Tuesday, December 7, 2010

A Maverick Philospher's quest for objective morality

Many theists believe there is an objective morality to be discovered. However, since you can't uncover such a morality in the same way you can lift a stone and find a pill bug, empirical systems are not use for this process. Instead, many rely on various works that they give implicit trust to, except when the advice of such books goes against their innate beliefs. Hence, we see homosexuals barred from military service, but don't see single women non-virgins barred in such a fashion, much less executed for being a single non-virgin.

Some attempt a seemingly more sophisticated approach of creating a morality based upon a few accepted notions and creating a formal system to reflect it. That's when you see people like the Maverick Philosopher examining the details on what their basic positions entail when examined in detail. Below the fold, I'll go into why I think this helps to pinpoint the inherent lack of objectivity in this construction of a moral system.

I'm not really concerned with the particular argument that Dr. Vallicella is making in his post, rather, I want to highlight what happens when he finds his argument is inadequate. In particular, he doesn't like the breadth of the conclusion of the argument, so he proposes a new starting point. That is, in creating this supposedly objective moral position, he changed his starting point to get the conclusion that he felt was the right one.

Now, I have no objections to this activity per se. In fact, this is one of the better advantages of operating strictly within a formal system. If the starting positions lead you to a situation you can't use, changing the starting positions is to be expected. If you are tracking the movements of ships on the surface of the earth, you don't pretend that the surface of the earth matches Euclid's parallel postulate; instead you assume that no lines (aka great circles) are parallel and use a Riemannian geometry. It will have the tools you need to look at ship movements around a globe.

However, the process of choosing these starting positions is strictly based on the conclusions you want to derive. That makes the starting positions arbitrary, and those positions will be carefully chosen so the results conform to the desired outcome. So, far from getting some objective morality that can be applied to all, you get a tailored morality designed to support a specific set of positions. Some of these systems, like natural law, were debated for hundreds of years before they were codified, and even then still generate disagreements around the edges.

When people come up with another method of knowing things that can exhibit certainty, reality, and demonstrability, that method of know may indeed lead to an objective morality. Until that time, there will be no such creature. All the construction within formal systems will not be able alter the shaky foundation upon which they rest.

2,208 comments:

1 – 200 of 2208   Newer›   Newest»
aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "All the construction within formal systems will not be able alter the shaky foundation upon which they rest."

This is a simple point, but it is easily and often forgotten once one has a "ax to grind." That's when he wants to claim he has objective truth.

For me, Eric, all our discussions about "science" (evolution, relativity, cosmology, studies concerning the "causes" of homosexuality, etc, have not really been about advocating one view over another. Almost all of my expenditures in these talks has been designed to get you to REALLY (not just pay lip service to the concept by saying it's obvious and you know) acknowledge that your claim is just as true with respect to scientfic theories as it is to any other kind of "knowledge."

My sense has been that you wish to present the scientific theories you adhere to as "akin to fact," so as to "show the way" to poor fools who have religious faith. You undertake to point out the "objective truth" to them. Or perhaps you do it just to convince yourself, I dunno.

Relativity, evolutionary theory, cosmology, etc. all have the same "shaky foundation," for the same reasons, that you object to with respect to moral values.

One Brow said...

aintnuthin said...
Relativity, evolutionary theory, cosmology, etc. all have the same "shaky foundation," for the same reasons, that you object to with respect to moral values.

You can't prove a theory with science, but you can provide sufficient evidence that it becomes perverse to withhold consent.

You can't provide a solid connection between the model of a formal system and reality, but you can choose inital axioms and a calculus to make it usuable enough that you can rely on it.

You can demonstrate that the source of a belief system is inerrant, but you can choose sources that provide truths you find correspondant.

The foundations of relativity, etc., are completely different, equally shaky foundations compared to moral values.

aintnuthin said...

Since you are paraphrasing Gould, keep in mind that his statement was about the occurence of "evolution" in it's MOST GENERAL sense (not a particular, e.g., modern snythetic, theory).

It would be perverse to deny that homosexuality exists. That doesn't mean it would be perverse to deny the efficacy of any particular theory about how it orginates, what purpose it serves, and, in general, why it exists, whether it is good, bad, or indifferent, morally speaking.

aintnuthin said...

or scientifically speaking, if you prefer (I'm sure you don't prefer it that way, but...)

aintnuthin said...

Take the guy who said this, for example:

"Quantum theory is confirmed by experiments, and so is relativity theory, which prevents us from sending messages faster than light."

He could have, with just as much confidence and accuracy have said: "Quantum theory is confirmed by experiments, and so is lorentzian relativity theory, which allows us to send messages faster than light."


Why didn't he? At least he could have eliminated a "deep mystery" caused by his conflicting theories, ya know?

Probably because he assumes his conclusions in his premises, and thinks that anything "consistent with" SR confirms it's fundamental axioms. Fraid not.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "The foundations of relativity, etc., are completely different, equally shaky foundations compared to moral values."

In what way are they "completely different?" You have no doubt studied some science, Eric, but, like many, probably most, scientists, you seem to have relatively little exposure to the philosophy of science.

Einstein had some very strong, deeply held, convictions about the nature of the cosmos which were strictly philosophical, really. Kinda like moral theory is, ya know?

aintnuthin said...

A couple small excerpts from the wiki page on philosphy of science that I think are worth keeping in mind:

"According to the Duhem-Quine thesis, after Pierre Duhem and W.V. Quine, it is impossible to test a theory in isolation. One must always add auxiliary hypotheses in order to make testable predictions...

"One consequence of the Duhem-Quine thesis is that any theory can be made compatible with any empirical observation by the addition of suitable ad hoc hypotheses. This thesis was accepted by Karl Popper... Confirmation holism, developed by W.V. Quine, states that empirical data are not sufficient to make a judgment between theories. In this view, a theory can always be made to fit with the available empirical data...

"While some scientists may conclude that certain observations confirm a specific hypothesis; skeptical co-workers may yet suspect that something is wrong with the test equipment, for example. Observations when interpreted by a scientist's theories are said to be theory-laden. Observation involves both perception as well as cognition. That is, one does not make an observation passively, but is also actively engaged in distinguishing the phenomenon being observed from surrounding sensory data. Therefore, observations depend on our underlying understanding of the way in which the world functions, and that understanding may influence what is perceived, noticed, or deemed worthy of consideration."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

Know what I'm sayin? Well, what wiki is sayin, I mean.

aintnuthin said...

A little more from Carlip. I'm trying to make a point here, and I may be overdoing it, but I feel I've tried to make the same point many many times with you Eric, without success, so I'm trying to go into a little more detail.

"While current observations do not yet provide a direct model-independent measurement of the speed of gravity, a test within the framework of general relativity can be made by observing the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16."

At leaast he expressly acknowledges measurements or "model dependent."

"But in any field theory, radiation is intimately related to the finite velocity of field propagation....The fact that gravitational damping is measured at all is a strong indication that the propagation speed of gravity is not infinite."

He makes it clear that he is merely talking about "less than infinite (as Newton thought) speeds in a field theory but that could still be many times the speed of light.

"If the calculational framework of general relativity is accepted, the damping can be used to calculate the speed, and the actual measurement confirms that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light to within 1%. (Measurements of at least one other binary pulsar system, PSR B1534+12, confirm this result, although so far with less precision.)"

Here again, he makes it clear that IF you accept GR, then you will get the results GR has been designed to dictate. If not..well, then you will get a different speed. What you assume dictates the results you get. If I assume homosexuality is "wrong," then all my "reasoning" will end up showing that it is "wrong." Go figure, eh?

One Brow said...

aintnuthin said...
It would be perverse to deny that homosexuality exists. That doesn't mean it would be perverse to deny the efficacy of any particular theory about how it orginates, what purpose it serves, and, in general, why it exists, whether it is good, bad, or indifferent, morally speaking.

At this stage in our knowledge, I agree there is no theory of how homosexuality originates or why it exists that is so well-founded that it would be perverse to withhold consent. I don't find any sources that opine on the purpose of homosexuality, or whether it is good, bad, or indefferent, to be particularly correspondent.

"Quantum theory is confirmed by experiments, and so is relativity theory, which prevents us from sending messages faster than light."

He could have, with just as much confidence and accuracy have said: "Quantum theory is confirmed by experiments, and so is lorentzian relativity theory, which allows us to send messages faster than light."


Lorentzian relativity is not compatible with GR, so he could not have said that with the same confidence and accuracy.

In what way are they "completely different?"

Moral systems can be examined by using the methods of formal systems, but their basis is, and will continue to be, in belief systems. Relativity can be examined using the methods of formal systems, but its basis is, and will continue to be, empirical.

Einstein had some very strong, deeply held, convictions about the nature of the cosmos which were strictly philosophical, really. Kinda like moral theory is, ya know?

Everyone does. Was I supposed to believe that every thought of Einstein's was scientific?

Know what I'm sayin? Well, what wiki is sayin, I mean.

I have read all that before, and it has a lot of wisdom. That's one of trhe reasons repeatability is so highly prized in science.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "Lorentzian relativity is not compatible with GR, so he could not have said that with the same confidence and accuracy."

Sure it is, it's just not compatible with the SR axiom (not an inherent part of GR) that nothing can exceed the speed of light.

One Brow said: "Was I supposed to believe that every thought of Einstein's was scientific?"

You miss the point. As I said, he had deep philsophical beliefs about the NATURE OF THE COSMOS. These beliefs greatly influenced the scientific views he took, theories he formulated, and "scientific" arguments he made. QM is just one example. Again, you just can't seem to even begin to fathom the point I'm trying to make.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "Moral systems can be examined by using the methods of formal systems, but their basis is, and will continue to be, in belief systems. Relativity can be examined using the methods of formal systems, but its basis is, and will continue to be, empirical."

You say you read the philsophy of science page, but you seem to ignore it. Scientific theories ARE NOT presented, created by, or dictated by the empirical data. They are the product of a fertile, creative, scientific mind.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "At this stage in our knowledge, I agree there is no theory of how homosexuality originates or why it exists that is so well-founded that it would be perverse to withhold consent. I don't find any sources that opine on the purpose of homosexuality, or whether it is good, bad, or indefferent, to be particularly correspondent."

This statement suggests that you did NOT keep in mind what I suggested you do when I made this comment.. Gould was not talking about any particular THEORY of evolution. He was just talking about the occurrence of evolution, in the sense of "change over time."

One Brow said...

aintnuthin said...
Sure it is, it's just not compatible with the SR axiom (not an inherent part of GR) that nothing can exceed the speed of light.

I believe we agree that the difference between LR and SR is the interpretation, not the equations, correct?

Similarly, you can probably say that the GR field equations, in and of themselves, don't say nothing can exceed the speed of light, just no physical mass (the same as SR and LR).

However, GR (the theory itself) is an extension of SR. Every axiom of SR is an axiom of GR. Every result in SR can be found in the GR field equations from assuming a flat space. Didnm't we have a physicist already agree to that?

Further, if you accept the GR field equaitons, the speed of gravity has been measured as within 1% of c.

So, if you really think gravity exceeds c by ten orders of magnitude or more, you can't even use the GR field equations, much less GR. In particular, Van Flandern had no alternative theory, not even alternative equations.

There's alot of interesting science out there, and a lot of ideas in science that are questionable. Why you have latched on Van Flandern, I'm not sure, but his questions are based on misunderstandings.

Again, you just can't seem to even begin to fathom the point I'm trying to make.

You are trying to make the point that 96% of all physicists have bought into a specific philosophical worldview regarding relativity which has no scientific justification, but apparently they are so sheep-like they don't see the alternatives. When, actual scientists tend to be much more cat-like, and alternatives can rejected because they don't fit, not because of some heirarchy keeping them down.

Scientific theories ARE NOT presented, created by, or dictated by the empirical data. They are the product of a fertile, creative, scientific mind.

Actually, it's that fertile mind working on the basis of the data. If teh data is not held pre-eminant, the theory will almost always fail.

Gould was not talking about any particular THEORY of evolution.

Common descent is a theory, as well as a fact. If you think Gould didn't believe that the theory of common descent was so firmly established that it would be perverse to withhold consent, I really can't help you further. That's just plain delusional.

Of course, perhaps by "particular" you meant "accounts for every single detail with a close percentage". That's more of a formal system notion than a scientific notion, but I agree no such theory exists in science that is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt.

For example, is the Modern Synthesis a blanket term for all the various theories of evolution that include population genetics as affecting inheritance, or the specific claim that all of evolutionary history can be so explained? The first version is so well demonstrated that it would be perverse to claim population geneetics have no effect on inheritance. The seoncd version was never so accepted, and has been soundly rebuffed.

One Brow said...

"If the calculational framework of general relativity is accepted, the damping can be used to calculate the speed, and the actual measurement confirms that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light to within 1%. (Measurements of at least one other binary pulsar system, PSR B1534+12, confirm this result, although so far with less precision.)"

Here again, he makes it clear that IF you accept GR, then you will get the results GR has been designed to dictate. If not..well, then you will get a different speed.

You seem to have missed part of that statement. Carlip referred to accepting "the calculational framework of general relativity", not the GR interpretation of that framework. The calculational framwork refers to the various field equations. I fully acknowledge you can come up with a brand new set of equations based on some speed for gravity g that is ten orders of magnitude (or more) higher than c. The problem will be getting those new equations to match the experimental results. They will not be the GR equations, at any rate.

aintnuthin said...

Boy, where to even start, eh? We've been through this dozens of times.

You say this: "When, actual scientists tend to be much more cat-like, and alternatives can rejected because they don't fit, not because of some heirarchy keeping them down."

ARE YOU trying to claim that LR has been rejected because it "doesn't fit?" Yes, or no?

Virtually everything you say helps demonstrate the point I'm trying to make, but you have no clue what it is and yu think your claims disprove it. I have many comments to make on what you just said, but I'm not gunna try to make them all in one post.

For now, I will just comment on this (which we've also been through many times): You say:


"Common descent is a theory, as well as a fact. If you think Gould didn't believe that the theory of common descent was so firmly established that it would be perverse to withhold consent, I really can't help you further. That's just plain delusional."

To begin with, your very first statement here ONCE AGAIN proves that you can't distinguish between theory and fact DESPITE the fact that Gould was making that very distinction and despite the fact that his statements have been explicitly pointed out to you repeatedly.

As far as common descent goes, many scientists, such as Carl Woese, dispute Darwin's notion of common descent, and Gould probably had his doubts too.

I know, you have idiosyncratically redefined "common descent" so that it would apply to anything that happened.

If, for example, on day 1, God creatd 20 millions different species, ex nihilo, and thereafter each species propagated only its kind, you would, by your definition, say everyhting living creature shared a "common descent." But that aint what Darwin meant (or anybody else who uses the term, that I'm aware of).

aintnuthin said...

"A decade of observation of the pulsar pair PSR B1913+16 detected a decline in its orbital period, which was attributed to a loss in energy by the system. It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters. Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity, and for this they were awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize for Physics, which is the only award ever given by the Nobel committee for the Theory of Relativity.[27] In 2004, Professor Taylor utilized a correction to the derivative of the orbital period to fit subsequent data better to the theory. At most, assumptions can be made and altered to fit the data to the theory, rather than the data confirming the theory."

http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_relativity

Read that last sentence again, and compare it to this one from the wiki page on philosopy of science:

"One consequence of the Duhem-Quine thesis is that any theory can be made compatible with any empirical observation by the addition of suitable ad hoc hypotheses. Confirmation holism, developed by W.V. Quine, states that empirical data are not sufficient to make a judgment between theories. In this view, a theory can always be made to fit with the available empirical data."

Carlip uses the word "measured" in an equivocal fashion. He himself notes no experiments have confirmed any speed of gravity, making it clear that it's all inferences, based upon unproven assumptions. That's not a "measurement" in my book. This article clearly claims, as Carlip suggested, that "It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters."

It is, however, always possible to simply ASSIGN physical values to get the result you seek (i.e. MAKE it consistent with your pet theory): "Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity."

aintnuthin said...

It seems to me that, notwithstanding his ambiguous wording and lack of detail in his explanation, Carlip is merely saying something like "If you assume that a cat you hear in a dark room is black, THEN you will conclude the cat is black."

If you "accept" GR calculations, THEN you will impute unproven and unmeasurable physical values as required to make it comport with GR calculatiions. Well, aint that special, eh?

One Brow said...

aintnuthin said...
ARE YOU trying to claim that LR has been rejected because it "doesn't fit?" Yes, or no?

LR fits the same set of equations that SR does. LR does not fit with SR, and therefore not with GR. It might or might not fit into the GR equations, but the is no LR equivalent for the GR equations.

To begin with, your very first statement here ONCE AGAIN proves that you can't distinguish between theory and fact DESPITE the fact that Gould was making that very distinction and despite the fact that his statements have been explicitly pointed out to you repeatedly.

What I said is completely in line with what Gould said.

As far as common descent goes, many scientists, such as Carl Woese, dispute Darwin's notion of common descent, and Gould probably had his doubts too.

I don't recall saying "Darwin's notion" was firmly established, and Woese's work added to the theory of common descent, as opposed to displacing it, by allowing for a broader notion among certain types of life. It certainly never changed that there was an ancestral population between us and a fish, or a mushroom.

I know, you have idiosyncratically redefined "common descent" so that it would apply to anything that happened.

Not at all. If there were a lifeform that had a separate lineage from us, it would not be in the spectrum of common descent. Such life might come from a different planent, or even be present yet uhknown here on earth.

If, for example, on day 1, God creatd 20 millions different species, ex nihilo, and thereafter each species propagated only its kind, you would, by your definition, say everyhting living creature shared a "common descent."

No, that would not match common descent under any defintion I have used.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_relativity

*guffaw*

You're relying on the take of Conservapedia? Seriously? I actually laughed out loud what I saw that. Next, are you going to tie relativity to 20th century dictatorships? Are you tryng to become a charicature?

