonsense that evolutionary theory has completely explained all the important questions about evolution, eh??
All the important quesitons? Who do you hear that from?
I kinda adhere to methodological designism, eh, Eric?
I don't assert, as an onotological matter, that there is either design or a designer in biological change. I just assume it for methodological purposes to explain the appearance of design and the self-directing nature of much biological change.
This methodology frees me from the burden and pretense of creating and presenting long-winded, hollow, illogical and unpersuasive arguments to deny design and allows me to just focus on the facts, see?
It's pure science, I tellya!
Methodological designism? What are these design methods? The only attempts down that path I have seen so far are argument by analogy (used to identifhy spearheads, pots, etc.) and Dembski's CSI (which has produced no results at all).
When IDers get a functional design method, I will be happy to eat a big plate of steaming crow.
In response to: "But we keep hearin the nonsense that evolutionary theory has completely explained all the important questions about evolution, eh?," One Brow asked: "All the important quesitons? Who do you hear that from?"
Uhh, your own damn self, mebbe?:
One Brow said: "I would characterize the current goals [of the leadin ID proponents] as the inclusion of pseudo-scientific objections to evolution in an attempt to convince students that the open questions in evolutionary theory are central, as opposed peripheral.
The source, means, and direction (if any) of variation is merely "peripheral?" The mechanisms of speciation are "peripheral?" The extent of the validity of the notion of "common ancestry" is "peripheral?" Explanation of organization and complexity at the molecular level is "perpheral?"
Well, there ya have it then...all the central and important questions have been answered and closed, just a few naggin problems at the periphery, eh?
"There were no inappropriate fossils, no biochemical experiments who results were altered, no bacterial cultures that grew differently."
Popper was on the right track to begin with, I figure. There really aint nuthin "inconsistent" with neo-darwinism, supplemented by a multiplicity of ad hoc revisions to explain anomalies.
Some famous evolutionary scientist once said that findin a rabbit fossil in a certain (ancient) strata of rock would "disprove" darwinism. I don't think so! Homey don't play dat.
Just an instance of convergent evolution, see? Or mebbe unusual geological shifts that made the rabbit fossil appear in an inappropriate strata.
I like Ken Miller. He seems to be a very bright, articulate, and likable sort. But I do not believe he is any more "honest" that his ideological opponents, really.
From what I understand, he has gone to great lengths to argue that a certain organism has supposedly "pre-adaptive" structures which could easily have been "co-opted" by bacteria for use in the flagellum, for example. Turns out, from what I hear-tell, that this particular organism is widely believed that to have first appeared millions of years after the flagellum, and that most assume it took it's supposedly "pre-adaptive" feature from the bacteria, in toto, not vice versa.
Likewise, I have seen one of his lectures where he discusses the fused chromosome in humans to explain the difference in number from apes. He repeatedly claims that "evolution" predicted that fusion and, had it not been found, it would have proved evolution to be wrong.
Nonsense. That was one speculative explantion for the difference when it was first observed, but not a strict "prediction" of evolutionary theory by any means. Had it been determined that gene fusion was out of the question, not a neo-darwinist in the world would have announced that, due to the lack of fusion, evolution had suddenly been proved wrong.
One Brow said: "No, I don't think he disagrees with me, actually...he would use the term scientific, and I would not..."
Eric, I have seen this tactic used by you before, as I recall (in conjunction with your alleged "agreement" with some stat guru, when I claimed that he disagreed with you on certain points). The tactic seems to be to equivocate and claim that if person X agrees with you on ANY proposition (that "Hitler was a real bad guy," for example), then he doesn't disagree with you.
Koperski specifically purports to assess 2 good and 2 bad agruments against ID. You note that you and him agree about one of the "good" arguments, and therefore claim that he doesn't disagree with you.
However, this equivocation is quickly exposed. One of his examples of a "bad" argument is the claim that ID is "pseudo-science." This is the one and onliest argument that my post was addressed to. You end by noting that you disagree with him about that point, which is all I said to begin with.
One Brow said: "Also, it is a category error to refer to theories as "developed", as far as I can tell. I don't know of any scientific theory that has reached a final stage."
Once again, Eric, you leave me with little clue as you what you think a "theory" is. Theory can be fully complete and developed from the instant they are promulgated. There is no "category error" involved here.
Is "scientific enterprise, now and into the indefinite future" what you are tryin to call a "theory," that it?
Uhh, your own damn self, mebbe?:
One Brow said: "I would characterize the current goals [of the leadin ID proponents] as the inclusion of pseudo-scientific objections to evolution in an attempt to convince students that the open questions in evolutionary theory are central, as opposed peripheral.
The source, means, and direction (if any) of variation is merely "peripheral?"
We already know a variety of sources and means for variation, the questions are over the importance thereof and relative contribution. This is an important topic, but it is peripheral when compared to topics of high-school biology classes.
The mechanisms of speciation are "peripheral?"
These are questions of type, degree, and frequency as applied to the history of current species, and again not central to the high-school biology curriculum.
The extent of the validity of the notion of "common ancestry" is "peripheral?"
Yes. Woese's net refers to the very beginning of life, by definition that is peripheral. The tree structure is a highly illustrative model life since the Edicarian period. It's not perfect, but no model is perfect, and it is a good introductory picture.
Explanation of organization and complexity at the molecular level is "perpheral?"
The organization and complexity at a molecular level of life is completely beyond the scope of a high-school biology class, most students of which have not even had a basic chemistry class. So yes, I would say the problems of protein folding, etc. are peripheral.
Well, there ya have it then...all the central and important questions have been answered and closed, just a few naggin problems at the periphery, eh?