Carlip uses the word "measured" in an equivocal fashion. He himself notes no experiments have confirmed any speed of gravity, making it clear that it's all inferences, based upon unproven assumptions.

False dichotomy. Measurements are not experiments, but they can certainly be direct. If you pull out a scale and have me stand on it, is that inference, based on unproven assumptions? It's not an experiement.

If you think there was a real issue with the binary pulsar measurements, at least find a credible source.

One more thing to keep in mind: Carlip opposed recognition of a different experiment that measured g=c, because he thought that experiment was faulty. So, he's is not merely looking to confirm g=c on anything he can find.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "If you think there was a real issue with the binary pulsar measurements, at least find a credible source."

Once again you display you utter partisanship, lack of critical thought, and tendency to avoid the issues. If YOU think there is one single inaccuracy in the quote cited, why don't you find a credible source which disputes it. As usual, you assume your prejudices are tantamount to fact, and take the position that you are unquestionably right unless and until proven wrong to your personal satisfaction (an impossibility, of course).

One Brow said...

aintnuthin said...
Once again you display you utter partisanship, lack of critical thought, and tendency to avoid the issues.

If you are looking for utter partisanship, a lack of critical thought, and a tendency to avoid issues, you can find that in abundance at Conservapedia. There are times I am willing to go into why such sources are unrealiable, but that seems tangential to this debate.

If YOU think there is one single inaccuracy in the quote cited, why don't you find a credible source which disputes it.

Being in Conservapedia, and no other source, is disproof enough. If you find such take in a reputable location, I'll take it seriously. It's not wrong because it's in Conservapedia, but it is no more likely to be right than wrong.

As usual, you assume your prejudices are tantamount to fact,

Conservapedia has built their own reputation. My prejudices (whatever you think they might be) have nothing to do with it.

and take the position that you are unquestionably right unless and until proven wrong to your personal satisfaction (an impossibility, of course).

Please. You have certainly shown me where I was in error before. YOu did it with better evidence, that's all. Stop whining.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "What I said is completely in line with what Gould said."

No, it certainly is NOT:

Gould: "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."

Gould didn't say a word about "common descent" and wouldn't be that stupid. His comments were made in the context of a rant against creationists, but "non-creation" is certainly not synonomous with "common descent...Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred."

Theory is not synonomous with 'mechanisms" to begin with, and, in any event, evolution has nothing to say about biogeneis, per se. That is total speculation.

At one time, Eric, I thought you might come to understand the fundamental difference between theory and fact, and apply that understanding to your thinking and comments.

But we've been through this too many times, and I don't believe you ever will. You will just continue to pretend that it is "delusional" and "perverse" for other to do anything other than unconditionally ratify and accept your personal, unproven, speculations. You are NOT a critical thinker, I'm sorry.

aintnuthin said...

Can't edit, but got the ending part of what I was quoting from Gould mixed in with my comments (3rd paragraph) in my last post.

aintnuthin said...

Edit: My "last post" now seems to have completely disappeared. Perhaps I will recompose it some other time. It was not flattering.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "Conservapedia has built their own reputation. My prejudices (whatever you think they might be) have nothing to do with it."

Rather than robotically chant the mantra you share with your left-wing homies, why not show me just ONE "disreputable" comment in the whole (long) article I quoted?

Anyone they disagree with, from Fox news, NARTH, etc., are all LIARS and known to be lying about whatever they say, I know, but show me where the article is disreputable, rather than merely pompously assert it.

Your (extremely strong) prejudices become apparant very quickly, Eric. You are NOT an analytical, critical thinker. You have a million quick shortcuts which enable you to arrive at the indiputable truth almost immediately.

By the way, Gould said nothing about "common descent," per se. His comments were made in the context of a rant against creationists, but non-creationism does not entail the dogma of common descent and Gould would not be stupid enough to claim otherwise.

Evolution does not even concern itself with speculative notions about biogenesis, as you do, and call "fact." Not just fact, but so obvious that anyone who does not ratify your speculation is perverse and delusional.

Get a clue, Eric. You do NOT know the difference between a theory and a fact, sorry. Calling anyone who can see that "delusional" just shows how self-deluded you are.

aintnuthi said...

We've been through all this before. Even assuming that some "self-organizing" chemical compounds could combine to spontaneously create life, it it strictly speculative and arbitrary to then assest that it could only have happened one time, in one place, on earth, and that all subsequently life descemded from that ONE critter.

If it could happen under the north pole, it could happen under the sougt pole. If it could happen in the equatorial regions of the pacific, it could happen in the equatorial regions of the atlantic. If if could happen once, it could happen twice, or millions of times.

aintnuthin said...

A small excerpt from Gould on the "factualness" of theory and the revelation of "truth:"

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is INFERENCE, however reasonable, NOT the EVIDENCE of fossils."

He did not buy into Darwin's devotion to gradualism, so what did he say about his own "facts?"

"I emphatically do NOT assert the general "truth" of this philsophcy of puntunctual change. Any attempt to support the exclusive validity of such a grandiose notion would border on the nonsensical."

From the online version of his book The Richness of Life, pages 263 and 266, found here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yfXJhKmp1wUC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA264&ots=lcqAoiFbV1&dq=in+any+local+area,+a+species+does+not+arise+gradually#v=onepage&q=in%20any%20local%20area%2C%20a%20species%20does%20not%20arise%20gradually&f=false

There is a lot you could learn from Gould, if you actually read and understood him. Instead, you just impute your own unsupported conclusions to him, encouraged and emboldened, no doubt, by frequently seeing other partisan website cultural warriors do the same.

aintnuthin said...

If you wish to strictly adhere to Pasteur's law of biogenesis (all life comes from pre-existing life), then the only logical conclusions would be that:

1. "Life" existed in the hypothetical cosmic egg that existed prior to the big bang, and

2. The life contained in that cosmic egg itself came from pre-existing life.

If you don't wish to strictly adhere to that law, then the "spontaneous generation" of life from non-life must be hypothesized. The means, and number of occurrences, of such spontaneous generations, are strictly a matter of speculation ("theory," if you prefer). They are hardly matters of "fact," indisputably revealed by empirical data.

aintnuthin said...

For some reason, the comments on this site keep changing in the view I am getting, Eric. A comment I see on one visit is missing in the next, then appears again at a later time (only to have other previously posted comments not being displayed to my view). Not sure why, but if you're getting the same view as me, there is bound to be confusion.

aintnuthin said...

Gould is NOT calling theories facts, he is saying they are entirely different things:

"Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."

"Facts" = data
"Theories" = ideas

Get it? Somehow I know you don't, you never have.


When he talks about the "fact" of gravity he is manifestly NOT talking about curved space, attraction of all matter to all other matter, or ANY OTHER theoretical explanations (same with his "fact" of evolution, of course). He is talking about apples falling and says it would be perverse to deny that apples fall (not to deny that space is curved, or any other "explanatory" attempt)

"In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

It would be perverse to deny the FACT (not theory) that apples fall, even if what we call "facts" cannot be absolutely proven.

Get it? I doubt it.

===

Here are a couple excerpts from Gould's book (online version) touching upon the "factual" basis of evolutionary theory (all EMPHASIS mine):

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is INFERENCE, however reasonable, NOT the EVIDENCE of fossils." (p 263)

Gould does not buy Darwin's addiction to "gradualism." So what does he have to say about the truth of his "philosophy?"


"I emphatically do NOT assert the general "truth" of this philosophy of punctual change. And attempt to support the exclusive validity of such a GRANDIOSE notion would border on the NONSENSICAL." (p 266)

http://books.google.com/books?id=yfXJhKmp1wUC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA264&ots=lcqAoiFbV1&dq=in+any+local+area,+a+species+does+not+arise+gradually#v=onepage&q=in%20any%20local%20area%2C%20a%20species%20does%20not%20arise%20gradually&f=false


You stand to learn a lot from Gould, Eric, if you would actually read and understand what he is saying. I don't think you do that; you just impute whatever views you hold to him to buttress your position. I suspect you have been encourage and emboldened to do this by observing that it is frequently done by other partisan advocates conducting cultural warfare on internet message boards.

aintnuthin said...

Gould is NOT calling theories facts, he is saying they are entirely different things:

"Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."

"Facts" = data
"Theories" = ideas

Get it? Somehow I know you don't, you never have.


When he talks about the "fact" of gravity he is manifestly NOT talking about curved space, attraction of all matter to all other matter, or ANY OTHER theoretical explanations (same with his "fact" of evolution, of course). He is talking about apples falling and says it would be perverse to deny that apples fall (not to deny that space is curved, or any other "explanatory" attempt)

"In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

It would be perverse to deny the FACT (not theory) that apples fall, even if what we call "facts" cannot be absolutely proven.

Get it? I doubt it.

===

Here are a couple excerpts from Gould's book (online version) touching upon the "factual" basis of evolutionary theory (all EMPHASIS mine):

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is INFERENCE, however reasonable, NOT the EVIDENCE of fossils." (p 263)

Gould does not buy Darwin's addiction to "gradualism." So what does he have to say about the truth of his "philosophy?"


"I emphatically do NOT assert the general "truth" of this philosophy of punctual change. And attempt to support the exclusive validity of such a GRANDIOSE notion would border on the NONSENSICAL." (p 266)

http://books.google.com/books?id=yfXJhKmp1wUC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA264&ots=lcqAoiFbV1&dq=in+any+local+area,+a+species+does+not+arise+gradually#v=onepage&q=in%20any%20local%20area%2C%20a%20species%20does%20not%20arise%20gradually&f=false


You stand to learn a lot from Gould, Eric, if you would actually read and understand what he is saying. I don't think you do that; you just impute whatever views you hold to him to buttress your position. I suspect you have been encourage and emboldened to do this by observing that it is frequently done by other partisan advocates conducting cultural warfare on internet message boards.

aintnuthin said...

Gould is NOT calling theories facts, he is saying they are entirely different things:

"Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."

"Facts" = data
"Theories" = ideas

Get it? Somehow I know you don't, you never have.


When he talks about the "fact" of gravity he is manifestly NOT talking about curved space, attraction of all matter to all other matter, or ANY OTHER theoretical explanations (same with his "fact" of evolution, of course). He is talking about apples falling and says it would be perverse to deny that apples fall (not to deny that space is curved, or any other "explanatory" attempt)

"In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

It would be perverse to deny the FACT (not theory) that apples fall, even if what we call "facts" cannot be absolutely proven.

Get it? I doubt it.

===

Here are a couple excerpts from Gould's book (online version) touching upon the "factual" basis of evolutionary theory (all EMPHASIS mine):

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is INFERENCE, however reasonable, NOT the EVIDENCE of fossils." (p 263)

Gould does not buy Darwin's addiction to "gradualism." So what does he have to say about the truth of his "philosophy?"


"I emphatically do NOT assert the general "truth" of this philosophy of punctual change. And attempt to support the exclusive validity of such a GRANDIOSE notion would border on the NONSENSICAL." (p 266)

http://books.google.com/books?id=yfXJhKmp1wUC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA264&ots=lcqAoiFbV1&dq=in+any+local+area,+a+species+does+not+arise+gradually#v=onepage&q=in%20any%20local%20area%2C%20a%20species%20does%20not%20arise%20gradually&f=false


You stand to learn a lot from Gould, Eric, if you would actually read and understand what he is saying. I don't think you do that; you just impute whatever views you hold to him to buttress your position. I suspect you have been encourage and emboldened to do this by observing that it is frequently done by other partisan advocates conducting cultural warfare on internet message boards.

Anonymous said...

Gould is NOT calling theories facts, he is saying they are entirely different things:

"Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."

"Facts" = data
"Theories" = ideas

Get it? Somehow I know you don't, you never have.


When he talks about the "fact" of gravity he is manifestly NOT talking about curved space, attraction of all matter to all other matter, or ANY OTHER theoretical explanations (same with his "fact" of evolution, of course). He is talking about apples falling and says it would be perverse to deny that apples fall (not to deny that space is curved, or any other "explanatory" attempt)

"In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

It would be perverse to deny the FACT (not theory) that apples fall, even if what we call "facts" cannot be absolutely proven.

Get it? I doubt it.

===

Here are a couple excerpts from Gould's book (online version) touching upon the "factual" basis of evolutionary theory (all EMPHASIS mine):

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is INFERENCE, however reasonable, NOT the EVIDENCE of fossils." (p 263)

Gould does not buy Darwin's addiction to "gradualism." So what does he have to say about the truth of his "philosophy?"


"I emphatically do NOT assert the general "truth" of this philosophy of punctual change. And attempt to support the exclusive validity of such a GRANDIOSE notion would border on the NONSENSICAL." (p 266)

http://books.google.com/books?id=yfXJhKmp1wUC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA264&ots=lcqAoiFbV1&dq=in+any+local+area,+a+species+does+not+arise+gradually#v=onepage&q=in%20any%20local%20area%2C%20a%20species%20does%20not%20arise%20gradually&f=false


You stand to learn a lot from Gould, Eric, if you would actually read and understand what he is saying. I don't think you do that; you just impute whatever views you hold to him to buttress your position. I suspect you have been encourage and emboldened to do this by observing that it is frequently done by other partisan advocates conducting cultural warfare on internet message boards.

aintnuthin said...

Gould is NOT calling theories facts, he is saying they are entirely different things:

"Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."

"Facts" = data
"Theories" = ideas

Get it? Somehow I know you don't, you never have.


When he talks about the "fact" of gravity he is manifestly NOT talking about curved space, attraction of all matter to all other matter, or ANY OTHER theoretical explanations (same with his "fact" of evolution, of course). He is talking about apples falling and says it would be perverse to deny that apples fall (not to deny that space is curved, or any other "explanatory" attempt)

"In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

It would be perverse to deny the FACT (not theory) that apples fall, even if what we call "facts" cannot be absolutely proven.

Get it? I doubt it.

aintnuthin said...

Here are a couple excerpts from one of Gould's books (online version) touching upon the "factual" basis of evolutionary theory (all EMPHASIS mine):

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is INFERENCE, however reasonable, NOT the EVIDENCE of fossils." (p 263)

Gould does not buy Darwin's addiction to "gradualism." So what does he have to say about the truth of his "philosophy?"

"I emphatically do NOT assert the general "truth" of this philosophy of punctual change. And attempt to support the exclusive validity of such a GRANDIOSE notion would border on the NONSENSICAL." (p 266)

http://books.google.com/books?id=yfXJhKmp1wUC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA264&ots=lcqAoiFbV1&dq=in+any+local+area,+a+species+does+not+arise+gradually#v=onepage&q=in%20any%20local%20area%2C%20a%20species%20does%20not%20arise%20gradually&f=false


You stand to learn a lot from Gould, Eric, if you would actually read and understand what he is saying. I don't think you do that; you just impute whatever views you hold to him to buttress your position. I suspect you have been encourage and emboldened to do this by observing that it is frequently done by other partisan advocates conducting cultural warfare on internet message boards.

aintnuthin said...

More from Gould:

"...the criteria for acceptance of a story are so loose that many pass without proper confirmation. Often, evolutionists use consistency with natural selection as the sole criterion and consider their work done when they concoct a plausible story. But plausible stories can always be told."

http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/wescourses/2004s/ees227/01/spandrels.html


"Loose standards" for "confirmation?" Like, whooda thunk, I ax ya?

A "plausable story" (which can always be constructed) which has been specifically constructed to be "consistent with" your pet theory aint good enough? Who knew?

One Brow said...

First of all, if you comment disappears, give me acouple of days to retrieve it from the spam filter, OK?

Gould didn't say a word about "common descent" and wouldn't be that stupid.

Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor?

Not a word, eh?

Rather than robotically chant the mantra you share with your left-wing homies, why not show me just ONE "disreputable" comment in the whole (long) article I quoted?

To what purpose? If I can show you one, will you agree not to use them as a source? Two? Three? Or, will you continue to go back to them in your quest for trying to show that someone, somewhere thinks relativity is not well-confirmed, or whatever position you are arguing for that you don't really hold, but whose opposite you think I hold too firmly? My experience is that I can easily find acouple of errors, and some other things that are hard to verify either way. You'll just say the easily disproved errors don't undermine the trust we should place in the other facts. Why should I play that game? I'm getting tired of it.

You can always find sources tht will hold toa position you want supported. Critical thinking means looking at the motives of the source. Carlip is willing to denounce experiements whose authors claim to have supported his position that g=c, because he doesn't want to use faulty evidence. Schlafly (Conservapedia's founder) scrubs his site of all opinions that dissent from his own. Maintaining an open mind does not mean accepting all sources as being equal without discrimination.

One Brow said...

Anyone they disagree with, from Fox news, NARTH, etc., are all LIARS and known to be lying about whatever they say, I know, but show me where the article is disreputable, rather than merely pompously assert it.

Can you even find a left-wing equivlent of Conservapedia? Do you think I'll take everything it says without question?

I don't remember all the details we've discussed about Fox News,,NARTH, etc. I'm sure many people in eachs arenot lying (I don't think Schlafly in necessarily lying, either), but are firmly committed to a particular point of view in a way that skews their perception. Sure, "lying for Jesus" does occur, but so does relying on poorly sourced information, rumor, assumptions, etc. in an effort to support the position you hold deeply. I do fall prey to that as well, but less often than you think I do, and I acknowledge it when you call me on it.

You have a million quick shortcuts which enable you to arrive at the indiputable truth almost immediately.

You can't function without them. When I'm looking for my keys, I make the quick shortcut that a burglar did not break into my house to steal just them and nothing else. When someone brings in a quote from Conservapedia, I recall how many aticles I have read there that are inaccurate or misleading, and assumethe information is unreliable (not necessarily wrong, but no more likely right than wrong). I notice your not actually claiming the article is accurate, you're just saying that I need to prove otherwise. Again, that game is rapidly losing its appeal. If you want to think of Conservapedia as a reliable source, go ahead. I don't care enough to stop you.

Evolution does not even concern itself with speculative notions about biogenesis, as you do, and call "fact."

To what notions of biogensis are you referring? If you mean common descent, it is certainly called a fact, but it is not usually called biogenesis, as it applies to life comeing from life.

... it it strictly speculative ... all subsequently life descemded from that ONE critter.

I agree. Let's say it happened a million times, if you like. All of those million times are still part of the ancestry of every living thing on earth(unless they died out).

Gould does not buy Darwin's addiction to "gradualism." So what does he have to say about the truth of his "philosophy?"


"I emphatically do NOT assert the general "truth" of this philosophy of punctual change. And attempt to support the exclusive validity of such a GRANDIOSE notion would border on the NONSENSICAL. Gradualism sometimes works well." (p 266)


I added the final part of the quote you left out. Gould doesn't say the theory of punctuated equilibrium is generally true, because based on the evidence, sometimes an alternate explanaation is obviously preferrable. He is not saying his theory is not generally true because theories have a nature where they can never be held to being true.

One Brow said...

For some reason, the comments on this site keep changing in the view I am getting, Eric. A comment I see on one visit is missing in the next, then appears again at a later time (only to have other previously posted comments not being displayed to my view). Not sure why, but if you're getting the same view as me, there is bound to be confusion.

The spam filter seems to be absorbing comments at random. I'll try to clean i out every day. Remind me if I forget.

One Brow said...

Saving the best for last.

Gould is NOT calling theories facts, he is saying they are entirely different things:

"Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."

"Facts" = data
"Theories" = ideas

Get it? Somehow I know you don't, you never have.


Unfortunately for out ability to discuss this productively, you never seem to get past this as our area of disagreement, while I think we disagree in a different, if equally fundamental, way that causes us to misinterpret each other.

I think we both agree with the following notions:

1) Facts are the observational data of the world.
2) Theories as ideas that explain facts in various ways.
3) Facts can be confirmed to a degree that it is perverse to withhold consent.
4) Facts, and associated subfacts, are independent. Showing one fact,or one part of a fact, inaccurate does not change the truth of a fact.

Our disagreement:
4 aintnuthin) Theories, by their nature as being constructed of ideas, can never be so well confirmed that it is perverse to withhold consent. Anytime someone says that something is so well confirmed, they are saying it is a fact, whether they reaqlize it or not.
5 aintnuthin) Theories are either accepted in total or rejected in total. If you can show a process that is not consistent with a theory, the theory must be considered refuted.

4 One Brow) Theories can be so well-confirmed that it is perverse to withhold consent. They are still a different type of knowledge than fact, but the difference does not mean they are unable to attain certainty.
5 One Brow) Theories are heirarchical in nature, which allows for a core theory to be well-confirmed even when there no detailed theory that acts as a universal explanation. For example, endosymbiosis refuted the position that the modern synthesis was a universal explanation, but instead of disproving the modern synthesis itself, it was rolled into the heirarchy as another process. The modern synthesis is still as reliable as ever, and any future theory would have to explain why life behaves according its tenets.

If we can't even agree that these are the differences between us, then I despair that i will continue to see you post to me that theories aren't facts, and I just don't get it, except sometimes I do, and why do I change my mind so much?

aintnuthin said...

I don't know what you are trying to say here.

"4) Facts, and associated subfacts, are independent. Showing one fact,or one part of a fact, inaccurate does not change the truth of a fact."

It doesn't make sense to me. Can you give me an example of what you have in mind?

One Brow said: "4 One Brow) Theories can be so well-confirmed that it is perverse to withhold consent. They are still a different type of knowledge than fact, but the difference does not mean they are unable to attain certainty."

Now it depends on what you call a "theory." If you call it a "theory" that an apple just fell from that tree, OK. But, otherwise, yes, we disagree. It is naive to think that any full-blown scientific theory can be "certain." To even think this is possible demonstrates that one is not cognizant of the type of "knowledge" scientific theories consist of.

If by "common descent" you (or Gould) simply mean that we all have ancestors, then, sure, no one would dispute it. But again, this is not the meaning of the term in traditional evolutionist useage.

That seems to be all you mean, because you say: "Let's say it happened a million times, if you like. All of those million times are still part of the ancestry of every living thing on earth."

If millions of spontaneously created ancestors account for all living things, then we all have "descent." What we do NOT have is COMMON descent.

If Gould is merely sayin that humans have ancestors, and that modern humans have changed, with ancestors fine.

But he is simply contradicting himself if he thinks this question proves a "fact": "Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor?"

It's like asking: "Why should an apple fall to the ground unless all matter is attracted to all other matter?"

Or asking: Why should an apple fall to the ground if it is not seeking it's natural place in the universe?"

He is not that stupid, although he may not have had qualms about acting that stupid, I don't know.

aintnuthin said...

I think it goes without saying that I was not referring to subjective "certainty," when it comes to theories. Anyone can, of course, be absolutely certain (to his own satisfaction) that his pet beliefs are true. Just look at any creationist fundie if you don't believe that.

Likewise, Gould accuses Dawkins and his type of being evolutionary "fundies," and says Darwin has achieved the status of "sainthood," if not "diety," among most evolutionists.

aintnuthin said...

"4 One Brow) Theories can be so well-confirmed that it is perverse to withhold consent. They are still a different type of knowledge than fact, but the difference does not mean they are unable to attain certainty."

I've already said it, but perhaps not with enough emphasis.

Yes, we absolutely disagree about this, and it is precisely because you make such an assertion that I say you seem to have little familiarity with the philosophy of science (at least not that you implement in practice) and that you are not a critical thinker.

Gould was making a distinction between theory and fact and said perfectly sensible things in that regard. To the extent, if any, that he tried to imply that theories are "certain" (I don't think he did that at all, myself) then it could only have been for the purpose of appealing to the naive.

One Brow said...

aintnuthin said...
"4) Facts, and associated subfacts, are independent. Showing one fact,or one part of a fact, inaccurate does not change the truth of a fact."

It doesn't make sense to me. Can you give me an example of what you have in mind?


Sometimes I get ahead of my typing, sorry.

4) Facts, and associated subfacts, are independent. Showing one fact,or one part of a fact, inaccurate does not change the truth of another fact.

But he is simply contradicting himself if he thinks this question proves a "fact": "Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor?

Gould sees the similarities (not the question itself) as evidence for the theory.

But, otherwise, yes, we disagree. It is naive to think that any full-blown scientific theory can be "certain." To even think this is possible demonstrates that one is not cognizant of the type of "knowledge" scientific theories consist of.

Now that we have accepted this is the difference, hopefully you will stop telling me that I don't know the difference between theory and fact.

I'm not going to persuade you out of your philosophy of science. However, scientists certainly think that some of their central, core theories have been evidence so highly it is perverse to withhold provisional consent, with certainty decreasing as you add in different claims, mechanisms, etc. to the theory.

If by "common descent" you (or Gould) simply mean that we all have ancestors, then, sure, no one would dispute it. But again, this is not the meaning of the term in traditional evolutionist useage.

That seems to be all you mean, because you say: "Let's say it happened a million times, if you like. All of those million times are still part of the ancestry of every living thing on earth."


Do you see the differenct between the claim that "every living thing today has ancestry with all of those million times" and "every living thing has an ancestor among those million times"? The first is common descent, the second is separate lineages.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "Do you see the differenct between the claim that "every living thing today has ancestry with all of those million times" and "every living thing has an ancestor among those million times"? The first is common descent, the second is separate lineages."

No, I don't see the difference you are asserting. If my grandpappy was in the military with a million other soldiers, all of whom ended up spawning grandchildren, would we (grandchildren) all have "ancestry" with the military, that the idea?

Is the idea that one million separate individuals can "jointly" sire the same child somehow? I don't get it.

No matter how much commingling of bloodlines might later occur, there would still be 1 million original sources, not one. Me and my cousins might have the same set of grandparents on ONE side, but only that one side, the other set of grandparents would all be different. Needless to say, NONE of us would share the same parents. Even if we are cousins, we do not have common descent.

15 siblings all have the same set of parents, but, since those parents do not have common descent, neither do their children, unless you arbitrarily stop the regressive tracking at those very parents, and assume the were spontaneously created. Even then, those siblings would not share "common descent" with the descendants of a million other sets of parents.

I really have no idea what you are thinking. Best I can tell you are concluding that if 10 individual all descended from 10 different ancestors, they have descent in common (in the sense that none of them where created ex nihilo, but instead descended from somebody) and therefore have "common descent" (because they are all descendants). You seem to be treating having "descent" (from somebody) as a shared trait ("in common"), as the equivalent of those individuals sharing that generic trait having "common descent."

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said; "Do you see the differenct between the claim that "every living thing today has ancestry with all of those million times" and "every living thing has an ancestor among those million times"? The first is common descent, the second is separate lineages."

Fine, and it is "evidence" insofar as it is "consistent with" the hypothesis that all living thing descended from the same critter. That conclusion may even be 100% accurate, but that "evidence" would not make it a statement of fact or be conclusive on the topic. The same "evidence" could support a whole host of distinct theories which presupposed the non-existence of common descent. The "evidence" for a presumed fact is not the fact (data) itself. It provides the basis for an inference, that's all.

aintnuthin said...

Oops, I meant to quote this in the last post:

"Gould sees the similarities (not the question itself) as evidence for the theory."

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "scientists certainly think that some of their central, core theories have been evidence so highly it is perverse to withhold provisional consent, with certainty decreasing as you add in different claims, mechanisms, etc. to the theory."

It would have been much more prudent (and accurate) for you to have said "some scientists certainly think...."

With that qualification, I agree with your claim 100%."

I would also expect you to agree with my claim, as follows:

[Some] religious folk certainly think that some of their central, core theories about religion have been evidence so highly it is perverse to withhold provisional consent, with certainty decreasing as you add in different specific claims regarding theistic theory.

One Brow said...

Is the idea that one million separate individuals can "jointly" sire the same child somehow? I don't get it.

More like the same great*20-grand-child, but yes.

No matter how much commingling of bloodlines might later occur, there would still be 1 million original sources, not one.

Common descent is not a LUCA, when you include the prokaryotes. Last I heard, there is still thought to be a LUCA for eukaryotes.

Even if we are cousins, we do not have common descent.

You think common descent means identical ancestry? Even under a LUCA you don't have that.

15 siblings all have the same set of parents, but, since those parents do not have common descent, neither do their children,

Yes, the children do. They come from the same genetic pool. If you create one pair of people from dust, and those two people have children, each of those children come from the same gene pool. If you create two pairs of people, and each pair has children, the children from the first pair do not have common descent with the children from the second pair.

unless you arbitrarily stop the regressive tracking at those very parents, and assume the were spontaneously created.

It's not relevant where you stop counting.

I really have no idea what you are thinking. Best I can tell you are concluding that if 10 individual all descended from 10 different ancestors, they have descent in common (in the sense that none of them where created ex nihilo, but instead descended from somebody) and therefore have "common descent" (because they are all descendants).

It depends on whether each descendent can trace their ancestry to the exact same subset of the original 10 as every other person, or not.

The same "evidence" could support a whole host of distinct theories which presupposed the non-existence of common descent.

Can you name actual theories, as opposed to speculations?

The "evidence" for a presumed fact is not the fact (data) itself. It provides the basis for an inference, that's all.

Of course.

It would have been much more prudent (and accurate) for you to have said "some scientists certainly think...."

"Some" being over 99% in the case of a few theories.

[Some] religious folk certainly think that some of their central, core theories about religion have been evidence so highly it is perverse to withhold provisional consent, with certainty decreasing as you add in different specific claims regarding theistic theory.

That's far to weak a claim. Some religious folk certainly think that most of their central, core theories about religion have been revealed so highly that their conclusions are completely certain, with certainty decreasing as you get further from the core messages of their tome.

The difference is that religions ultimately rest on revealed knowledge, science on empirical knowledge. That why religious belief get the added bonus of certainty (at the cost of demonstrability).

TroutBum said...

Seriously, why can't you act like this on JF, Hopper? I really don't know what the hell you guys are talking about, but it's still interesting. I've always been a big OneBrow fan, and I imagine you would've been one of my favorite posters had you not destroyed yourself with that southern schtick.

Ah well, all's well that ends well.

I love you guys.

Trout.

January 10, 2011 11:09 PM

One Brow said...

TroutBum,

Welcome! Let me know if there are any particular points you wnat to me to explain.

One Brow

Anonymous said...

I'm not much into phylosophy, but any time you guys want to talk sciene, astronomy, or fly fishing -- I'm in.

<3, Trout.

One Brow said...

Dammit, Troutbum, I'm a mathematician, not a physicist.

Still, nice to have you drop by. Hope to see you around more.

aintnuthin said...

A few excerpts from just one relatively recent paper:

"Most biologists subscribe to Darwin's notion of an ancestor common to all living forms and so subscribe to its corollary, the existence of a Tree of Life...The diversity of opinions concerning LUCA is in constant evolution and, new facts and ideas have been brought to attention in the last few years, These developments necessitate major adjustments in our approach; this is the subject of this paper...."

The paper then makes a long-ass argument for a particular viewpoint.

One reviewer (# 3) says:

"It is difficult to imagine a more fundamental (I mean, less applied) issue in biological sciences. Unraveling the origins of life is an appealing problem per se; nobody really cares, but everybody would like to know. I highly respect those of us who decide to devote their life to this useless, perhaps unreacheable goal...The form of the manuscript is unusual – a long, provocative review/opinion. I thank Biology Direct for letting such non-standard contributions be published....

Many of the developped arguments start from reporting shared cellular or genetic elements between extant species throughout the 3 domains of life, and conclude that these elements were already present in LUCA. Such elements include the nucleus (a nuclear-like structure has been discovered in Planctomyces, a bacterium), introns, (including self-splicing introns), and many genes found in several copies in extant genomes....I think this view is highly respectable, but I must say I found the arguments (in favour of either hypothesis) not so strong."

The authors respond, in part, to this reviewer by saying:

"As you say, much depends on the assumptions made regarding the nature of LUCA... Certainly, much remains conjectural and some of our views clearly are provocative but we feel there is enough ground to consider them as an alternative to current thinking on the alleged "prokaryote to eukaryote" transition."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2478661/?tool=pmcentrez

I'm not trying to participate in the debate, I merely note the existence of a wide array of divergent opinions based on "conjecture." Is this the "fact" Gould had in mind, ya figure?

One can always assume, as Darwin did, a common ancestor and then make arguments for that assumption. Others can, and do, disagree. This hardly has the earmarks of "fact," eh?

aintnuthin said...

This is a test post. I compose a post, try to post it, am told the webpage can't be displayed, and then the composition is lost. Very frustratin, ya know?

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "Can you name actual theories, as opposed to speculations?"

It's all speculation. Suppose I new two (nearly) identical new Ford cars on a lot (or on two lots, one on the east coast, one on the west coast)?

Now what do I know? Not nuthin, really. It would be reasonable to guess that the two cars must have been made at the same plant, in, say, Gary, Indiana, by the same people. On the other hand, it would be just as reasonable to suppose that they were made by different people, at different locations, and merely shared the same manufacturing "plan."

aintnuthin said...

edit of above: "Suppose I [see] new two (nearly) identical new Ford cars...

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "Some" being over 99% in the case of a few theories."

Wrong, really wrong, although it could be as high as 80% from what I've seen of run-of-the-mill "scientists" (i.e., people with a B.S. degree in chemistry, biology, or whatever) and who work at the Coca Cola plant doing quality control), most of whom tend to be quite naive, philosophically speaking.

Eric, "subscribing" to a theory, and deciding that it is the best available is a FAR CRY from deeming it to be indisputably "true." Far fewer top-grade scientists confuse the two propositions than do the average ones.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "It's not relevant where you stop counting."

Of course it is. Here are, back to the equivocation about what "common descent" means in the context of evolutionary axioms.

Let me re-iterate that I do not believe Gould was intending to claim that "common descent" was akin to fact. He would simply be contradicting himself if he said that. But's let's pretend that's what he intended for a minute.

Was his great insight that children of the same parents have the same parents? Tautological and trivial, if that's all he meant, and of course no one would disagree.

But if you're talking about UNIVERSAL common descent of all living organisms, then you must go all the way back, virtually ad infinitum to assess the claim.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: You think common descent means identical ancestry?

No, I don't. I simply mean that showing that cousins, two generations down the line from grandparents, have a common ancestor does NOTHING to show that they both descended from Adam and Eve. Again, "common descent" has a particular connotation in the context of evolutionary speculation.

aintnuthin said...

Bum said: "I imagine you would've been one of my favorite posters had you not destroyed yourself with that southern schtick."

Yeah, right, eh, Bum? There is no possible scenario under which I could ever be one of your favorite posters at Jazzfanz. As you yourself seem to realize, such boards are basically for "fun" and recreation. Unless it's someone else who is havin fun, mebbe, ya know? Then it's all SERIOUS BIDNIZZ.

aintnuthin said...

Among other serious transgressions at jazzfanz, I did not mollify the strong fag contingent there. That's unforgivable, to them, and they will whine about "abuse" 24/7 until some fag-lovin mod gives them the revenge they seek.

They should just call it Fagfanz, know what i'm sayin?

aintntuhin said...

I mean, there is a great deal of dispute about the "common ancestry" of even one (human) species, ya know? From wiki:

"The dominant view among scientists concerning the origin of anatomically modern humans is the "Out of Africa" or recent African origin hypothesis,[5][6][7][8] which argues that Homo sapiens arose in Africa and migrated out of the continent around 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing populations of Homo erectus in Asia and Homo neanderthalensis in Europe. Scientists supporting the alternative multiregional hypothesis argue that Homo sapiens evolved as geographically separate but interbreeding populations stemming from a worldwide migration of Homo erectus out of Africa nearly 2.5 million years ago. This theory has been contradicted by recent evidence, although it has been suggested that non Homo sapiens Neanderthal genomes may have contributed about 4% of non African heredity, and the recently discovered Denisova hominin may have contributed 6% of the genome of Melanesians."