I agree that all the central, important problems are answered, but there are peripheral, important questions and even a few smaller central problems, it seems to me.
"There were no inappropriate fossils, no biochemical experiments who results were altered, no bacterial cultures that grew differently."
Popper was on the right track to begin with, I figure. There really aint nuthin "inconsistent" with neo-darwinism, supplemented by a multiplicity of ad hoc revisions to explain anomalies.
You keep changing what you mean by neo-Darwinism, which makes this sentence meaningless. Earlier you proposed the strict limitations of population genetics and selection. By that formulation there can be no ad hoc revisions nor addenda, and neo-Darwinism is dead. Now, if you want to change your definition of neo-Darwinsim to something that allows for revisions or addenda, could you be a little more clear what you mean, and how it differs from simply being evolutionary theory.
Some famous evolutionary scientist once said that findin a rabbit fossil in a certain (ancient) strata of rock would "disprove" darwinism. I don't think so! Homey don't play dat.
Just an instance of convergent evolution, see? Or mebbe unusual geological shifts that made the rabbit fossil appear in an inappropriate strata.
Convergent evolution would still require some notion of chordate ancestry to be even vaguely rabbit-like. Geological shifts do happen, but are identified by well-understood criteria, so such a fossil might be in a Cambrian strata, but not in Cambrian rock.
I like Ken Miller. He seems to be a very bright, articulate, and likable sort. But I do not believe he is any more "honest" that his ideological opponents, really.
From what I understand, he has gone to great lengths to argue that a certain organism has supposedly "pre-adaptive" structures which could easily have been "co-opted" by bacteria for use in the flagellum, for example. Turns out, from what I hear-tell, that this particular organism is widely believed that to have first appeared millions of years after the flagellum, and that most assume it took it's supposedly "pre-adaptive" feature from the bacteria, in toto, not vice versa.
If you refer to the Type III secretion system, it was offered as being largely homologous, not ancestral.
Likewise, I have seen one of his lectures where he discusses the fused chromosome in humans to explain the difference in number from apes. He repeatedly claims that "evolution" predicted that fusion and, had it not been found, it would have proved evolution to be wrong.
Nonsense. That was one speculative explantion for the difference when it was first observed, but not a strict "prediction" of evolutionary theory by any means. Had it been determined that gene fusion was out of the question, not a neo-darwinist in the world would have announced that, due to the lack of fusion, evolution had suddenly been proved wrong.
Let's just say it would have overturned the reliability of the fossil evidence and genetic evidence in one fell swoop. Otherwise, if there is no chromosome fusion, then you either have dozens of near-identical, independent chromosome splits various primates branch off from humans, or tens millions of years of completely identical populations of independently arising primates (except for this chromosomal difference), not related at all, not interbreeding, always in competition and neither side taking over for hundreds of thousands of generations, receiving dozens of HGTs at identical sites and even the exact same frame shift in the gene producing vitamin C, which suddenly diverged, each population in one direction only, some six million years ago. I don't think any biologist would have accepted that.
One Brow said: "No, I don't think he disagrees with me, actually...he would use the term scientific, and I would not..."
Eric, I have seen this tactic used by you before, as I recall (in conjunction with your alleged "agreement" with some stat guru, when I claimed that he disagreed with you on certain points). The tactic seems to be to equivocate and claim that if person X agrees with you on ANY proposition (that "Hitler was a real bad guy," for example), then he doesn't disagree with you.
Koperski specifically purports to assess 2 good and 2 bad agruments against ID. You note that you and him agree about one of the "good" arguments, and therefore claim that he doesn't disagree with you.
I also noted that the primary difference, which you even quoted, would be how to apply the term scientific. He says not to use the term pseudoscience because some day there might be real science supporting ID and to label the ideas as scientific if it is plausible they might be science someday, I prefer to reserve the term for actual science.
However, I agree that labeling CSI and some variations of IC as pseudoscience is a bad way to address those to particular arguments when there are many different opinions of what science is. That boils down to a semantic game.
My summary of the four arguments:
1) ID arguments should be validated or discredited based on their own merit, not the motivations of the proposers: I agree, although noting the motivations is important nor for looking at the arguments themselves, but for why people continually promote discredited notions is appropriate.
2) Labeling ID as pseudoscience because it may not follow methodological naturalism is a bad strategy, and leads to the wrong debate.
3) ID does need to be held to account for the lack of results.
4) I probably agree less with the conservatism argument than the previous three, it looks like something a philosopher would care about more than a scientist. However, I agree that revolutionary turns are rare in science.
However, this equivocation is quickly exposed. One of his examples of a "bad" argument is the claim that ID is "pseudo-science." This is the one and onliest argument that my post was addressed to. You end by noting that you disagree with him about that point, which is all I said to begin with.
I acknowledged a semantic difference overlaying a basic agreement.
One Brow said: "Also, it is a category error to refer to theories as "developed", as far as I can tell. I don't know of any scientific theory that has reached a final stage."
Once again, Eric, you leave me with little clue as you what you think a "theory" is. Theory can be fully complete and developed from the instant they are promulgated. There is no "category error" involved here.
A theory is a continuing accumulation of facts, mechanisms, predictions, and experimental results brought together in an explanatory fashion, the explanation having itself generated ideas for new predictions and experimental results, which it survives without radical change.
There is no way that any theory will have had its new predictions and experimental results on records at the time it is first proposed. This process takes decades for any theory of reasonable scope.
You seem to keep using the idea of a theory as the collection of a handful of laws, even to the point of using a verb like "promulgate". But there is more to the Theory of Electromagnetism than Maxwell's equations.