50,000 years ago, or 2.7 million years ago? One origin, in Africa, or a "multi-regional" hypothesis. Which one is "fact," I wonder?

Now go ahead and take such issues and disputes back to the beginnin of life on earth, eh? Then show me the univerally agreed upon "facts."

aintnuthin said...

More "facts" from wiki, eh:?

"Paleoanthropology, which combines the disciplines of paleontology and physical anthropology, is the study of ancient humans as found in fossil hominid evidence such as petrifacted bones and footprints...While Ian Tattersall once noted (Nature 2006, 441:155) that paleoanthropology is distinguished as the "branch of science [that] keeps its primary data secret," it is perhaps more accurate to observe that primary physical evidence in paleoanthropology is among the most difficult to obtain."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoanthropology

aintnuthin said...

More from wiki, eh?:

"In late 2010, a recently discovered nonneanderthal archaic human, the denisova hominin from southern siberia, was found to share 4-6% of its genome with living melanesian humans and with no other living group, supporting lateral gene transfer between two regions outside of Africa.[49][50] The combination of regional continuity inside and outside of Africa and lateral gene transfer between various regions around the world supports the multiregional hypothesis."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_hypothesis

Lateral gene transfer amongst humans? Who knew? Why, I wonder, do they insist on calling matters of universally agreed-upon fact "hypotheses," I wonder?

babe said...

ain'tnothin' you're a diamond in the rough. Can't see you wasting this kind of comment on one or two folks.

Until I started into this. . . . and still haven't finished it, I thought I was an expert on metaphysics and science.

It is true I have gone over into some physics forums recently looking for answers about gravity, and sorta concluded that since nobody's done he schtick I could start a thread on how I have discovered some rocks that in sequence show how gravity has evolved into its present form, thereby disproving the existence of any God. . . . silly little joke. . .

So what causes gravity? When I was kid I had a grandpa next door who was a devout man of God. Folks would go visit him at age 100 to ask him questions about his religion. I used to hide under his window to eavesdrop on the exchanges.

One day he asked some skeptics "What holds the Moon in orbit???" The reply, with a hesitation and a tentative squeak of uncertainty, was "Gravity".

Grandpa exploded, or roared as you may prefer, in his famous loud voice: "Gravity doesn't do it. . . . God does!!!!"

I'm not sure just exactly what his reasoning was, whether it derived from the Christian trinitarian concepts of a God beyond human comprehension who spoke one word and wound up the whole Universe and set it spinning into existance, outta nothing. I'm sure it was not the Eastern concept of self-existant Nature imbued with cognition and equitable if arbitrary power over all things, such that the karma you spread is the bread that comes back to you. . . . sorry I'm drifting here, but if you can laugh a little it's a pun on a point shared by Eastern and Christian belief. Karma returns what you send out. Do good and good comes back. "Cast your bread upon the waters, and after many days it will come back to you.".

So back to gravity as a springboard into religious speculation. Gravity is one interesting phenomenon. Nobdoy knows anything about it, for sure. Some few interesting observations, regarding anomalies in certain spatial relations. Some reason to believe it is a field property arising from some subatomic character(istic). Pretty well correlated to the location of mass, and can be computed with some aberrations from the simple formula of Physics.

So here's my point. I say "If we don't know it all, we might be all wrong about what we think we know." Meaning that what we don't know can impact the validity of what we think we know.

This confines our knowledge to the set of circumstances relevant to our experience.

Experience,n.: "That which reveals what we did not know before."

I'm toyin' with a take-off on Ain'tNothin's handle: "BeenWrongALotStillThinkin".

aintnuthin said...

Babe said: "So here's my point. I say "If we don't know it all, we might be all wrong about what we think we know." Meaning that what we don't know can impact the validity of what we think we know."

Good point, Babe, one which I may elaborate on a little my own damn self. Worst is probably not knowin that ya don't know. As one of my homeboys, Ambrose Bierce done said: “Education is that which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding.”

Unfortunately, some use the word "gravity" and think they know just what they're talkin about. Issac Newton agreed with your Gramps, btw.

In old-ass Greek times, the oracle at Delphi supposedly said that Socrates was the wisest man in all of Greece. As soon as he heard about it, Socrates said that, however infallible the oracle might be presumed to be, it was wrong this time. He knew nothing, and he knew he knew nuthin.

Then it was explained to him: That's what made him the wisest man in Greece (knowin he knew nuthin, and makin no pretenses to the contrary).

aintnuthin said...

Eric, I suspect our differences about "common descent" are partly due to different perspectives. I suspect you (and perhaps Gould) basically want to say "It is a FACT that God did not create all living species in one day." To me, it's not a creationist vs. evolutionist question at all.

I take the claim of common descent literally, and not just as an indirect way of opposing creationism. Taken literally, it is merely an omnimpresent assumption. If one assumes that the earth is motionless, every "appearance" in the heavenly motions can be amply explained by epicycles, and such, all while restricting planetary bodies to "circular" motion. There are no questions. It is simply implicitly, automatically, and universally assumed that the earth is motionless if you're a medieval ptolemic astronomer.

The same is true with neo-darwinist evolutionists. The immediate, and unquestioned, "explanation" for similarities is "common ancestor." But this rationale appears to break down if you take it literally and take it to it's logical conclusions, all while maintaining a darwinist perspective.

babe said...

So, how 'bout my two bits on the "common descent" discussion. A few fragments of information I think need to be considered.

a few decades ago, while working on research in protein structure/function in relation to a type of protein that binds/sequesters heavy metals in many living things, I sometimes browsed around in the research lit.

I was studying fungii expressions of this protein and trying to account for the similarities of fungal proteins of this class with those we humans have. Kinda bizarre in some frames of thinking that fungii and humans should be so closely related.

Except for the long long history of some mutually-beneficial relations. Yeast and humans go a long way back. We have yeast on our healthy skin and in our bread. . . . and wine. . . The yeast on our feet while crushing grapes, while kneading dough. . .

and long close relations even between disparate lifeforms sometimes results in genetic leaps, fortuitous sharings of useful functional genes.

is this a function of a Designer who sometimes does some gene-splicing exercises? A random event? Guess what. I wasn't there, and I don't know. But fun stuff to think about.

Another thing relevant to this little discussion on relatedness is this. A statistical approach to human genealogy/descent might hazard a guess that the average human age of a mother giving birth is on say 30 years, just taking the conservative side of things. 20 might be more realistic considering the life spans for most humans across the ages.

But if it's 30, ten generations makes 300 years. ten generations ago, the genealogical chart needs 1024 slots filled out. Go back another 300 years and you need to find over a million ancestors somewhere. Another 300 years, and you're in the billion neighborhood.

This means say that there will be a lot persons filling more than one slot in the chart back there. . . . that say all the British today are descended from William the Conqueror, all the Italians descend from say Brutus, or anyone else you've heard of. . .

Translateral events across long distances might be relatively uncommon, but considering the time periods under discussion are still statistical probabilities.

Considering theological arguments, one of the failings of many religious believers is their posture in reliance on infallibility in the traditions/scriptures/legends.

Believing that there are no borrowings from earlier cultures than the Israelites is again a statistical stretch. Humans are always borrowing stuff from one another. And believing that such borrowings really should constitute invalidating the faith is just pretty much a stretch too.

The reason we borrow ideas is because they are useful somehow. . . .maybe even true?

J said...

Hey OB .Happy New years

The sort of sophistic argument that Vallicelli aka the Mav-P offers here actually might be used in favor of abortion. First off, potentiality is not the ding an sich. A couple, hearing that their fetus has potential downs syndrome, might quite reasonably decide to abort. And it's not only applicable with the diseased/deformed neo-nate. Say an unmarried poor mama X becomes pregnant accidentally, and her doctor or counselor tells her it will be a incredible expense. In many instances the bio-mama aborts because she cannot afford it, or can't interrupt her life, so forth: the potential life for the neo-nate does not look great. From a utilitarian POV, there may be (and often is) more suffering for all concerned (including the poor or neglected child) if mama does decide to keep the child.

Actually I have qualms about abortion at times (like late term, or for BC) but it can hardly be denied that in some instances ...it may be the ethical decision.

aintnuthin said...

I came across a blog by a highly opinionated evolution apologist, Greg Laden, who basically identifies himself as a "culture warrior."

"I have been involved in the evolution-creationism debate since God was a child (had he actually existed)... More like a holy war than a culture war, isn't it?"

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/about.php

It seems Greg, like many thoughtful theoreticiains, is so unimpressed with traditional neo-darwinistic "point mutation" theory that he sees it as requiring a virtual fundie-like faith of it's adherents:

"In animals, there are dozens of molecules coded for by distinctly different genes that serve a variety of purposes that fall into the category of "globins" because of their basic morphology. The probability of having so many different globins all evolve independently from point mutations is so low that if I was convinced that they did in fact arise from independent staring points via point mutations subsequently selected, I'd probably start going to church."

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/01/a_creationist_blog_quote_mines.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link

Greg goes on to express the false dichotomy in which he seems to rest his own personal faith:

"there are only two possible explanations for what we see in nature: 1) Evolution happened more or less as we think it did or 2) God created life and made it look exactly like evolution happened. Take your pick. I'm betting on number 1."

Hmmm, more or less like WE think it did, eh? Who's "we," I wonder?

Greg then goes on to recite what "we" happen to "know:"

"we know that these important molecules did not evolve that way. Rather, a primordial globin got cloned, as it were, during a "gene duplication" event. That is how much of the molecular disparity we see in living organisms has arisen over time."

[Continued in next post]

aintnuthin said...

Curiously enough, Greg then goes on to elaborate about what "we" happen to "know" in terms that, for some damn reason, don't convincingly convey the impression that the author has absolute knowledge:

"...there are other mechanisms that are less well understood, that are also not point mutations, that shepherd along the evolutionary process, or provide opportunity for molecular change that is subject to selection...We probably don't know about all the possible mechanisms for genomes to change over time, we certainly don't know the relative importance of various mechanisms, but simple inspection as well as various experiments have demonstrate that the point mutation model alone is part of the story, but not the whole story, and simulation modeling and in vitro experimentation have demonstrated this further."

He does seem to put some special emphasis on a "gene duplication event," and further mentions non homologous juxtaposition."

In my (limited) understanding, "non-homolgous juxtaposition" and "gene duplication" are purported ways by which evolutionary change and analogous similarities arise that do NOT rely upon "common ancestry" for an explanation.

In the meantime, other articles in peer-reviewed publications deny that gene duplication explain the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms."


"The totality of the evidence reveals that, although duplication can and does facilitate important adaptations by tinkering with existing compounds, molecular evolution is nonetheless constrained in each and every case. Therefore, although the process of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract

Where are the undisputed "facts" here, exactly?

aintnuthin said...

Stopped in again, only to see my last post has been expurgated again, eh, Eric? This one probably will be too, not that it really makes any difference.

These days, the theoreticians don't seem to be talking so much about the evolution of separate species and the like, eh? "Evolving" from a wolf into a whale is a big-ass undertakin to explain, I spoze. Now they talk about how one super-microscopic molecule "evolved" into another. Molecules....

It's turtles (I mean complexity) all the way down, as Shapiro done said. But, as has also been noted, "genes" aint molecules. The word "gene" (or whatever term you prefer) is merely a name for a non-physical phenomenon (information).

One Brow said...

J,

I find that what is ethical depends on your morals, naturally. Do you value all human life, down to every sperm being sacred? Humn life under specific circumstances? Once your morals hae been firmed up, you can apply ethics.

Personally, my wife and I would never have seriously considered an abortion under any circumstances where the child could be carries to term. But I don't think that's necessarily the right answer for everyone.

One Brow said...

babe,

Welcome to the blog. Feel free to hang around and comment.

... I thought I was an expert on metaphysics and science.

The more you learn, the more you relaize how little we know.

... how I have discovered some rocks that in sequence show how gravity has evolved into its present form, thereby disproving the existence of any God.

For a variation on that, google "Intelligent Falling".

I'm not sure just exactly what his reasoning was, ...

While I'm not sure either, one of the thoughts in that regard is the First Cause argument, whereby Christians try to show that every sequence of actions in the present needs to start from an uncaused intiator, who muct be God. I believe that is Aquinas's second way. I discussed that argument in this post.

Considering theological arguments, one of the failings of many religious believers is their posture in reliance on infallibility in the traditions/scriptures/legends.

If you mean the particular traditions/scriptures/legends that those believers choose, I agree. However, we all choose our own basic beliefs to form our knowledge of the world. They might be as simple as uniformitarianism (the notion that what happens today will happen tomorrow, that howgravity behaves on earth is how it behaves 400 million light-years from here)and similar notions, but there needs to be basic starting blocks. We always choose these fundamental assumptions based upon our preferences and subjective understanding of the world.

And believing that such borrowings really should constitute invalidating the faith is just pretty much a stretch too.

Agreed.

One Brow said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
One Brow said...

aintnuthin said...
Stopped in again, only to see my last post has been expurgated again, eh, Eric? This one probably will be too, not that it really makes any difference.

It just went to the spam filter. Is that what you mean by expurgated? I don't know how to control the spam filter. It seems to activate occasionally when people make many comments in a row at blogs other than their own. I will try to restore the comments from the filter regularly.

If I remove a comment, a note will appear to that effect, similar to the note directly above this one.

One Brow said...

aintnuthin said...
Is this the "fact" Gould had in mind, ya figure?

No, I don't think Gould was discussing the soundness of the separation of the domains Archea and Bacteria when he referred to common dewscent as a fact.

It's all speculation.

Scientific theories have predictive power that has been tested. They are not just "speculation".

Now what do I know?

I agree, the observation in and of itself doesn't tell you much. However, you can test the "both made in Gary" or "made in separate factories" hypotheses in many ways. As you test and gather more evidence, you may be able to form a theory concerning car origins.

Wrong, really wrong, although it could be as high as 80% ...

You don't think atomic theory gets over 80%(for that matter, less that 99%)? The theory of soil erosion? The theory of chemical bonding? The theory of photosynthesis?

Eric, "subscribing" to a theory, and deciding that it is the best available is a FAR CRY from deeming it to be indisputably "true."

Of course. How does that stop 99% of scientists from subscribing to various theories?

Let me re-iterate that I do not believe Gould was intending to claim that "common descent" was akin to fact.

You can believe this, but you are wrong. There is the fact of common descent, and the theory of common descent.

Was his great insight that children of the same parents have the same parents? Tautological and trivial, if that's all he meant, and of course no one would disagree.

His understanding, and ours, is that every living thing shares the exact same ancestry (as opposed to some living things having Lineages that other lvingthings share no part of).

But if you're talking about UNIVERSAL common descent of all living organisms, then you must go all the way back, virtually ad infinitum to assess the claim.

You only need to go back far enough to see the intertwining of the net to include all living things extant. Prior to that, those living things may have had separate lineages. Regardless, their offspring will have, and will continue to have, common lineage.

One Brow said...

I mean, there is a great deal of dispute about the "common ancestry" of even one (human) species, ya know?

Sapiens, neanderthalensis, and denisova would all have been descended from erectus. Erectus originated from a small population in Afrtica before sreading across the world. The net branched and rejoined. How does that dispute commomn descent?

Why, I wonder, do they insist on calling matters of universally agreed-upon fact "hypotheses," I wonder?

We're still not sure about much regarding denisova, but we are sure they derived from erectus.

... is so unimpressed with traditional neo-darwinistic "point mutation" theory ...

Are we beating that dead horse again? How does that relate to common descent?

In my (limited) understanding, "non-homolgous juxtaposition" and "gene duplication" are purported ways by which evolutionary change and analogous similarities arise that do NOT rely upon "common ancestry" for an explanation.

Gene duplication is when the DNA code that forms a gene gets two copies of itself made in a transcription accident. So, instead of having genes ABCDEFG on a chromosome, you might see ABCCDEFG in the next generation. Once that happens, one of the copies of C can mutate, so you might get ABCXDEFG in a still later generation.

"Homologous" would be something akin to copying from a template, and non-homologous means a juxtaposition (that is, a change in the location of a gene) that is nor copying from a template.

In the meantime, other articles in peer-reviewed publications deny that gene duplication explain the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms.

Gene duplication acting on it's own, or just that in combination with point-mutation? Of course it not the whole explanation. Duh.

These days, the theoreticians don't seem to be talking so much about the evolution of separate species and the like, eh?

Depends upon which "theoreticians" you read.

J said...

Ah looks like Tain't Nothin' has been hangin with some of the Intelligent Design posse.

Actually, I for one grant Dr. Behe's basic premise, in a sense ( Behe does accept the old world and Darwin on a macro level, however). Darwin was no bio-chemist, and many cellular mechanisms do appear too complex to have arisen purely by chance or natural selection. There appears to be Order in nature, in a sense--whether via blood clotting, the mechanics of eyesight, or photosynthesis, and many other examples. That view --"emergence," as some call it---offers little or no support for judeo-christian dogma, however, though seems a bit similar to like Hinduism, or weird readings of Aristotle perhaps-- 1000 names of Vishnu, y'all.

Though more cynical types might say it suggests something like...demonism. What sort of Intelligence designs a plague? spanish influenza? TB? STDs? etc. Which is to say, the Design hypothesis even in Behe's hands does not really help the traditional monotheist.

J said...

That said, the fundamentalists generally misconstrued and misapplied Dr. Behe and IDT--though Behe did make some rather grand claims. The court decision keeping IDT from replacing traditional Darwinian evolution in the high schools was correct (for the most part) --yet I think students, at least competent ones should at some point be exposed to dissenting views of Darwinian evolution (and dare we say the scientific establishment)--at least in college, or the Feiser-Mav.P reader, etc. Maybe that's what philosophy people do.

One Brow said...