Is "scientific enterprise, now and into the indefinite future" what you are tryin to call a "theory," that it?
All of the future results of this enterprise will be rolled into various theories as incorporated facts.
One Brow said: "This is an important topic, but it is peripheral when compared to topics of high-school biology classes."
You never seem to cease to confuse about what you're talkin about, eh, Eric? You address 3 evolutionary issues AS TAUGHT TO HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. I have no clue where this condition came from. It is your opinion that THE Theory of Evolution consists solely of what is taught to high school students, er sumthin, that it?
What if we confine it to what is taught to pet dogs? Then what?
I disagree with this statement. One Brow said: "A theory is a continuing accumulation of facts, mechanisms, predictions, and experimental results brought together in an explanatory fashion, the explanation having itself generated ideas for new predictions and experimental results, which it survives without radical change."
Let's start with this: One Brow said "There is no way that any theory will have had its new predictions and experimental results on records at the time it is first proposed. This process takes decades for any theory of reasonable scope."
To me the theory, qua theory, is totally and completely independent of any experimental results attempting to disconfirm it--you appear to co-mingle the two. Likewise, subsequent "accumulation of facts" can do nothing to "change" a theory. They can disconfirm it, or be inconsistent with it, but the facts are, again, a totally different set of considerations than the theory itself. The theorist can revise or alter his theory, as time passes, but when that happens it is no longer the same theory.
One Brow said: "You seem to keep using the idea of a theory as the collection of a handful of laws..."
Well, I wouldn't call them laws, but there are basic premises and the implications thereof. Take Einstien's special theory of relativity, for example. One basic premise was that any measurment of the speed of light in a vacuum will be identical from all frames of reference. This implies that either time, distance, or both must change accordingly. Einstein's theory then gave precise formulaes for calculating those changes, among a host of other things. None of these were "tested," per se when he promulgated his theory. Nor would his theory have been "changed" if they had been disconfirmed. His theory would simply be rejected. If it was replaced by a new theory, or if Newton's continued to be accepted, it would no longer be Einstein's theory of special relativity. They would not all be the same theory, even though, generally speakin, they may address the same type of phenonmena.
His theory necessarily implied a host of potential observations (bending of light, precession of mercury, changing mass, etc.) that were at variance from Newton's.
Some of these variances were abolutely fundamental. Newton's theories presupposed absolute space, absolute time, etc., while Einstein rejected such notions. I have seen you argue that this merely "refined" and "added to" Newton's mechanics, but that is a seriously incorrect view of the situation
If a theory does not necessarily imply anything in particular, then, by Popper's standard, it cannot be a scientific theory, as I understand him. If the theories which underly different schools of thought within a particular discipline (say evolutionary theory) would imply different things, then they cannot both be part of the same "Theory of Evolution," as you seem to believe.
There either is, or is not, one theory of evolution which adequately explains all the relevant questions. My position is that no such thing exists. But if you believe otherwise, could you speficfy which theory you believe it to be (Margulis' gaia, theory, for example, if that's the one you think explains it all).
One Brow said: "You keep changing what you mean by neo-Darwinism, which makes this sentence meaningless. Earlier you proposed the strict limitations of population genetics and selection. By that formulation there can be no ad hoc revisions nor addenda, and neo-Darwinism is dead. Now, if you want to change your definition of neo-Darwinsim to something that allows for revisions or addenda, could you be a little more clear what you mean, and how it differs from simply being evolutionary theory."
Although I don't agree that "population genetics and selection" was my strict definition of neo-darwinism, I don't want to change my definition of it. I agree with you that, as postulated and promugated, the premises and the implications thereof are confined to it's original content.
By most accounts (not necessarily including message board posters their ilk in the "accounts" I'm referring to) Neo-darwinism is synonomous with (i.e. also called) the "modern synthetic theory of evolution."
You seem to think this term (modern synthetic) simultaneously refers to anything everything (and therefore nuthin) which might be hypothesized about evolution. We disagree about that.
You seem to think that neo-darwinism can be continuously revised and supplemented and still be neo-darwinism. I don't. My reference to "neo-darwinism, supplemented by a multiplicity of ad hoc revisions to explain anomalies," was merely a reference to what I percieve to be your view of the matter, not the view which I personally adopt.
One Brow said: "We already know a variety of sources and means for variation, the questions are over the importance thereof and relative contribution. This is an important topic, but it is peripheral when compared to topics of high-school biology classes."
I don't claim to know the contents of every high school textbook or of the syllabus of every high school in the country. That said, given that the Maynard Smith's of the evolutionary theorist world have dominated the texts for decades, I think high school students are taught, as the "central idea" (maynard smith's words) of evolutionary theory, that the source of variation is strictly determined by random mutations in accordance with a radical Wiessmannian approach to permissible "variation" and a strictly deterministic model of genetics. This is not "peripheral" to the typical high school curriculum (although that's not in any way how I would determine what questions are "peripheral").
Nor is it "science," any more than design is. Many without any religious faith or motivation whatsoever would like to see this propaganda stopped. If that aint gunna happen, then it's only fair to teach that this is not the ONLY acceptable form of metaphysics, rather than call such postulates "science," or scientific fact.
Kinda a side issue, except for the issue of what a theory is and what, if anything, distinguishes one theory from another.
The mechanics resulting from both the special and general theories of relativity are now being questioned (neither, it is claimed, avoided the problems analyzed by Mach, Berkeley and others, although Einstein tried to do so, and claimed he was inspired by Mach). The proposed alternative, with supposedly superior assumptions, is called relational mechanics:
"Relational Mechanics is a new mechanics that replaces Einstein's theories of relativity. It implements Mach's principle quantitatively based on Weber's relational law and the principle of dynamical equilibrium...those who have taught and learned Newtonian mechanics know the difficulties and subtleties of its basic concepts (inertial frame of reference, fictitious centrifugal force, inertial and gravitational masses, etc.)...Nowadays the majority of physicists accept Einstein's theories as correct. We show this is untenable and present an alternative theory which is much clearer and more reasonable than the previous ones. We know that these are strong statements, but we are sure that anyone with a basic understanding of physics will accept this fact after reading this book with impartiality and without prejudice."
http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/relationalmechanics.htm
As an example of fundamental theoretical problems (problems relating to (THE theory of x"), consider this excerpt from the maverick philosopher's blog: "Some features of a thing are intrinsic to it. The mass of an object, for example, is intrinsic to it. What that means, roughly, is that it is not in virtue of a relation to anything else that a massive thing has its mass."
At the theorectical level, this is a very problematic, uncertain, and debated claim:
"Mach realized that the inertia law required a means to link the inertial behavior of each body with all other matter (the stars) of our universe...the Equation of the Cosmos confirms that the mass of an object is determined by all the other matter in the universe (as it is their Out-waves that form our In-waves, and thus our wave-density and Mass) as required by Mach's Principle."
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Ernst-Mach.htm There are better explications of the theoretical problems involved here than are presented at this site, it was just the first one that popped up on google. Wiki addresses some of the issues here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach's_principle
The interrelationship between inertia, mass, absolute (or non-absolute) space, and other fundamental postulates of mechanics are extremely complex, and, again, disputed.
Some of the flavor of the issues can be seen in this excerpt from a review of the book entitled "Origin of Inertia": "An excellent book and a fascinating thesis. Prof. Ghosh analyzes the difficulties of Newtonian mechanics and proposes a new model based on Inertial Induction. The proposed solution is fully compliant with Mach's Principle (unlike Einstein's Relativity). It shows the far-reaching implications of velocity and acceleration dependent terms in the laws of motion, which could be a solution to the riddles of the expanding universe, the cosmic redshift, and the flat rotation curve of galaxies among others."
http://www.americanpoems.com/Reviews/ItemId/096836893X
Another excerpt which purports to describe the problematic nature of the most fundamental postulations of mechanics and it's attendant primary concepts (mass, inertia, space, etc.):
"Since the days of Galilei, through Newton and onwards today, the subject of inertia has always been viewed in terms of accelerated motion. In doing so, confusion arose, and still arises, whether or not there is an absolute frame of reference, relative to which inertial motions are defined. Newton believed in an absolute space in order to define absolute rotation, Mach used the matter of the distant stars as an according, but yet not absolute frame of reference. De Sitter and Lorentz believed in the Ether and even today, the ZPF-inertia, as proposed by Haisch-Rueda-Puthoff, uses the Quantum Vacuum (ZPF) as a kind of 'absolute', an all-pervasive frame of reference, relative to which objects are accelerated. Not surprisingly, the confusion about Newton's third law escalates once more."
http://www.draaisma.net/physics_cosmology/origin_inertia.html
I have no desire to (or intention of) starting a discussion of theoretical physics. But for the sake of investigating issues involving what a scientific theory is, how one determines whether one theory is distinct from another, and how a theory is "validated," I present a couple more quotes on the mass/intertia/space problems:
1. "...neither the laws of Newton, nor Mach's principle.(1), nor General Relativity can explain the occurrence or non-occurrence of inertial effects in the imaginary experiments described above."
http://www.draaisma.net/physics_cosmology/origin_inertia.html
This theorist says Newton, Mach, and Einstien are all wrong and argues that "energy flow," as opposed to motion, is the concept from which inertial effects can be deduced.
===
2. "Fill a bucket with water, grab it by the handle and whirl it in an arc above your head. If you do it right, you will stay dry. A mysterious force seems to glue the water into the upside down bucket. Scientists are still unsure about where this force comes from...next time you whirl a bucket of water above your head, reflect on the fact that it may be kept aloft by the most insubstantial stuff known to mankind - the quantum vacuum."
http://www.padrak.com/ine/INERTIA.html
Here we see radically different starting assumptions generating what appear to be mutually exclusive explanations for inertia and it's origin.
Eric, would you simply include all of these theories (and any others out there) under one umbrella and say that they are all, collectively, THE theory of inertia, or what?
A few observations:
1. At several points in this thread (and others we have both participated in) you seem to dismiss phenomena which pose serious theoretical problems with the assertion that "we already know of" those phenomena. The underlying premise seems to be that if we "already know" that you can whirl a bucket above your head, then "science" fully understands, and has "explained," the phenomenon. The further assumption seems to be that discovery of facts is tantamount to an explanatory theory--that the theory takes care of itself because the facts "are" the theory, or sumthin.
2. This same equation of facts with theory seems to occur when you claim that experimental research is (or somehow is part of) the theory. It's one thing to have a general research program, such as, "Hey, let's see if we can figure out how evolution works," and quite another to claim that the end has therefore been reached, i.e., "We now have a complete and consistent theory of evolution, because we are investigating it 24/7," doncha think?
"Your really pulling out the crank now. The goal was to find natural explanations to the development of life."
So you say, but anyone familiar with the history and development of darwinsim and neo-darwinism knows better. It's most prominent proponents clearly suggest otherwise, as do all the philosophers and historians of science that I'm familiar with who have analyzed and reported on the theory and it's history.
I'm sure if you choose the "most prominent proponents" to bve a collection of atheists, you'll get ontologically atheistic goals attached.