J,

I don't have any objection to the ID psoition being taught in a philosophy class, even at the high school level. It's just not a scientific theory, or even hypothesis, so it doesn't belong in the science class. It doesn't actually explain anything from a scientific standpoint, it makes no testable predictions, it includes no mechanisms by which things happen.

J said...

It doesn't actually explain anything from a scientific standpoint


well, one could say the same about natural selection at the cellular level-- Darwinism has no worked out explanation for, say, cilia, and many other cellular mechanisms. ...(we can not predict the success of any organism either, genetically, or individually).

Of course it's assumed cilia evolved over thousands of millenia, mostly via trial and error--and we might grant that may be the case--but there does appear to be a very complex process, nearly..clocklike. So ...the Design inference. To me Darwin vs Behe sounds like competing inferences (and in some places overlapping), not that Darwinian explanations are necessarily true. There are " facts" of Evo. (say, the fossil record), and there are more theoretical aspects--Darwin, the older Lamarckian, or IDT (and even creationism, however far fetched--). IOW, the bio-chemical establishment starts with Occam's razor, so anything like ...a Design hypothesis is verboten, before any investigation.

.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "How does that relate to common descent?"

Aint it obvious? I quoted Greg about gene duplication, and you quoted me "In my (limited) understanding, "non-homolgous juxtaposition" and "gene duplication" are purported ways by which evolutionary change and analogous similarities arise that do NOT rely upon "common ancestry" for an explanation.] even though you ignored the point.

Similarities do NOT require common ancestry. Yet that is the basic premise behind Gould's (and others) "question" (statement).

aintnuthin said...

One Brow asked: "You don't think atomic theory gets over 80%(for that matter, less that 99%)? The theory of soil erosion? The theory of chemical bonding? The theory of photosynthesis?"

First of all, I was NOT equating "subscribing to" a theory with believing it is fact, as you seem to be. I was saying they are NOT the same thing. You act as though they are.

Secondly,There is so much uncertainty and dispute about "atomic structure" in QM that ya can't list it all, and I think you know that. Looks like we are back to the equivocation of calling the most general hypothesis a [presumably scientific] "theory." Like if I say that I have a "theory" that the earth is not flat. That aint no scientific theory, nor is the hypothesis that "atoms exist" or "evolution (change with time) occurs."

====

"Scientific theories have predictive power that has been tested. They are not just "speculation"."

Eric, do you really think:

1) That a "design hypothesis" is any less "scienitific" than the basic axioms of neo-darwinism (all mutations are random; there is absolutely no possibiliy of the environment affecting the genotype of an organism after conception; etc.)? Why don't you apply the same standards to both.

2) That darwinism "predicts" anything that can be "verified" without first assuming the validitiy of such axioms (along with many other assumptions)?

To the extent that Dariwinsim predicts speciation by point mutation, with the concommitant "prediction" that fossil "evidence" (believe me, I use, as do the darwinists, the term "evidence" very loosely here)of numerous transitional organisms will be found, it has virtually been disproven.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "You only need to go back far enough to see the intertwining of the net to include all living things extant."

Two comments:

1. I really have no idea how you think you are addressing "common descent" with this statement. I really don't even know what you mean, just as I had no idea what you meant when you said millions of individual could all jointly sire the exact same child.

2. Even so, I can see that your attempt to trivilize the issue by saying "only far enough" is tantamount to sayin only "billions of years." And, of course, you and your homies know for a fact what transpired at that time, no doubt.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "You can believe this, but you are wrong. There is the fact of common descent, and the theory of common descent."

Heh, you just keep on telling yourself that [universal] common descent is a "fact," Mr. Factmaster. I'm sure it gives you comfort.

It could be true, but it aint no "fact" so far as we know.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "You only need to go back far enough to see the intertwining of the net to include all living things extant."

P.S., I really like your useage of the verb "see" here. It all sounds so empirical, ya know?

aintnuthin said...

I said: I mean, there is a great deal of dispute about the "common ancestry" of even one (human) species, ya know?

You responded: "Sapiens, neanderthalensis, and denisova would all have been descended from erectus. Erectus originated from a small population in Afrtica before sreading across the world. The net branched and rejoined. How does that dispute commomn descent?"

How does your glib statement of "fact" dispute common descent? It doesn't, of course. It immediately resolves the issue I brought up. Thanks for the elightenment about erectus.

But what your assurance does NOT clear up is the fact that many scientists disagree with your claim about erectus. Wiki, for example, notes that:

"There is still disagreement on the subject of the classification, ancestry, and progeny of H. erectus, with two major alternative hypotheses: erectus may be another name for Homo ergaster, and therefore the direct ancestor of later hominids such as Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo sapiens; or it may be an Asian species distinct from African ergaster."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

Likewise:

"Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies (or race) of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_neanderthalensis

I was talking about questions and uncertainties about the origin of a single species (humans or homo sapiens). You seem to assume that neanderthal DESCENDED FROM homo erectus, but, as noted above, that claim is disputed and hardly a virtual "fact."

The basic dispute amongst the "recent out of Africa" adherents vis-a-vis the "multi-regional" adherents seems to revolve around the issue of whether homo erectus interbred with, or merely exterminated, other existant organisms, but that is only ONE of many areas of dispute and uncertainty.

aintnuthin said...

Another little excerpt from wiki re neanderthal, eh?:

"There were separate developments in the human line, in other regions such as Southern Africa, that somewhat resembled the European and Western/Central Asian Neanderthals, but these people were not actually Neanderthals. One such example is Rhodesian Man (Homo rhodesiensis) who existed long before any classic European Neanderthals, but had a more modern set of teeth, and arguably some H. rhodesiensis populations were on the road to modern Homo sapiens sapiens.

To date, no intimate connection has been found between these similar people and the Western/Central Eurasian Neanderthals, at least during the same time as classic Eurasian Neanderthals, and H. rhodesiensis seems to have evolved separately and earlier than classic Neanderthals in a case of convergent evolution."

Convergent evolution, eh? As I'm sure you know, Eric, "Convergent evolution describes the acquisition of the same biological trait in unrelated lineages." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution

You cited this rhetorical question by Gould as a claim (by him) that common descent is a "fact":

"Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor?" (Gould)

Do you think Gould never heard of convergent evolution? He kinda acts like it, don't he?

aintnuthin said...

"Homo habilis is generally accepted as the putative ancestor of the genus Homo,[8] and often of H. ergaster most directly. This taxon's status as a legitimate species within "Homo", however, is particularly contentious. H. habilis and H. ergaster coexisted for 200,000-300,000 years, possibly indicating that these species diverged from a common ancestor.[9] It is unclear what genetic influence H. ergaster had on later hominids. Recent genetic analysis has generally supported the Out-of-Africa hypothesis, and this may designate H. ergaster the role of ancestor to all later hominids."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster

1. "Putative" ancestor? Don't sound like some indubitably established matter of "fact," know what I'm sayin?

2. "Particularly contentious" status as a legitmate species within homo? Don't sound like some indubitably established matter of "fact," know what I'm sayin?

3. "Possibly" indicating that these species diverged from a common ancestor? Lot of things are "possible," I spoze. Don't sound like some indubitably established matter of "fact," know what I'm sayin?

4. What genetic influence H. ergaster had on later hominids is "unclear?" Don't sound like some indubitably established matter of "fact," know what I'm sayin?

Eric, unlike you, I am not trying to pinpoint the "correct" hypothesis. I'm simply trying to make a point about what "facts" are so certain that it would be perverse to deny them. As many times as I say that, you never seem to understand. You always seem to simply think I am taking a position about the "facts" which you oppose.

One Brow said...

J said...
well, one could say the same about natural selection at the cellular level--

Natural selection operates at the level of populatons, not cells. Explanations for cilia are more like to be found in evolutionary development work, or something similar.

--but there does appear to be a very complex process, nearly..clocklike.

I've heard the same thing about the water cycle and the tides.

If your point is that rejecting the interference of a Creator is also not scientific, I agree. There is a difference between saying a Creator is not needed and saying one was not involved, though.

One Brow said...

aintnuthin said...
... "non-homolgous juxtaposition" and "gene duplication" are purported ways by which evolutionary change and analogous similarities arise that do NOT rely upon "common ancestry" for an explanation.] even though you ignored the point.

You were serious about that? Duplicated and juxtaposed genes come from existing genetic material in the parent already. How coes altering the position of genetic material or creating new copies of it change common descent?

aintnuthin said...
First of all, I was NOT equating "subscribing to" a theory with believing it is fact, as you seem to be. I was saying they are NOT the same thing. You act as though they are.

No, what I said was that scientific theories can be so well-confirmed that is is ludicrous to withhold consent (which can be true of either a fact or a theory) and that some theories are so well-accepted that 99+% of scientists accept them. You suggested this was not true, so I listed a few examples, none of which were anything other than theories.


Secondly,There is so much uncertainty and dispute about "atomic structure" in QM ...

Which is fringe to the theory that we are constucted from atoms. I've already noted that central ideas in a theory can be much more well-confirmed than the ideas at its edges.

Like if I say that I have a "theory" that the earth is not flat. That aint no scientific theory, nor is the hypothesis that "atoms exist" or "evolution (change with time) occurs."

Incorrect. If the world were flat, we could use that to make testable predictions, just as we have used atomic theory and evolutionary theory.

1) That a "design hypothesis" is any less "scienitific" than the basic axioms of neo-darwinism (all mutations are random; there is absolutely no possibiliy of the environment affecting the genotype of an organism after conception; etc.)? Why don't you apply the same standards to both.

Actually, I thought neo-darwinism had been falsified (for example, by mauch of the last work in evolutionary development). By contrast, how would you falsify the design hypothesis?

2) That darwinism "predicts" anything that can be "verified" without first assuming the validitiy of such axioms (along with many other assumptions)?

It predicted the existence of the naked mole rat, the fossil find of tiltaalik rosae, etc. The naked mople rat and the fossil don't need any axioms to be assumed, they exist by observation.

To the extent that Dariwinsim predicts speciation ... it has virtually been disproven.

By contrast, how can you falsify design?

One Brow said...

Two comments:
1. I really have no idea how you think you are addressing "common descent" with this statement. I really don't even know what you mean, just as I had no idea what you meant when you said millions of individual could all jointly sire the exact same child.


Then I will accept this as a limitation you have.

2. ... you and your homies know for a fact what transpired at that time, no doubt.

I'm sure there'sa lot more to learn.

"Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor?" (Gould)

Do you think Gould never heard of convergent evolution? He kinda acts like it, don't he?


Gould's point is that, if the bone structure had been designed separately for each creature, there were many better ways to do it. Instead, we use a common structure in different ways. Convergent evolution, by constrast, is independently developing the same use for the same structure.

How does your glib statement of "fact" dispute common descent? It doesn't, of course. It immediately resolves the issue I brought up. Thanks for the elightenment about erectus.

But what your assurance does NOT clear up is the fact that many scientists disagree with your claim about erectus.


You seem to be taking the position that if we don't know every detail of our descent, the descent of horses, of honeybees, etc., that means we can't be certain of common descent. That lacking every specific detail, we can reach no general conclusions. It seems like a very short-sighted position.

1. "Putative" ancestor? Don't sound like some indubitably established matter of "fact," know what I'm sayin?

Agreed. Hoever, the extablishment or disestablishment of a particular population in human ancestry does not affect common descent.

Eric, unlike you, I am not trying to pinpoint the "correct" hypothesis.

I'm well aware of that.

You always seem to simply think I am taking a position about the "facts" which you oppose.

Maybe you confused me with J. I'm aware you prefer to regard every theory as untrustworthy and ready to be tossed in the scrap heap at a moments notice.

J said...

well, one could say the same about natural selection at the cellular level--

Natural selection operates at the level of populatons, not cells. Explanations for cilia are more like to be found in evolutionary development work, or something similar.


Well, that was one of Behe's points. Many in the Evolution business accept Darwinism as an explanation for ALL biological phenomena, but ...as you note it really only applies to populations (and still has problems, ie speciation), not micro-biology.

You also misread me as championing creationism, when really Im not, except a Deistic sort, perhaps--(I agree with the court decision which prevented IDT from replacing normal biology). Nor was Behe, exactly. He's saying in essence given the shortcomings of Darwinism, a Designer (of some type) seems plausible.

I do not believe IDT proves judeo-christianity, but it does suggest a possible spiritual dimension to the natural world--perhaps like Gould's NOMA (though Im not really sympatico with SJG). Behe also deserves some credit IMHE for rattling the cages of shall we say naive atheist-Darwinists.

J said...

Another thing to remember: many religious denominations, including catholics, accept evolution, for the most part, and believe it can be reconciled with...theism. Joe Ratzinger himself has written on the issue:

Faith and science: "...methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Vatican II GS 36:1) 283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.... 284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....

At some point evolution does appear to suggest something beyond the merely empirical: like why, how, ...whence. That's not to say the RCC and Aquinas or Eddie Feser definitely have the right answers to those questions...but I for one think intelligent humans, including skeptics, should at least ponder the older classical arguments for the Almighty in light of modern science, evolution, the Big Bang, relativity, so forth--to the best of their abilities. Religious questions become sort of...Pascalian, ultimately, even if doubt seems rather justified: you wouldn't want to be Richie Dawkins assuming ...Dios, JC, Maria and the saints actually existed, would you.

aintnuthin said...

"Why do virtually all the forty or more major animal groups, called phyla, first appear in the fossil record at the same time? Why don’t we see new anima phyla continuing to evolve after this? Why don’t Chinese paleontologists find many millions of years of evolving ancestors for any of these new-but-advanced-looking animals in the strata below them? And why does the Chinese fossil record show evolution’s subsequent history running opposite to traditional Western evolutionary-tree diagrams?...

“Some of these specimens are absolutely gorgeous,” says primitive chordate specialist Nicholas Holland of San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who worries about a problem this discovery raises: “Where are Haikouella’s ancestors? The sixty-four dollar question is, What is this hooked to? That nobody knows...Today, as a result of Chinese paleontology, biologists must choose between classic Darwinism and “saltation,” the idea of evolution in quick jumps, says biologist Holland. Chinese gossil discoveries have wrought havoc upon his once-tidy tree of life: “You just hardly know what order to put the material in now. I mean, you might as well just present the phyla alphabetically. It’s come to that."

Me, I'm with this here guy, ya know:

"Western scientists would have none of it. “It doesn’t matter if you find it or not!” declared German biologist Dieter Walossek, rallying his Western colleagues around him. “It’s there! It’s by law! All of the major taxa should have been there in the Precambrian, whether proved or not!”

"Valuing theory over data is giving Western science a bad name in the East."

http://www.fredheeren.com/washtimes.htm

Yeah, right, like the chinese even count, eh? I don't think so! Homey don't play dat.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "You seem to be taking the position that if we don't know every detail of our descent, the descent of horses, of honeybees, etc., that means we can't be certain of common descent. That lacking every specific detail, we can reach no general conclusions. It seems like a very short-sighted position."

You still seem to be missing my point, Eric. Of course one can reach any general conclusion he chooses to embrace. And there is certainly no law which prohibits him from declaring those conclusions to be fact.

aintnuthin said...

I said: "Like if I say that I have a "theory" that the earth is not flat. That aint no scientific theory, nor is the hypothesis that "atoms exist" or "evolution (change with time) occurs."

You responded: "Incorrect. If the world were flat, we could use that to make testable predictions, just as we have used atomic theory and evolutionary theory."

I think Magellan empirically proved the world is not flat centuries ago, but that aint the point. We've been through all this before. A gross hypothesis, such as "atoms exist," (as Democritus speculated millenia ago) is not a scientific theory. In the vernacular, such general statements may be called a "theory," but that's just part of the equivocation.

Atoms, as assemblages of minute particles, have not been proven to exist. Accordin to the string theorists, "matter" is an illusory concept, and ultimate "reality" consists of vibrating strings, not particles.

aintnuthin said...

Of course, the whole "theory" behind "atoms" is that they are indivisible. That aint exactly held true with what we call "atoms."

One Brow said...

Many in the Evolution business accept Darwinism as an explanation for ALL biological phenomena, but ...as you note it really only applies to populations (and still has problems, ie speciation), not micro-biology.

Depending on the definition of Darwinism, sure. Some people use the term for a philosophical position, others to refer only to scientific ones.

You also misread me as championing creationism,

Not at all. Your championing a pholosophical position on complexity, while creationism makes actual, scientifically-testable claims.

Behe also deserves some credit IMHE for rattling the cages of shall we say naive atheist-Darwinists.

I'm all for rplacing naivete with sopyhistication.

Another thing to remember: many religious denominations, including catholics, accept evolution, for the most part, ...

Of course.

At some point evolution does appear to suggest something beyond the merely empirical: like why, how, ...whence.

I disagree on "why", that's not a scientific question. "How" and "whence" are withing the purview of science.

...but I for one think intelligent humans, including skeptics, should at least ponder the older classical arguments for the Almighty in light of modern science, evolution, the Big Bang, relativity, so forth--to the best of their abilities.

That's part of wht I'm trying top do.

... you wouldn't want to be Richie Dawkins assuming ...Dios, JC, Maria and the saints actually existed, would you.

On the other had, there could just as easily be a God that doesn't want worship based on faith alone, but humans to use their abilities to figure things out. Dawkins might be one of that God's saints.

One Brow said...

aintnuthin said...
http://www.fredheeren.com/washtimes.htm

What makes you think Fred Heeran's account is a reliable interpretation of events? Haikouella itself doesn't seem particularly controversial, and the rest of the article read like it came from a Cambrian-explosion boilerplate.

One Brow said: "You seem to be taking the position that if we don't know every detail of our descent, the descent of horses, of honeybees, etc., that means we can't be certain of common descent. That lacking every specific detail, we can reach no general conclusions. It seems like a very short-sighted position."

You still seem to be missing my point, Eric. Of course one can reach any general conclusion he chooses to embrace. And there is certainly no law which prohibits him from declaring those conclusions to be fact.


I'm sure you're aware I meant evidence-based conclusions.

I think Magellan empirically proved the world is not flat centuries ago, but that aint the point.

I think it is the point. Proof is for mathematicians and alcohol. "Empirical proof" is an oxymoron. That you try to correct people on the philosophy of science, while making this kind of error, is irony of the highest caliber. Magellan offered evidence supporting the notion of a round earth, because it was consistent with the predicitons of a theory of a spherical earth. This is exactly the type of evidence you have denigrated earlier in this thread.

The earth being nearly spherical is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact in that it has been demonstrated to be true to a degree that it is perverse to withhold provisional consent. It is a theory in that it plays a part in predictions on the outcome of trying to go around the earth (you don't fall off, there are no sharp turns, etc.) The theory has also been so well established that is would be perverse to withhold consent or to not rely on it for future predicitons.

If you really think that the difference between fact and theory is that Magellan offered proof, while fossils only offer evidence, I'm not sure what value you can contribute to this discussion.

We've been through all this before. A gross hypothesis, such as "atoms exist," (as Democritus speculated millenia ago) is not a scientific theory.

Theories do require mechanisms, make predictions, etc. I agree merely saying "atomes exist" does not accomplish that. On the other hand, you don't need to have full-fledged, finalized quantum mechanical theory (if such a thing could ever exist) to use atomic thoery. Your attempts to exclude the middle indicate shallow thinking in this line.

Atoms, as assemblages of minute particles, have not been proven to exist. Accordin to the string theorists, "matter" is an illusory concept, and ultimate "reality" consists of vibrating strings, not particles.

I doubt you can name one way this actually impacts the use of atomic theory in chemical labs across the country. Whether the matter from which atoms are made will be vibrating strings, wavicles, or something else is not going to change, for example, Avagadro's law.

Of course, the whole "theory" behind "atoms" is that they are indivisible. That aint exactly held true with what we call "atoms."

It did add the notion that some atoms would decay.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "You were serious about that? Duplicated and juxtaposed genes come from existing genetic material in the parent already. How coes altering the position of genetic material or creating new copies of it change common descent?"

Of course I was serious, but, again, I am not addressing the issue of common descent, per se. I am addressing the claim of "known facts" and the "proof" thereof. My comment was addressed to Gould's question, which you have presented as a claim of "fact."

Despite your denials, Eric, its seems clear that by "common descent" you must simply mean that everything living today descended from "something." Of course no one denies that, and to do so would indeed be perverse. But that's not what "common descent" means in the context of evolutionary theory.

As Gould himself pointed out, virtually all living phyla appeared suddenly about a half billion years ago and have remained virtually unchanged since (unless extinct). None of the critters at the top (not bottom, as Darwin would have it) of these classes have plausible ancestors. As far as the "facts" (data) show, these are indeed all separate lineages.

One can always speculate about undiscovered (and purportedly undiscoverable, althougth recent finding certainly suggest otherwise) "missing links," but it would be perverse to call such speculation "fact."

aintnuthin said...

"The earth being nearly spherical is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact in that it has been demonstrated to be true to a degree that it is perverse to withhold provisional consent. It is a theory in that it plays a part in predictions on the outcome of trying to go around the earth (you don't fall off, there are no sharp turns, etc.) The theory has also been so well established that is would be perverse to withhold consent or to not rely on it for future predicitons."

No, it is NOT a theory, and this claim contradicts what you say later. Your fallacious reasoning seems to be:

If it can't be falsified, it is not a scientific theory, therefore:

If it can be falsified it IS a scientific theory. Your reasoning would turn every empirically verifiable claim of fact into a theory. If I say "It's snowing outside," that would be a "theory" by your definition.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "What makes you think Fred Heeran's account is a reliable interpretation of events? Haikouella itself doesn't seem particularly controversial, and the rest of the article read like it came from a Cambrian-explosion boilerplate.:

What are you intending to insinutate by such phrases as "boilerplate" and "reliable interpretation of events," exactly, eh, Eric? It is your position that the explanatory problems created by the cambrian explosion are based upon the misrepresentations of creationists, that it? I suspect it is, since that is one of your typical m.o.'s.

As Heeran notes, this was an issue of great concern to Darwin himself: "Charles Darwin himself had said that in order for his theory to work, the ancestors of the Cambrian animals must have been evolving for long ages prior to their Cambrian appearance."

Do you deny this statement by Heeran?: "The reason scientists still haven’t found them, according to Westerners, is that the ancestors must have been too small or too soft, or the conditions for fossilization too poor. But Chen and Li’s discovery had actually demonstrated that small and soft animals were preserved in Chinese Precambrian strata."

Gould and Eldridge finally took the "fact-based" approach (as opposed to the ad hoc theory-salvation approach), and said the lack of fossil evidence indicated that there was none. This approach abandoned the "we don't care what the evidence shows" stance of traditional darwinian dogmatists, of course. and forewent the "certainty" that, any and all evidence notwithstanding.

Heeran also notes that: "...by finding sponges and their microscopically tiny embryos in the Precambrian, they inadvertently rebutted Westerner wisdom...Chen and Li’s discovery had actually demonstrated that small and soft animals were preserved in Chinese Precambrian strata. “The 580-million-year-old phosphorous rock has good potential to preserve animals, if they exist,” Chen reported to the conferees. “I think this is a major mystery in paleontology, because we didn’t find hard evidence to show that this large number of Cambrian phyla was existing earlier."

Do you dispute this statement by Heeran?

One Brow said: "Haikouella itself doesn't seem particularly controversial."

Of course not. What would be particularly controversial is a claim that reliable physical evidence of a plausible ancestor for Haikouella existing.

You know, the "facts" (world's data, per Gould) evidencing "common descent."

One Brow said...

aintnuthin said...
My comment was addressed to Gould's question, which you have presented as a claim of "fact."

If you mean common descent, there would be the fact of common descent, and the theory of common descent, which are related but not the same thing.

Despite your denials, Eric, its seems clear that by "common descent" you must simply mean that everything living today descended from "something."

That's not what I mean. However, since you said "... just as I had no idea what you meant when you said millions of individual could all jointly sire the exact same child", I am resigned to the fact you may never get it.

None of the critters at the top ... have plausible ancestors.

Actually, that would be "not all" and "have known" as opposed to "none" and "have".

As far as the "facts" (data) show, these are indeed all separate lineages.

What is proof of the separate lineage? An absence of evidence, or something more concrete?

aintnuthin said...
Your fallacious reasoning seems to be:

If it can't be falsified, it is not a scientific theory, therefore:

If it can be falsified it IS a scientific theory.


Of course not. Among other things, facts can be falsified, as can mathematical proofs, neither of which is scientific theory.

If I say "It's snowing outside," that would be a "theory" by your definition.

What the prediction you derive from that which we can test?

What are you intending to insinutate by such phrases as "boilerplate" and "reliable interpretation of events," exactly, eh, Eric?

I think he's probably a garden-variety Creationist, intent on interpreting events to match his preferred explanation of reality.

It is your position that the explanatory problems created by the cambrian explosion are based upon the misrepresentations of creationists, that it?

More like, creationists misrepresent both the Cambrian explosion and any issues that derive therefrom.

Do you deny this statement by Heeran?

Even before Chan and Li, we know of some Precambrian precursors to some Cambrian animals.

Gould and Eldridge finally took the "fact-based" approach (as opposed to the ad hoc theory-salvation approach), and said the lack of fossil evidence indicated that there was none.

That would be sensible. the conditions that favor fossilization seem to be rare.

Do you dispute this statement by Heeran?

That is somehow rebutted some "Westerner wisdom"? Yes, that part is frank nonesense.

You know, the "facts" (world's data, per Gould) evidencing "common descent.

Is fossil evidence the only type of fact you recognize here? Because I don't think you realize how little fossils prove on their own.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said:

None of the critters at the top ... have plausible ancestors.

Actually, that would be "not all" and "have known" as opposed to "none" and "have".

====

You're right, I misstated it, and have [known] plausible ancestors, with the "known" being implied.

You too have mistated it. Probably closest is "VERY FEW have any plausible link to organisms for which fossils have every been found after centuries of diligent searching."

Or, to quote wiki: "Charles Darwin considered this sudden appearance of many animal groups with few or no antecedents to be the greatest single objection to his theory of evolution. He had even devoted a substantial chapter of The Origin of Species to solving this problem."

"few or no antecedents," eh?

The quality of being "known" is a prequisite for any reasonable claim that something is a "fact." Of course there may be millions of unknown facts. The point is that we can't claim to know, for a fact, things that we don't know, even if they are true.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "is fossil evidence the only type of fact you recognize here? Because I don't think you realize how little fossils prove on their own."

After all the quotations from Colin Patterson and other systematic paleontologists I have cited you, you think I don't realize how little fossils "prove" on their own?

Gould defined "facts" as the "world's data" (or something similar) and theories as "ideas." Fossils are "facts" in the sense of being part of the world's data, even if the interpretation of the "meaning" of any given fossil or fossils is heavily theory-laden. If no fossils of a certain kind have been found, that is a fact. What is means is an idea or an inference--on the theoretical as opposed to the "factual" side of the equation.

Again, my concern here is to distinguish so-called "facts" from theories, not to argue for or against any particular theory. That's not to say I won't argue AGAINST implausible claims about what a theory "demonstrates."

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "I think he's probably a garden-variety Creationist..."

Heh, you're so predictable. If a "creationist" (which you can spot because they don't agree with you) reports the facts, those facts suddenly become lies and false reports, too, I spoze.

One Brow said: "That is somehow rebutted some "Westerner wisdom"? Yes, that part is frank nonesense."

"Frank nonsense" documented (and severely criticized) by such nototious "creationists" as Stephen J. Gould, eh?

aintnuthin said...

If I say "It's snowing outside," that would be a "theory" by your definition.

What the prediction you derive from that which we can test?

===

Inasmuch as any given fact will have implications, any number of "predicitions" (as you want to call them) can be made. A few examples:

1. The air temperature is below 40 degrees
2. Walking and driving surfaces will be more slippery than usual
3. If you don't wear a hat, your head will get moist
4. ad infinitum

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "However, since you said "... just as I had no idea what you meant when you said millions of individual could all jointly sire the exact same child", I am resigned to the fact you may never get it."

Eric, 10 = 20. If you do not readily affirm and understand this, I can only take it as an acknowledgment of your extremely limited intellectual capacity and resign myself to the fact that you will never "get" the most obvious and self-evident truths.

aintnuthin said...

If I go on a 4 month shopping spree, visiting virtally every retail store in the state and buying every knick-knack I take a fancy to, I will increase the variety of my worldly possessions.

That seems obvious.

Just as obvious: I did not "inherit" that variey. I did not acquire it as a matter of "descent."

aintnuthin said...

Speaking of "predictions" entailed by Darwinism, who ya figure made this one, eh, Eric?

"We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretell that it will be the common and widely spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups within each class, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species...And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection."

Progress toward perfection, I tellya! I love me some teleology, know what I'm sayin?

(answer: Charles Darwin)

aintnuthin said...

Are Darwin's pontifications part of "western wisdom," ya figure?

"Although we now know that organic beings appeared on this globe, at a period incalculably remote, long before the lowest bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, why do we not find beneath this system great piles of strata stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Cambrian fossils?...With respect to the absence of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian formation, I can recur only to the hypothesis given in the tenth chapter; namely, that though our continents and oceans have endured for an enormous period in nearly their present relative positions, we have no reason to assume that this has always been the case; consequently formations much older than any now known may lie buried beneath the great oceans." (Darwin)

I gotta agree...there is "no reason to assume" all kinds of things that people assume.

I guess even Darwin didn't expect his speculations about (lack of) fossils to be well-received, eh:?

"That the geological record is imperfect all will admit; but that it is imperfect to the degree required by our theory, few will be inclined to admit." (Darwin)

aintnuthin said...

One more admittedly selective excerpt from Darwin:

"It may be asked how far I extend the doctrine of the modification of species. The question is difficult to answer, because the more distinct the forms are which we consider, by so much the arguments in favour of community of descent become fewer in number and less in force...Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants are descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide.... we have distinct evidence,,that within each kingdom all the members are descended from a single progenitor."

Two comments:

1. Darwin himself does not claim common descent to be a fact and explicitly acknowledges that "analogy may be a deceitful guide."

2. If you claim you can "see" the "single progenitor," then you are basically claiming you can "see," at a time billions of years past, one single (presumably microscopic, so bring your microscope if you want to "see" it) organism from who all animals descended. It does matter "where you stop counting" generations, and you must go back as far as you can possibly go, without making some arbitrary cut-off point in the middle.

aintnuthin said...

One more comment:

"the more distinct the forms are which we consider, by so much the arguments in favour of community of descent become fewer in number and less in force..." (Darwin)

The more the diversity, the less the "force" and number of arguments in favor of "community of descent," eh? Who knew?

aintnuthin said...

"One consequence of the Duhem-Quine thesis is that any theory can be made compatible with any empirical observation by the addition of suitable ad hoc hypotheses."

=====

"With respect to the absence of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian formation, I can recur only to the hypothesis given in the tenth chapter; namely, that though our continents and oceans have endured for an enormous period in nearly their present relative positions, we have no reason to assume that this has always been the case; consequently formations much older than any now known may lie buried beneath the great oceans." (Darwin)

Well, there ya have it then, eh?

aintnuthin said...

I seen a bottom-feeder make a (to me, at least) persuasive argument to a jury one time. The prosecution had played a tape where, after first being arrested, his client had said; "Yeah, I killed that chump, and I'm glad I did."

The bottom-feeder told the jury that the prosecutor was simply deceitfully "quote-mining," because a year later his client had told them; "I didn't kill that chump, and I never said I did."

I guess they had other strong evidence against the guy (I didn't see the whole trial) because the jury gave him the chair, eh?

aintnuthin said...

Elliot Sober published an interesting paper about Darwinism and common descent at PNAS. As others have noted, Origin of Species was, above all, an argument AGAINST special creation. Sober quotes Darwin thusly:

"personally, of course, I caremuch about Natural Selection, but that seems to me utterly unimportant, compared with the question of Creation or Modification’’

Although Gould cites similarities as evidence of common descent, Sober properly observes that:

"Nonadaptive characters often provide strong evidence for common ancestry. And adaptive characters often provide little or no evidence for common ancestry."

Little or no evidence for common ancestry, eh? Gould and Mayr have made the same point:

"Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce. No one understood this better than Darwin. Ernst Mayr has shown how Darwin, in defending evolution, consistently turned to organic parts and geographic distributions that make the least sense." (Gould)

"The greatest triumph of Darwinism is that the theory of natural selection, for 80 years after 1859 a minority opinion, is now the prevailing explanation of evolutionary change. It must be admitted, however, that it has achieved this position less by the amount of irrefutable proofs it has been able to present than by the default of all the opposing theories." (Mayr)

Back to Sober:

"Tree-thinking is central to reasoning about natural selection, both for Darwin and for modern biology (34, 35). The reverse dependence is not part of the Darwinian framework, as we learn from Darwin’s Principle. You do not need to assume that natural selection has been at work to argue for common ancestry; in fact,
what Darwin thinks you need to defend hypotheses of common ancestry are traits whose presence cannot be attributed to natural selection....

It is not true that human beings and monkeys must both have tail bones if they share a
common ancestor and it is not true that they can not both have tail bones if they do not share a common ancestor. What is true is that
the probability of this similarity is greater under the common ancestry hypothesis."

I have my doubts as to whether you even care to read and evaluate this paper, Eric, but if you do, here it is:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/15/0901109106.full.pdf+html

The point? Well, there are several. But one is that common descent is an axiom, not a fact, in the darwinian analysis. It is a presupposition of all that follows, not an empirical discovery. One more quote from Sober:

"Common ancestry is not an unrelated add-on that supplements Darwin’s hypothesis of natural selection; rather, common ancestry provides a framework within which hypotheses about natural
selection can be tested. It is because of common ancestry that facts about the history of natural selection become knowable."


Also of some interest is what Gould knows about what a "sensible God" would do...

If the Detroit Pistons beat the New Jersey Nets, that may prove that they are the better team. But it does not prove that they are championship contenders. Likewise, outperforming your opponent in a debate (i.e., against naive and uninformed creationists) does not prove that your arguments are "true."

aintnuthin said...

Sober asks a revealing question: "The use of parsimony to reconstruct ancestral character states is intuitively attractive. If 2 or more descendants have a given trait, it seems natural to infer that the trait was present in their most recent common ancestor. But what is the logical justification of this inference from present to past?"

His answer?:

"The justification of parsimony, and the question of whether there are better methods of phylogenetic inference, is a subject of continuing investigation." [citing his own work: Sober E (2008) Evidence and Evolution—the Logic Behind the Science (Cambridge Univ
Press, Cambridge, UK)]

He also makes this interesting observation: "If all traits evolve because there is selection for them, Darwin’s Principle will conclude that we have little or no evidence for common ancestry...His conjunction—common ancestry and natural selection—would be unknowable, according to Darwin’s Principle."

Sober says Darwin's principle is: "Adaptive similarities provide almost no evidence for common ancestry while similarities that are useless or deleterious provide strong evidence for common ancestry."

He then says there is an intuitive basis for it in what he says in the inaptly named "Law of Likelihood." In showing how it applies, Sober compares ONLY two competing hypotheses: 1. Common descent and 2. special creation. It may be worth noting that Shapiro criticizes the "dialogue of the deaf" (as he characterizes the creationist/darwinists debates and the implied false dichotomy that either one or the other is "true') while advocating a "third way."

If none of this helps you see that common descent is strictly a theory (or, more aptly, an undebatable axiom which provides the basis for a theory), and not a "fact" found in the "world's data" which it would be perverse to deny then, oh, well....