As quoted by Vallacella, Mayr, for instance, claims: "Selection is not teleological (goal-directed)." Of course, this is because, according to Mayr: "chance rules supreme." (119) This step is where new variation is produced and includes "all the processes leading to the production of a new zygote (including meiosis, gamete formation, and fertilization). . ." (119).
Again, this is an epistomological claim.
Notice the strict genetic determinism here...
It's an older book.
where all possibility of the production of variation stops the instant fertilization occurs (and is strictly chance-driven prior to that). As I have often noted, and as many of the commentators on Vallacella's blog have also, this is strictly a metaphysical superimposition on a so-called "naturalistic" theory made by it's neo-founders, and it has promulgated as gospel ever since.
Which does not make their promulgations part of the science, and which is not shared by other founders/supporters.
One Brow said: "This is an important topic, but it is peripheral when compared to topics of high-school biology classes."
You never seem to cease to confuse about what you're talkin about, eh, Eric? You address 3 evolutionary issues AS TAUGHT TO HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. I have no clue where this condition came from. It is your opinion that THE Theory of Evolution consists solely of what is taught to high school students, er sumthin, that it?
The only context in which I currently care about ID at all is their effort to bypass the scientific process of proving their point of view and get their philosophical positions presented as being science in science classes. That is presicely what I meant by peripheral. It's what I mean by the Theory of Evolution being well-validated.
I disagree with this statement. One Brow said: "A theory is a continuing accumulation of facts, mechanisms, predictions, and experimental results brought together in an explanatory fashion, the explanation having itself generated ideas for new predictions and experimental results, which it survives without radical change."
Let's start with this: One Brow said "There is no way that any theory will have had its new predictions and experimental results on records at the time it is first proposed. This process takes decades for any theory of reasonable scope."
To me the theory, qua theory, is totally and completely independent of any experimental results attempting to disconfirm it--you appear to co-mingle the two.
A disconfirmed theory is an oxymoron. A collection of statements ceases to be a theory when disconfirmed.
Likewise, subsequent "accumulation of facts" can do nothing to "change" a theory. They can disconfirm it, or be inconsistent with it, but the facts are, again, a totally different set of considerations than the theory itself. The theorist can revise or alter his theory, as time passes, but when that happens it is no longer the same theory.
One Brow said: "You seem to keep using the idea of a theory as the collection of a handful of laws..."
Well, I wouldn't call them laws, but there are basic premises and the implications thereof. Take Einstien's special theory of relativity, for example. One basic premise was that any measurment of the speed of light in a vacuum will be identical from all frames of reference. This implies that either time, distance, or both must change accordingly. Einstein's theory then gave precise formulaes for calculating those changes, among a host of other things. None of these were "tested," per se when he promulgated his theory. Nor would his theory have been "changed" if they had been disconfirmed. His theory would simply be rejected. If it was replaced by a new theory, or if Newton's continued to be accepted, it would no longer be Einstein's theory of special relativity. They would not all be the same theory, even though, generally speakin, they may address the same type of phenonmena. .
A theory is not really a theory until is has been confirmed.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/20/T0152000.html
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice:
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
You are trying to combine the notions of (3) into a scientific theory. I completely agree that, in a formal system like mathematics, when you add an axiom or process not already there, you wind up with a completely new theory, ths is part of it being a "systemic view". However, science much more closely follows definition (1). This definition is not restrictive with regard to the adding of new statements or principles.
Einstein's theory of relativity would have remained a hypothesis had it been disconfirmed.
His theory necessarily implied a host of potential observations (bending of light, precession of mercury, changing mass, etc.) that were at variance from Newton's.
Some of these variances were abolutely fundamental. Newton's theories presupposed absolute space, absolute time, etc., while Einstein rejected such notions. I have seen you argue that this merely "refined" and "added to" Newton's mechanics, but that is a seriously incorrect view of the situation.
Because you say so? The equations for special relativity basically add new factors to Newtion's equations to account for the differences applied to speed, one factor of which does account for the changing of observed mass. When what you are doing is adding some corrective facots to an existing equation, you are refining it.
The bending of light and precession of Mercury were not part of Special Relativity. They were a part of General Relativity, which was genuinely new and offered a real mechanism for gravity (which Newton's Law never offered). I agree General Relativity was not a refinment.
If a theory does not necessarily imply anything in particular, then, by Popper's standard, it cannot be a scientific theory, as I understand him. If the theories which underly different schools of thought within a particular discipline (say evolutionary theory) would imply different things, then they cannot both be part of the same "Theory of Evolution," as you seem to believe.
If I was so expansive on the definiton of a theory to include a school of thought, that certainly went too far.
There either is, or is not, one theory of evolution which adequately explains all the relevant questions.
There is no theory in any science that adequately explains all the relevant questions.
My position is that no such thing exists. .
Your position, as stated, leaves science without theories.
One Brow said: "You keep changing what you mean by neo-Darwinism, which makes this sentence meaningless. Earlier you proposed the strict limitations of population genetics and selection. By that formulation there can be no ad hoc revisions nor addenda, and neo-Darwinism is dead. Now, if you want to change your definition of neo-Darwinsim to something that allows for revisions or addenda, could you be a little more clear what you mean, and how it differs from simply being evolutionary theory."
Although I don't agree that "population genetics and selection" was my strict definition of neo-darwinism, I don't want to change my definition of it. I agree with you that, as postulated and promugated, the premises and the implications thereof are confined to it's original content.
By most accounts (not necessarily including message board posters their ilk in the "accounts" I'm referring to) Neo-darwinism is synonomous with (i.e. also called) the "modern synthetic theory of evolution."
You seem to think this term (modern synthetic) simultaneously refers to anything everything (and therefore nuthin) which might be hypothesized about evolution. We disagree about that.