What else is new? With ideological, dogmatic zealots, it is self-evident that anyone who does not agree with them is "perverse," and is merely a mentally unstable "denialist" who is ill-motivated, and stupid.

aintnuthin said...

One more observation from the Sober article:

Sober properly notes that the "Origin of Species" is misleadingly named and that the book does virtually nothing to explain how "species" originate.

He goes on to note that: "Although Darwin (ref. 1, p. 1) says that the origin of species is the ‘‘mystery of mysteries’’ that he proposes to solve, his solution of the problem is in some ways a dissolution...Darwin’s theory is better described as ‘‘the origin of diversity by means of natural selection....

is ‘‘evolutionby natural selection’’ a good characterization of Darwin’s theory? The answer is emphatically no...Darwin’s theory gives the concept of common ancestry a central place. The phrase ‘‘evolution by natural selection’’ does not capture this idea, nor does ‘‘descent with modification’’ (10, 11). Instead of describing Darwin’s theory as evolution by natural selection, the theory is better described as common ancestry plus natural selection...

No one doubted, then or now, that natural selection can cause small changes within
existing species. The question was whether the process Darwin described can bring about large changes. Maybe a species can be pushed only so far."


So, how does Darwin answer this "question" (i.e., whether one species can generate a new species)? He doesn't, at least not directly. He simply assumes an answer to the question and a solution to the explanatory problem. So long as he presupposes common descent, the question has been answered. There is no need to explain how, when, or by what means one species turns into two. That follows by implication from the initial premise, and can no longer be questioned.

Sober explains: "Darwin was an extrapolationist, inspired by the geological gradualism of Charles Lyell...Darwin
extrapolated from small to large; many of his critics refused to follow him here. If we focus just on natural selection, it is hard to see why Darwin had the more compelling case...[But common descent] is enough to show that insuperable species boundaries (and insuperable boundaries between ‘‘kinds’’) are a myth; if different species have a common ancestor, the lineages involved faced no such walls in their evolution."

It's hard to miss, logically speaking, when your premise is your conclusion and your conclusion is your premise.

aintnuthin said...

I made a post above about a bottom-feeder at a jury trial. Maybe the following will help explain why:

As Sober notes, Darwin himself says: "[A]daptive characters, although of the utmost importance to the welfare of the being, are almost valueless to the systematist. For animals belonging to two most distinct lines of descent, may readily become adapted to similar
conditions, and thus assume a close external resemblance;but such resemblances will not reveal – will rather tend to conceal their blood-relationship to their proper lines of
descent."

Given this, what are we to make of his [Darwin's] observation, elsewhere in the "Origin," that: "The framework of bones being the same in the hand of a man, wing of a bat, fin of the porpoise, and leg of the horse.. at once explain themselves on the theory of descent with slow and slight successive modifications."

It is curious that Gould echoes, virtually verbatim, this same implied claim that similarity implies common descent, which Darwin himself had already rejected. Not so curious that Gould left out the "with slow and successive modifications" portion when he paraphrased Darwin, because he rejected that part. Go figure, eh? Fact, I tellya!

I also like the claim that similarites "explain themselves" so long as you posit descent by minutely slight modification. Nuthin better than the self-explanatory, know what I'm sayin?

aintnuthin said...

Eric, in an earlier post I suggested that you had a "million shortcuts" which infallibly led you to immediately discern indubitable truth. This is the kind of thing I had in mind:

Premise #1: Common descent is a known fact

Premise #2: Anything inconsistent with a known fact must be false (non-factual)

Conclusion: Therefore, any claim inconsistent with common descent must be false.

Purty simple, eh?

aintnuthin said...

What you have done, Eric, is take Gould's (imperfect, if you ask me, but relatively reasonable) statements about "evolution" and substitute the phrase "common descent" for the term "evolution."

In the terms of population genetics and most modern textbooks, "evolution" is defined along the lines of "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals." However vacuous this definition may be, it says NOTHING about common descent. Population genetics, by the admissions of it's adherent, cannot even address the issue of speciation by it's methods.

aintnuthin said...

"...the convergence of fresh theoretical ideas in evolution and the coming avalanche of genomic data will profoundly alter our understanding of the biosphere and is likely to lead to revision of concepts such as species, organism and evolution...

It is becoming clear that microorganisms have a remarkable ability to reconstruct their genomes in the face of dire environmental stresses, and that in some cases their collective interactions with viruses may be crucial to this. In such a situation, how valid is the very concept of an organism in isolation? It seems that there is a continuity of energy flux and informational transfer from the genome up through cells, community, virosphere and environment. We would go so far as to suggest that a defining characteristic of life is the strong dependency on flux from the environment be it of energy, chemicals, metabolites or genes...

Refinement through the horizontal sharing of genetic innovations would have triggered an explosion of genetic novelty, until the level of complexity required a transition to the current era of vertical evolution. Thus, we regard as regrettable the conventional concatenation of Darwin's name with evolution, because other modalities must also be considered."

Nature 445, 369 (25 January 2007) | doi:10.1038/445369a; Published online 24 January 2007
ConnectionsBiology's next revolution

Nigel Goldenfeld1 and Carl Woese2
====

Was the last common ancestor a micro-organism, ya figure? "...microorganisms have a remarkable ability to reconstruct their genomes in the face of dire environmental stresses..." So they, kinda like, go shoppin, that the idea? Just "reconstruct" their genomes, as needed? I spoze this could also explain some similarity and diversity, eh, completely apart from any "inheritance" or "descent."

"...the convergence of fresh theoretical ideas in evolution...is likely to lead to revision of concepts such as species, organism and evolution...Thus, we regard as regrettable the conventional concatenation of Darwin's name with evolution" Revision? Does this mean that implicit and unquestioned faith in Darwin's hypothesis of universal common "descent with modification" aint gunna be required no more, I wonder?

aintnuthin said...

"Paleontologists now know that the Precambrian actually did swarm with living creatures, and it was swarming more than 3.85 billion years ago....The oldest actual fossils of bacteria date back 3.5 billion years, about 350 million years after the earliest chemical signs of life. These fossils, discovered in the 1970s in western Australia, consist of delicate chains of microbes that look exactly like living blue-green algae (otherwise known as cyanobacteria)."

So currently living blue-green algae look exactly like 3.5 billion year old fossils? Was one of these the universal common ancestor of all living things, ya figure?

"At the time, the oceans were teeming with bacteria generating their own food as they do today, either from sunlight or from the energy contained in the chemistry of hot springs. These self-sustaining microbes were probably food for predatory bacteria, as well as hosts for viruses."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/3/text_pop/l_033_28.html

Teeming, eh? If one of these was the universal common ancestor, I wonder which one it was, ya know?

aintnuthin said...

So, then, here ya got presumably billions of gene-swappin bacteria runnin round the ocean floors almost 4 billion years ago, any one of which was presumably capable of "mutating" into sumthin that later became, say, a zebra. Was only one of these billions capable of mutating like that, or did just all but one die out, I wonder?

aintnuthin said...

I guess that question is stupid, eh? Even if millions of these bacteria took different evolutionary directions, one ultimately turnin into a zebra, one a whale, etc., obviously all these bacteria themselves came from just one bacteria-guy who spawned them all, right? I wonder if that one guy had genes that were capable of turnin into zebras, whales, or whatever, and just passed them along to the billions of bacteria guys who he ultimately spawned. Or did his progeny pick up the capacity to evolve into a whale, zebra, etc., later?

aintnuthin said...

It kinda makes me wonder if some bacteria, somewhere on the ocean floor is, at this very minute, mutating into something that will become Godzilla. Kinda scary, know what I'm sayin?

aintnuthin said...

Since when did the New York Times start publishin the demented rants of science-hatin, global-warmin denyin, fundie creationist cranks, I wonder?:

"Hammering away at an ideology, substituting stridency for contemplation, pummeling its enemies in absentia: ScienceBlogs has become Fox News for the religion-baiting, peak-oil crowd. Though Myers and other science bloggers boast that they can be jerky in the service of anti-charlatanism, that’s not what’s bothersome about them. What’s bothersome is that the site is misleading. It’s not science by scientists, not even remotely; it’s science blogging by science bloggers. And science blogging, apparently, is a form of redundant and effortfully incendiary rhetoric that draws bad-faith moral authority from the word “science” and from occasional invocations of “peer-reviewed” thises and thats.

Under cover of intellectual rigor, the science bloggers — or many of the most visible ones, anyway — prosecute agendas so charged with bigotry that it doesn’t take a pun-happy French critic or a rapier-witted Cambridge atheist to call this whole ScienceBlogs enterprise what it is, or has become: class-war claptrap."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/magazine/01FOB-medium-t.html?_r=3

aintnuthin said...

Is there a "politically correct" science, ya figure?:

"Three months ago I spent a fascinating few days in a villa opposite Cap Ferrat, France, taking part in a seminar with a dozen very bright scientists, some world authorities in their field. Although most had never met before, they had two things in common. Each had come to question one of the most universally accepted scientific orthodoxies of our age: the Darwinian belief that life on earth evolved simply through the changes brought about by an infinite series of minute variations.

The other was that, on arriving at these conclusions, they had come up against a wall of hostility from the scientific establishment. Even to raise such questions was just not permissible...

Right from the start, one of the more conspicuous features of the global warming cause has been the way its adherents felt the need to elevate their belief system into a rigid orthodoxy, a “consensus” not to be challenged. They deal with challenges not through scientific debate, but by denouncing the dissenters as being beyond the pale.
The “sceptics” are demonised as Flat Earthers, equivalent to Holocaust deniers, who could only hold the views they do because they have been paid to do so by “Big Oil”. The only debate which can be allowed, as we saw confirmed by those Climategate emails, is that between the believers themselves, while anyone outside the faith, however knowledgeable, must be vilified as a dangerous heretic, excluded from scientific journals, forbidden to examine the often highly suspect data and condemned as being “anti-science”.

Such fanatical intolerance, in defence of pseudo-scientific causes which reflect the prejudices of the age, has become only too common. A notorious example was the ruthless attempt to suppress the most rigorous study ever carried out into the effects of passive smoking. When this mammoth 40-year project by two non-smokers found the health risks of environmental tobacco smoke to be negligible, its sponsors, the American Cancer Society, withdrew their funding. Their findings only saw light of day when the editor of the British Medical Journal decided, in the name of scientific principle, that such scrupulous research should no longer be suppressed."

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/dc-comment/science-and-prejudice-darwin%E2%80%99s-shadow-106

aintnuthin said...

According to one of ID website, intelligent design theory is defined as follows:

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

The crux of the issue here seems to be whether the "process" which explains things is directed or undirected.

According to Elliot Sober (and anyone else, really) Darwinian and Neo-darwinian theory both "hold" that mutations are undirected. Natually enough, darwinians strongly dispute any suggestion that directed mutation has been observed, as Woese, Shapiro, and many others claim:

"Basically Cairns (in Nature) and B. H. Hall (in Genetics) say that organisms can respond to environmental stresses by reorganizing their genes in a purposeful way. Such "directed mutation" shifts the course of evolution in a nonrandom way.

Such a conclusion was like waving a red flag in front of the evolutionists. R. May, at the University of Oxford, complained, "The work is so flawed, I am reluctant to comment." On the other side, a University of Maryland geneticust, S. Benson, comments, "Many people have had such observations, but they have problems getting them published."

Our template in this discussion is an article by A.S. Moffat in American Scientist. She says, "The stakes in this dispute are high, indeed. If directed mutations are real, the explanations of evolutionary biology that depend on random events must be thrown out. This would have broad implications. For example, directed mutation would shatter the belief that organisms are related to some ancestor if they share traits. Instead, they may simply share exposure to the same environmental cues. Also, different organisms may have different mutation rates based on their ability to respond to the environment. And the discipline of molecular taxonomy, where an organism's position on the evolutionary tree is fixed by comparing its genome to those of others, would need extreme revision."

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf064/sf064b07.htm

I don't care to debate which of the following hypotheses is the "correct" one, Eric, but I would merely ask which one is "scientific" and "testable?"

1. The evolutionary process is undirected

2. The evolutionary process is not undirected.

Which hypothesis is the "scientific" one which should be inculcated in schoolchildren?

aintnuthin said...

The summary of a relatively recent (2009)peer-reviewed article published in "Molecular Microbiology" says:

"Directed mutation is a proposed process that allows mutations to occur at higher frequencies when they are beneficial. Until now, the existence of such a process has been controversial. Here we describe a novel mechanism of directed mutation mediated by the transposon, IS5 in Escherichia coli. crp deletion mutants mutate specifically to glycerol utilization (Glp+) at rates that are enhanced by glycerol or the loss of the glycerol repressor (GlpR), depressed by glucose or glpR overexpression, and RecA-independent. Of the four tandem GlpR binding sites (O1–O4) upstream of the glpFK operon, O4 specifically controls glpFK expression while O1 primarily controls mutation rate in a process mediated by IS5 hopping to a specific site on the E. coli chromosome upstream of the glpFK promoter. IS5 insertion into other gene activation sites is unaffected by the presence of glycerol or the loss of GlpR. The results establish an example of transposon-mediated directed mutation, identify the protein responsible and define the mechanism involved."

It all sounds kinda scientific, I spoze, but this couldn't possibly be science. Science says all mutations are non-directed. Only religion and wack-ass ID theory (creationism in a cheap tuxedo) would ever claim otherwise. As we all know, they are non-scientific.

aintnuthin said...

Forgot to include the cite, eh?

http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0950-382X

aintnuthin said...

It has been claimed, by Dawkins and others, that if a rabbit fossil were found in cambrian ages rocks, that would "disprove" theory of common ancestry, etc. Heh, fat chance.

Cladograms do not "test" common ancestry, they explicitly presuppose it. Many cases have occurred where fossils are later found in a strata which indicates the cladograms, based on the assumption of common ancestry, are wrong. Does the underlying assumption (common ancestry) ever get questioned?

Of course not. There is always some other ad hoc explanation; the imperfection of the geological record, mistakes made in the original cladification, whatever. Common ancestry CANNOT be falsified when you assume it as an axiom from the git-go.

If a cambrian rabbit were found, that would merely prove that prior mistakes in interpretation, classification, understanding, etc. had been made, somehow, some way, even if the mistakes cannot be discerned. That would just create another "mystery."

aintnuthin said...

As Flandern observed with respect to SR vs LR, they cannot be tested pitted against each other, even if theory.

If you assume SR is correct, your method of synchronization must be such as to dictate SR results.

Likewise, if you assume LR is correct, your method of synchronization must be such as to dictate LR results.

If you don't assume that one or the other is correct, there is no way to know the "correct" method of synchronization.

The interpretion of data depends on the axiomatic propostitions you presuppose. Geocentricity will dictate one interpretation of astronomic data, heliocentricity another, and both can be self-consistent.

And any pretense, like SR tries to make on a very superficial basis, that heliocentricy and geocentricity are "equally valid" assumptions quickly disipates in the face of pragmatic and theoretical analysis. SR merely incorporates the notion of absolute motion in a disguised form, while trying to claim, in the context of verbal philosophical discourse, that all motion is "absolutely relative" (an oxymoron, I know).

aintnuthin said...

You haven't answered my question about which of the following is testable and scientific, so let me guess your answers:

1. The evolutionary process is undirected: There is a scientific consensus that it would be perverse to deny that the evolutionary process is undirected. This proposition has been rereatedly proven, beyond reasonable dispute, and is as close to "scientific fact" as you can get. Their is nothing philosophical or speculative about it. This truth should be inculcated in schoolchildren.

2. The evolutionary process is not undirected: This is a strictly philosophical proposition. It would poison our schoolchildren to have it discussed or mentioned in a science class. Such speculative propositions must be confined to philosophical classes.

That about it, eh?

aintnuthin said...

"For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any critical analysis of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me."

James Shapiro, Professor, Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics, Committee on Genetics, Genomics & Systems Biology, University of Chicago

aintnuthin said...

"Such a cognitive component is absent from conventional evolutionary theory because 19th and 20th century evolutionists were not sufficiently knowledgeable about cellular response and control networks. This 21st century view of evolution establishes a reasonable connection between ecological changes, cell and organism responses, widespread genome restructuring, and
the rapid emergence of adaptive inventions. It also answers the objections to conventional theory raised by intelligent design advocates, because evolution by natural genetic engineering has the capacity to generate complex novelties. In other words, our best defense against anti-science obscurantism comes from the study of mobile DNA because that is the subject that has most significantly transformed evolution from natural history into a vibrant empirical science."

http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2010.MobileDNA.pdf

Shapiro has often, as he does here, disavowed ID theory, but who the hell does he think he's kiddin? "Cognitive component" in evolutionary theory!? What a whacko, eh? I don't care if he is a protege of Barbara McClintock and has 40+ of experince in researching microbiology and genetics at one of the most pretigious universities in the country. He's just plumb nuts, I tellya!

One Brow said...

You too have mistated it. Probably closest is "VERY FEW have any plausible link to organisms for which fossils have every been found after centuries of diligent searching."

Considering we don't even have body plans for many/most of the Precambrian fossils, how could you possibly know that any link is not plausible?

The quality of being "known" is a prequisite for any reasonable claim that something is a "fact."

However, the quality of "having a fossil that is a plausible connection" is not a prerequisite for "establishing common acestry" among metazoans.

After all the quotations from Colin Patterson and other systematic paleontologists I have cited you, you think I don't realize how little fossils "prove" on their own?

I think they show even less than you realize.

Heh, you're so predictable. If a "creationist" (which you can spot because they don't agree with you) reports the facts, those facts suddenly become lies and false reports, too, I spoze.

I notice you didn't say I was wrong about that. Yes, creationists consistently misreport the facts to support their pet beliefs.

"Frank nonsense" documented (and severely criticized) by such nototious "creationists" as Stephen J. Gould, eh?

Nothing in the Chinese digs have rebutted anything Gould believed, from what I can tell.