There was a historical event, called the Modern Synthesis, that combined Darwin's natrual selection with population genetics, the result of which we are calling neo-Darwinism (it seems to me). However, just as there was an original synthesis, we can continue to synthesize new mechanism, new principles, etc. into the Theory of Evolution, which continues to gorw and change.
You seem to think that neo-darwinism can be continuously revised and supplemented and still be neo-darwinism. I don't. .
By your definition, I agree.
One Brow said: "We already know a variety of sources and means for variation, the questions are over the importance thereof and relative contribution. This is an important topic, but it is peripheral when compared to topics of high-school biology classes."
I don't claim to know the contents of every high school textbook or of the syllabus of every high school in the country. That said, given that the Maynard Smith's of the evolutionary theorist world have dominated the texts for decades, I think high school students are taught, as the "central idea" (maynard smith's words) of evolutionary theory, that the source of variation is strictly determined by random mutations in accordance with a radical Wiessmannian approach to permissible "variation" and a strictly deterministic model of genetics.
You think so? Perhaps you can quote a few texts penned within the last five years or so that agree? I certainly would not expect quotes from all of them.
By the way, I still have not heard an epistomological reason to call these variations non-random. When all of the experiements conducted show disturbutions that are indistinguishable from being random, and there are no known mechanism for making the distribution non-random, then random is the only epistomological interpretation.
http://www.americanpoems.com/Reviews/ItemId/096836893X.
This link did not work.
Kinda a side issue, except for the issue of what a theory is and what, if anything, distinguishes one theory from another..
Well, it helps to first distingusih the scientist from the crank.
http://www.draaisma.net/physics_cosmology/origin_inertia.html
If the observer instead would be standing on his flat feet, leaning with his back against the front wall of the vehicle's compartment, he would experience his body being pushed against the wall, with a force that is proportional to the vehicle's rate of decreased speed and his body mass (Newton's second law). There is however no physical difference between the cause of either events, so if there was no force accelerating the skating observer, there can be no force pushing the standing one against the wall either. The only conclusion must be that the wall is pushing against the observer's body - there is only one force working! This brings us in an apparent conflict with Newton's third law, saying that two equal forces are working in opposite directions (action = reaction).
Force happens anytime a mass undergoes acceleration. The skater undergoes no acceleration, so so force is applied. The leaning passenger is undergoing acceleration, and so is applying a force and having one applied. One force has energy as it's source, and the other does not, but both forces exist. Newton's laws to not propose a conservation of force, there is no conflict with Newton's laws here.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Ernst-Mach.htm
Given the Wave Structure of Matter in Space it is now possible to explain what mathematics is, how it can exist in the universe, and thus why it is so well suited for describing physical quantities (mathematical physics).
For mathematics to exist physical reality must;
i) Contain discrete / finite quantities (that can thus be counted / numbered).
ii) These discrete things must be necessarily connected to one another (so they interact in a logical manner).
The Wave Structure of Matter confirms this.
Logic comes from the necessary interconnection and behavior of the wave motions of Space, which is determined by the properties of Space (existing as a wave medium).Mathematics is a formal system that we created to describe the universe. It works well at describing the universe because we have used it for this for the last 5000 years or so.
Eric, would you simply include all of these theories (and any others out there) under one umbrella and say that they are all, collectively, THE theory of inertia, or what?
I don't know the precise prediciton of these speculations. If they all three produce the same experimental predictions, then they are all equally compatible with the "Theory of inertia".
A few observations:
1. At several points in this thread (and others we have both participated in) you seem to dismiss phenomena which pose serious theoretical problems with the assertion that "we already know of" those phenomena. The underlying premise seems to be that if we "already know" that you can whirl a bucket above your head, then "science" fully understands, and has "explained," the phenomenon. The further assumption seems to be that discovery of facts is tantamount to an explanatory theory--that the theory takes care of itself because the facts "are" the theory, or sumthin.
I don't know of any scientific field that has run out of "why"s to ask. Science never claims to fully understand. Nor am I aware of any serious theoretical problems with the Theory of Evolution. You keep presenting tiems that show neo-Darwinism untrue, to which I offer a general yawn.
2. This same equation of facts with theory seems to occur when you claim that experimental research is (or somehow is part of) the theory. It's one thing to have a general research program, such as, "Hey, let's see if we can figure out how evolution works," and quite another to claim that the end has therefore been reached, i.e., "We now have a complete and consistent theory of evolution, because we are investigating it 24/7," doncha think?
Who claomed the ToE was complete?
One Brow said: "Nor am I aware of any serious theoretical problems with the Theory of Evolution."
Which begs the entire question, i.e., what is THE theory of evolution in your view? The hypothesis of common descent?
If you are aware of no serious theoretical problems, maybe it's because you pay little or no attention to the proliferation of inconsistent views generated by different evolutionary theorists.
I get the feeling that for you, personally, THE theory is selected from items like a chinese menu. You take one from column A, one from B, one from C, etc., as each is most appealing to your personal tastes. The meal which is then served is, for you, THE dish served by that restaurant.
I'm not sure how you get from "especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena," to your flat assertion that: "A theory is not really a theory until is has been confirmed."
I don't agree with your conclusory assertion at all, and I don't see why you think the dictionary defintion you use supports it. Since it says "especially" ones which are widely accepted, etc., it implies that the definition is not limited to those in particular. If you are tryin to make some semantic hierarchial distinction between "hypotheses," "theories," and "laws," or sumthin OK, but I wasn't tryin to git that refined about it. To me a "hypothesis" is a theory because it is theoretical in it's basic nature, and can make testable predictions even if those predictions have yet to be tested. But if you are using a highly refined sense of the word "theory" we can go with that. Again, the question is what (which) hypotheses, of all those which have been offered over the years on the subject of evolution, is/are THE theory of evolution?
"I don't know the precise prediciton of these speculations. If they all three produce the same experimental predictions, then they are all equally compatible with the "Theory of inertia".
So, then, would you say that geocentricism, heliocentrism, and jupitercentrism are all equally compatible with the "Theory of planetary motion?" If they are "equally compatible" are they all the same theory, despite wildly different initial premises?
One Brow said: "It's an older book."
It's 21st century (2001 edition, accordin to Vallicella). This seems to me to be typical of your way of "defining" THE theory of evolution, i.e that it changes every day, every hour, or every week, depending on if and when some new information is received. If that's the case, I fail to see how you can continue to posit one single "Theory of Evolution." If the new information contradicts a central claim of the pre-existing theory, does that contradiction automatically generate a brand new, widely accepted and thoroughly tested, theory, as you see it?
One Brow said: "You think so? Perhaps you can quote a few texts penned within the last five years or so that agree?"
Well, Eric, why not ask for ones in the last 5 days? Those would be more likely to reflect THE theory of evolution, doncha figure?
How about quotes like this from a 1998 publication by the NAS entitled "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science?":
"...selection can work only on the genetic variation that already is present in any new generation, and genetic variation occurs randomly, not in response to the needs of a population or organism." http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=16
Note the breezy, strictly "a matter of fact," presentation of this claim. Note also that it purports to apply to any and all variation "present in any new generation."
This same publication approvingly cites another NAS publication which states that "Fossils found in rocks of increasing age attest to the interrelated lineage of living things, from the single-celled organisms that lived billions of years ago to Homo sapiens. The most recent fossils closely resemble the organisms alive today, whereas increasingly older fossils are progressively different, providing compelling evidence of change through time."
Note that this was in 1998, long after reputable scientists called attention to the fact that the fossil record essentially amounts to a disconfirmation of "interrelated lineage of living things," e. g.:
1. "Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95)
2. "The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 82
3. "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." (Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360
4. The principle problem is morphological stasis. A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record." (Williamson, Peter G., "Morphological Stasis and Developmental Constraint: Real Problems for Neo-Darwinism," Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p. 214
5. "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." (Woodroff, D.S., Science, vol. 208, 1980, p. 716
6. Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ...The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46)
http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html
A few more, just for good measure, eh? These relate mainly to your recurring claim that we should expect the fossil record to be incomplete:
1. "One of the most surprising negative results of paleontological research in the last century is that such transitional forms seem to be inordinately scarce. In Darwin's time this could perhaps be ascribed with some justification to the incompleteness of the paleontological record and to lack of knowledge, but with the enormous number of fossil species which have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost complete absence of transitional forms." (Brouwer, A., "General Paleontology," [1959], Transl. Kaye R.H., Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh & London, 1967, p. 162-163)
2.There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (Neville, George, T., "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, p. 1-3)
3. "A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic
4. "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." (Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831)
"We have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Paradox of the First Tier: An Agenda for Paleobiology," Paleobiology, 1985, p. 7)
Like, whooda thunk, I ax ya!?
With respect to the education about evolution of high school students, T. Ryan Gregory says:
"I teach an upper-year university course in evolution. In that capacity, I interact predominantly with biology majors who have completed a minimum of two years of undergraduate education in the life sciences. This means that I can expect them to possess at least a working understanding of genetics, cell biology, anatomy, physiology, and ecology by the time they get to my course. I then have almost 30 hours of lecture time to explain the basics of evolutionary theory to them. I like to think that my students leave the course with a reasonable comprehension of evolutionary science, but when we part company at the end of the semester we all know that ours has been an exercise in surface-scratching at best.
In fact, much of my effort is devoted simply to clarifying serious misconceptions about evolution that these educated young adults inevitably bring with them to the class. Each semester, I fully expect many upper-year biology majors to be surprised to learn, among many other examples, that:
Humans are not descended from chimpanzees...Not every feature of an organism represents an adaptation...
My experience in this regard is not unique. In an article published in the scientific journal Evolution in 2002, Brian Alters and Craig Nelson noted that the issue of false preconceptions about evolution is a major barrier to understanding among students."
http://www.scientificblogging.com/dna_and_diversity/should_evolution_be_taught_in_high_school
In the abstract of the article by Alters and Nelson he cites, the claim is that:
"..the state of public understanding of evolution is considered woefully lacking by most researchers and educators. This lack of understanding affects evolution/science literacy, research, and academia in general. Not only does the general public lack an understanding of evolution but so does a considerable proportion of college graduates."
Of course, it is these very "college graduates" (Alters) and biology majors with at least two years of undergraduate education (Gregory) who go on to teach the next generation of high school students, eh?
Gould, after complaining about concessions to creationists in high school texts, go on to complain about a more serious problem: "There is virtually only one chapter on evolution in all high school biology texts, copied and degraded, and then copied and degraded again." He observes that the "one chapter" starts out with an alleged refutation of Lamarck and goes on to claim that "This venerable example rests upon no data at all for the superiority of darwinian explanation....We have no proof that the long neck evolved by natural selection for eating leaves at the tops of acacia trees. We only prefer this explanation because it matches current orthodoxy." http://books.google.com/books?id=pzj90slTTEIC&pg=PA165&lpg
I deem the contents of that last post to be sufficient to explain the apparent omnipresence of the "Sharpshooters" (Jazzfanz member) of the world, ya know?
An article written by a professor of biochemistry and other professors, entitled "Origin of Life & Evolution in Biology Textbooks - A Critique" was published in "The American Biology Teacher."
According to that article: "The books critiqued are limited to 1991 editions of Biology I textbooks adopted by the state of Texas as listed under References. The authors of this article recognize that textbook authors were given a mandate from the Texas State Board of Education to deal with the topics of Origin of Life and Evolution...However, it is believed that these criticisms should be pertinent to textbook evaluations nationwide. Criticisms are limited to chapters dealing with the Origin of Life and Evolution."
Among other conclusions presented by these authors:
1. "When we examine the arguments for biological evolution in the different texts, we find that marked differences exist between them and mainstream medical and biologjcal science texts. The topics of structural homology (six texts), embryology (four texts) and vestigial organs (five texts) are treated with obsolete and erroneous discussions in the high school biology texts."
2.From reading this critique, it should be apparent that the errors, overstatements and omissions that we have noted in these biology texts, all tend to enhance the plausibility of hypotheses that are presented. More importantly, the inclusion of outdated material and erroneous discussions is not trivial. The items noted mislead students and impede their acquisition of critical thinking skills. If we fail to teach students to examine data critically, looking for points both favoring and opposing hypotheses, we are selling our youth short and mortgaging the future of scientific inquiry itself. We concur with the requirement that biology texts examine "alternative scientific evidence and ideas to test, modify, verify or refute scientific theories," but we feel that the Origin of Life and Evolution chapters in most of these Biology I textbooks discussed here fall far short of meeting that requirement."
http://www.arn.org/docs/mills/gm_originoflifeandevolution.htm
One Brow said: "By the way, I still have not heard an epistomological reason to call these variations non-random. When all of the experiements conducted show disturbutions that are indistinguishable from being random, and there are no known mechanism for making the distribution non-random, then random is the only epistomological interpretation."
1. Your reference is to "these variations," whereas as my post was addressed to the source of variation (without limiting the question to a specific range of variation, such as "those which occur on the 3rd Sunday in each new millenium," or sumthin.
2. The literature is rife with examples which suggest that some variation is highly correlated to the needs of the organism with respect to, and are apparently generated by "interaction with," the environment. One such example I recall is of a certain type of insect that has several typical predators, one of which is the dragonfly. If dragonflies are present while the larva is still developing, the larva will be born with a certain color (say green) which makes it more likely to escape detection by dragonflies. If not, it will be born a different color, which provides more natural defense against other common predators.
One Brow said: "When all of the experiements conducted show disturbutions that are indistinguishable from being random...
To begin with, I would interested in knowin how you came to be familiar with "all the experiments conducted," and just what the nature and methods of all experiments were.
But let's leave that to the side. Randon mutation of DNA plays a central explicatory role in prevailing evolutionary theory, because it, and it alone, supposedly provides the "variation" which leads to hundreds of species (genera, phylum, or whatever) disversifying into thousands of species which diversify into millions of species, etc. But, as just noted, the fossil record does not seem to support such a notion, with long-term stasis of phenotype, rather than constant, continuous gradual changes to same, being what is found in the fossil record, and abrupt, rather than transitional, changes being the overwhelming norm.
Earlier we touched upon the significance which Ken Miller placed upon the chromosome fusion in humans. You went on to dictate exactly what the consequences would be if there were no such fusion (which I basically skipped over while noting how heavily laden with presumptions the claim was).
Others have noted that Miller himself conceded that the fusion may have occurred only 10,000 years ago, hundreds of thousands of years after the humanoids and apes supposedly split off from a common ancestor.
At a "molecular biology" website where inquirers can purportedly "ask a scientist," a reader asked a question about the human/ape chromosome difference, it's origin and it's value as evidence for common ancestry.
The first answer, presumably from a "scientist," flatly states that: "The fact that chimpanzees and humans have different numbers of chromosomes immediately causes a reproductive barrier and would be an immediate speciation event."
An "immediate speciation event," eh? How so, if the "speciation event occurred long before? And how, I wonder, would such a rare chromosome split thereafter become, by the process of natural selection, the ONLY type of chromosome structure found in humans?
It easy to make glib, ill-considered assertions, but much more difficult to defend them against rational inquiry and analysis.
Forgot to include website url for above post, eh?:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00679.htm
A second scientist from this site states: "Evidence suggests that humans evolved from a common ancestor of apes and human by the fusion of two pairs of chromosomes that reduced the chromosome number from 48 to 46. How this happened is not known."
Ron Baker, Ph.D.
The clear implication seems to be that humans evolved from a common (with apes) ancestor "by" fusing a chromosome. The (totally unsupported) claim presented is that unstated evidence "suggests" this conclusion. Of course the entire "answer" ends with the confession that: "How this happened is not known."
The third scientist is more circumspect and hardly seems to adhere to the oft-encountered assertion that common ancestry is basically a "known fact." His position seems to be that common ancestry is a "simple explanation" and that it is generally accepted by scientists for that reason alone, in the absence of proof to the contrary (once again taking the prevalent position that my assumptions must be accepted as correct unless and until proven wrong). He says: "Because nobody has ever produced compelling evidence that this explanation is wrong, it is the one that scientists tentatively accept."
One last comment on the foregoing website. It is apparently a government-sponsered one for "K-12 educators," designed in part to provide answers to high school students. It identifies itself as follows: "NEWTON is an electronic community for Science, Math, and Computer Science K-12 Educators.
Argonne National Laboratory, Division of Educational Programs, Harold Myron, Ph.D., Division Director."
It appears that the answer a high school student gets to such questions is highly dependent on the "educator" who responds.
Post a Comment