Inasmuch as any given fact will have implications, any number of "predicitions" (as you want to call them) can be made. A few examples:

1. The air temperature is below 40 degrees
2. Walking and driving surfaces will be more slippery than usual
3. If you don't wear a hat, your head will get moist
4. ad infinitum


Why does snow get associated with low air temperature, sippery surfaces, and moist heads? To answer that, you need to add in additional facts, and then connect them with explanations. We call those explanations hypotheses initially, and theories after they are tested.

Eric, 10 = 20. If you do not readily affirm and understand this, I can only take it as an acknowledgment of your extremely limited intellectual capacity and resign myself to the fact that you will never "get" the most obvious and self-evident truths.

I think I'll survive. You are certainly free to stop trying to get me to understand 10 = 20 on the basis of your observation.

One Brow said...

Just as obvious: I did not "inherit" that variey. I did not acquire it as a matter of "descent."

When you pass the variety on to your kids, they will inherit it as a matter of descent.

Speaking of "predictions" entailed by Darwinism,
...
Progress toward perfection, I tellya! I love me some teleology, know what I'm sayin?

(answer: Charles Darwin)


Sounds like Darwin was wrong there.

Are Darwin's pontifications part of "western wisdom," ya figure?

More so than any other scientist? No. He had a great break-through based on hard work and intelligence, but he wasn't any sort of prophet.

I guess even Darwin didn't expect his speculations about (lack of) fossils to be well-received, eh:?

Yet, like any good scientist, he published anyway.

Two comments:

1. Darwin himself does not claim common descent to be a fact and explicitly acknowledges that "analogy may be a deceitful guide."

2. If you claim you can "see" the "single progenitor," then you are basically claiming you can "see," at a time billions of years past, one single (presumably microscopic, so bring your microscope if you want to "see" it) organism from who all animals descended. It does matter "where you stop counting" generations, and you must go back as far as you can possibly go, without making some arbitrary cut-off point in the middle.


1. Common descent for animals and plants was far more speculative in Darwin's time than our own, and his caution was appropriate. 2. If at any point you have a single common ancestor, then it doesn't matter if that organism had multiple independent ancestors: you still have that single ancestor.

"Nonadaptive characters often provide strong evidence for common ancestry. And adaptive characters often provide little or no evidence for common ancestry."

Little or no evidence for common ancestry, eh?


Yes, that's fairly well-known.

One Brow said...

I have my doubts as to whether you even care to read and evaluate this paper

My time is limited.

But one is that common descent is an axiom, not a fact, in the darwinian analysis. It is a presupposition of all that follows, not an empirical discovery.

"Darwin faced a choice. Selection has causal priority; common ancestry has evidential priority. "

You misread that paper quite thoroughly. Was it deliberate?

If the Detroit Pistons beat the New Jersey Nets, that may prove that they are the better team. But it does not prove that they are championship contenders.

When they beat the other 29 existing teams for a combined record of (being generous to the metaphorical other teams) of 80-2, I think they are championship contenders. Saying that there is some really good team out there who hasn't made it to the NBA yet? Not really a good choice.

He also makes this interesting observation: "If all traits evolve because there is selection for them, Darwin’s Principle will conclude that we have little or no evidence for common ancestry...His conjunction—common ancestry and natural selection—would be unknowable, according to Darwin’s Principle."

That seems accurate enough.

... Shapiro criticizes the "dialogue of the deaf" (as he characterizes the creationist/darwinists debates and the implied false dichotomy that either one or the other is "true') while advocating a "third way."

When Shapiro has a third way to present, of course. We've discussed his work before.

If none of this helps you see that common descent is strictly a theory (or, more aptly, an undebatable axiom which provides the basis for a theory), and not a "fact" found in the "world's data" which it would be perverse to deny then, oh, well....

Feel free to stop commenting.

As Sober notes, Darwin himself says: "[A]daptive characters, although of the utmost importance to the welfare of the being, are almost valueless to the systematist. For animals belonging to two most distinct lines of descent, may readily become adapted to similar conditions, and thus assume a close external resemblance;but such resemblances will not reveal – will rather tend to conceal their blood-relationship to their proper lines of descent."

You did notice the importance of similar conditions there?

I also like the claim that similarites "explain themselves" so long as you posit descent by minutely slight modification. Nuthin better than the self-explanatory, know what I'm sayin?

What's the alternative explanation? What are the similar condition that the dolphin's fin, the bat's wing, the dog's leg, and the human hand to use the same bone structure? Because if you are going to invoke Sober's argument against the idea, you are relying on those similar conditions existing.

One Brow said...

Was the last common ancestor a micro-organism, ya figure? "...microorganisms have a remarkable ability to reconstruct their genomes in the face of dire environmental stresses..." So they, kinda like, go shoppin, that the idea? Just "reconstruct" their genomes, as needed? I spoze this could also explain some similarity and diversity, eh, completely apart from any "inheritance" or "descent."

Absolutely.

Since when did the New York Times start publishin the demented rants of science-hatin, global-warmin denyin, fundie creationist cranks, I wonder?:

How long have they been publishing?

It’s not science by scientists, not even remotely; it’s science blogging by science bloggers.

Actually, science blogging primarily by scientists and mathematicians (Myers, Orac, erv, Rosenhouse) with a few science bloggers (Brayton) in addition.

By the way, the author lost a lot of creidibility when recomending Watts quite awful blog.

The crux of the issue here seems to be whether the "process" which explains things is directed or undirected.

Until the develop a scientific test for "directed", the crux of the issue is that the question is not scientific.

According to Elliot Sober (and anyone else, really) Darwinian and Neo-darwinian theory both "hold" that mutations are undirected.

Incorrect. They are not directed by the needs of that particular organism.

1. The evolutionary process is undirected

2. The evolutionary process is not undirected.

Which hypothesis is the "scientific" one which should be inculcated in schoolchildren?


Neither seems scientific (in fact, if either hypothesis is scientific in nature, both must be). Neither should be taught.

It all sounds kinda scientific, I spoze, but this couldn't possibly be science. Science says all mutations are non-directed. Only religion and wack-ass ID theory (creationism in a cheap tuxedo) would ever claim otherwise. As we all know, they are non-scientific.

Sounded similar to Shapiro's work. From what I recall, while mutation rates were changed, the actual mutations were not directed.

I can do better than that. Every time a cell engages in DNA repair it is using directed changes to the genome. That directed mutation, right?

It has been claimed, by Dawkins and others, that if a rabbit fossil were found in cambrian ages rocks, that would "disprove" theory of common ancestry, etc. Heh, fat chance.

Cladograms do not "test" common ancestry, they explicitly presuppose it.


The second sentence is not connected to the first.

You haven't answered my question about which of the following is testable and scientific, so let me guess your answers:
...
That about it, eh?


Wow, you really haven't been listening at all, have you? I don't expect you to agree with me. But apparently you think I don't believe what I'm actually saying, or just don't care to read closely enough to understand it.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "Considering we don't even have body plans for many/most of the Precambrian fossils, how could you possibly know that any link is not plausible?"

I didn't say there was no plausible link. Read it again.


"When you pass the variety on to your kids, they will inherit it as a matter of descent."

One Brow said: "2. If at any point you have a single common ancestor, then it doesn't matter if that organism had multiple independent ancestors: you still have that single ancestor."

Obviously, but what does that have to do with UNIVERSAL common descent? "In common" with who? My brother? Or me and every other single living thing on the planet?



If I do, no one can say I got it from their grandpappy, which is the essential presumption that all the "evidence" relying on "common descent" relies on.

aintnuthin said...

Last post is out of order (one reason I usually don't try to make multiple responses in this format). The last response is to the second comment of yours that I cut and pasted.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "Why does snow get associated with low air temperature, sippery surfaces, and moist heads? To answer that, you need to add in additional facts, and then connect them with explanations. We call those explanations hypotheses initially, and theories after they are tested."

So are you agreeing that, by your stated criteria, when I say it's snowing outside, I have postulated a theory?

aintnuthin said...

"Darwin faced a choice. Selection has causal priority; common ancestry has evidential priority." (Sober)

You misread that paper quite thoroughly. Was it deliberate? (One Brow)

In what way did I misread it? Common descent, once assumed, gives the "evidence" for the purported cause.

I'll quote it again, for convenience:

"if we focus just on natural selection, it is hard to see why Darwin had the more compelling case...[But common descent] is enough to show that insuperable species boundaries (and insuperable boundaries between ‘‘kinds’’) are a myth; if different species have a common ancestor, the lineages involved faced no such walls in their evolution." (Sober)

In other words, as long as we assume that we all descended from a common critter it MUST follow that one critter can evolve into a second species, each of those two into two others, and that every living thing came to be by that method. No need to show how, when, or by what mechanism it occurred, because it happened, there can be no question about it (given the assumption). As Sober points out, Darwin's "dog breeding" analogies were certainly insufficient to provide strong evidence of the "origin of species" by macro-evolutionistic "descent with modificiation."

What "proves" it is the assumption of universal common descent (hence the "evidentiary priority," which does not mean there is any strong evidence for it). Critter X and critter Y why could have both descended from a common ancestor WITHOUT universal common descent.

aintnuthin said...

What Sober is clearly saying, and what is most evident from the statement Darwin made about the relative importance (in his mind) of common ancestry vs. natural selection, etc., is that Darwin's "long argument" is AGAINST the notion of special creation. To be fair, he (Darwin) thought he had good evidence for universal common descent, and maybe he did (then again, maybe he didn't, it depends on what you consider "good evidence" to be).

One point which I want to emphasize from Sober's article is that Darwin was primarily arguing AGAINST something (special creation) and that the implicit assumption was that if his arguments appeared stronger than those for special creation, then (according to you and others) his conclusions must be virtually indubitable. Like I said, one can't assume that the Nets are championship contenders just because they beat the Pistons.

There is a false dichotomy involved here, and there is more. There is a highly-valued philosophical world view to be defended, promoted, and promulgated as being indubitable (just ask Dawkins, eh?).

Once you assume common descent, then you interpret all "facts" with that inviolable assumption dictating the conclusions you (are allowed to) make. As I said before, all astronomical motions can be "explained" on the basis of either a heliocentric or geocentric premise, and accurate "predictions" can be made either way. It is your assumptions, not the discernable "facts," which dictates how you interpret the phenomena.

There is nothing in the "facts" which precludes the conclusion that the underlying laws of chemistry, etc., invariably cause chemicals to combine in such a way (over and over again) i that the same DNA code will keep appearing by virtual inevitabiliy. The DNA code of various species could be the same by virtue of a COMMON cause, which is NOT COMMON ancestry. I'm not sayin it is or it aint, cause I don't pretend to know, just sayin.

aintnuthin said...

... Shapiro criticizes the "dialogue of the deaf" (as he characterizes the creationist/darwinists debates and the implied false dichotomy that either one or the other is "true') while advocating a "third way."

When Shapiro has a third way to present, of course. We've discussed his work before.

===

Jeez, Eric, why is it that you consider your hand-waving dismissals to be so conclusive? I remember when you dismissed Shapiro out of hand as an ID'er when he is no such thing. Even if he were, that would not suffice to to refute every fact he presents, answer every question he raises, or refute every criticism he makes. Once again your "million shortcuts" take you straight to indubitable truth with virtually no effort or thought required.

Two comments:

1. Did you even read the article I quoted from or cited? Have you read anything else by Shapiro and/or the many articles he cited? The paper I quoted is highly technical in nomenclature and presupposes familiariy with a lot of things I don't have that kind of familiarity with. But I still get the main drift, I think. Even though it is only a 10 page article, there are over 200 footnotes. If you want to contend that neither Shapiro nor any of the many scientists who agree with him that's it's not a simple choice between biblical creationism or neo-darwinism, help yourself.

2. As a logical matter, one does not need to have an alternate theory to disprove one that has been proposed. What is your implied reasoning here? Is is that you'll believe ANY explanation, however implausible, so long as no one else tenders an alternative explanation to consider? That's what it sounds like, and is one reason I have said that you are not a critical thinker.

aintnuthin said...

As Sober notes, Darwin himself says: "[A]daptive characters, although of the utmost importance to the welfare of the being, are almost valueless to the systematist. For animals belonging to two most distinct lines of descent, may readily become adapted to similar conditions, and thus assume a close external resemblance;but such resemblances will not reveal – will rather tend to conceal their blood-relationship to their proper lines of descent."

You did notice the importance of similar conditions there?

Yeah, I did. He's sayin that a "close external semblance" will conceal the proper (i.e, "two most distinct lines"-not common lines) lines of descent if adaptive. Did you notice that also?

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "Sounded similar to Shapiro's work. From what I recall, while mutation rates were changed, the actual mutations were not directed."

Shapiro's work (and that of many other researching in the fielf) shows a lot a things, and he clearly claims that a lot of genomic change is NON-RANDOM, but I think you're referring to Cairns. Once again, you seem to pretend that all the substantial issues will disappear so long as you can quibble about the exact meaning of single word (directed). It goes far beyond that, sorry.

One author I cited claims, for example, that: "The stakes in this dispute are high, indeed. If directed mutations are real, the explanations of evolutionary biology that depend on random events must be thrown out. This would have broad implications. For example, directed mutation would shatter the belief that organisms are related to some ancestor if they share traits. Instead, they may simply share exposure to the same environmental cues. Also, different organisms may have different mutation rates based on their ability to respond to the environment. And the discipline of molecular taxonomy, where an organism's position on the evolutionary tree is fixed by comparing its genome to those of others, would need extreme revision."

This author does not rely on a specific defintion of "directed" and simply contrasts it with explanations which "depend on random evetns." In this context, "directed" simply means "non-random." The Weissmanian thesis, swallowed whole by neo-darwinists, is that the genome cannot change in response to environmental conditions. Many scientist seem to dispute that assumption now.

One suggestion here, it seems, is that many (often mathmatically-derived) conclusions in biology are based upon the ASSUMPTION that mutation rates are constant. This would apparently include many of the conclusions which supposedly provide "evidence" of common ancestry, such as the position of an organism on an evolutionary tree.

I know you have tried to deny it in the past, but any authority on the subject will concede that the randomness of genetic change is a CENTRAL TENET of neo-darwinism (the modern synthesis). A central tenet of ID theory is that it could not possibly be strictly random? Are these contrasting views testable?

aintnuthin said...

I think you know exactly what I mean, and don't now wish to quibble about what "random" and "directed" mean. I am aware, for example, that Dawkins insists that evolution is highly non-random and is in fact completely "directed" (by natural selection, of course). That's not the kind of "direction" and "non-randomness" I'm talking about. I'm talking about the randomness of genetic variation.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "Wow, you really haven't been listening at all, have you? I don't expect you to agree with me. But apparently you think I don't believe what I'm actually saying, or just don't care to read closely enough to understand it."

I'm basing my answers on things you have said. You said, for example (the record is presumably in this blog somewhere) that "science" had no philosophical assumptions or underpinnings whatsoever, while religion, ID theory, and virtually any other subject of inquiry DID have them. You have conceded that certain unproven assumptions, such a uniformalism, may guide science, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Your reasoning, in some unexplained way, seems to be that science is based on "facts." Again, to me this just displays your lack of analysis of the nature and composition of theoretical thought. As philosophers of science who we have discussed have pointed out, any attempt to clearly distinguish naturalism as a "methodology" from naturalism as a fundamental philosophical foundation is bound to fail. And, truth be told, probably 80% of scientists don't try to make any such supposed distinction to begin with. Most of them could not articulate the difference and don't even begin to assert their conclusions with such subtle nuances in mind. Since they subscribe to natualism whole-heartedly as an ontological philosophy, they see no distinction to make with respect to "methodology."

aintnuthin said...

I can remember the first time that evolution came up as a topic between us. I said something to the effect that, while I did not subscribe to any particular version of ID theory (whether involving a God or not) I did find their criticisms of explanations revolving almost exclusively around assumptions about the randomness of genetic variety, minute gradual point mutation variations, and natural selection to be well-founded.

Your response was, of course, to express great amazement (that I could be so stupid) and to exclaim that you would find it quite entertaining to you if I could explain how and why I could possibly questions those assumptions and give any credence to criticisms of the way those assumptions had been devotedly indulged by "modern" evolutionary theory.

The Darwinists can ridicule and insult Behe, Denton, and others all they want. By doing so, they may give a sense of cockiness to readers like you when you parrot them. But, in point of fact, such inquiries have generated a ton of theoretical investigation into the issue of biological complexity, and this research has uncovered evidence which is strictly at odds with the dogmatic neo-darwinism that strongly prevailed from 1930 to virtually 2000.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: I can do better than that. Every time a cell engages in DNA repair it is using directed changes to the genome. That directed mutation, right?

No, it's not mutation at all, it's a repair function. As one would suspect, it is a process which would have an effect of mutation rates. According to the article you cited:

"On some occasions, DNA damage is not repaired, or is repaired by an error-prone mechanism which results in a change from the original sequence. When this occurs, mutations may propagate into the genomes of the cell's progeny. Should such an event occur in a germ line cell that will eventually produce a gamete, the mutation has the potential to be passed on to the organism's offspring. The rate of evolution in a particular species (or, more narrowly, in a particular gene) is a function of the rate of mutation. Consequently, the rate and accuracy of DNA repair mechanisms have an influence over the process of evolutionary change."

aintnuthin said...

That same article contains some claims that highlights other issues (other than the issue of presenting the conclusions of extremely long chains of inferences as virtual fact, I mean). For example:

"The fossil record indicates that single celled life began to proliferate on the planet at some point during the Precambrian period, although exactly when recognizably modern life first emerged is unclear. Nucleic acids became the sole and universal means of encoding genetic information, requiring DNA repair mechanisms that in their basic form have been inherited by all extant life forms from their common ancestor."

Note the reasoning here: If repair mechanisms exist, even at the most rudimentary stages of life, then that means they must have existed in the "common ancestor" of "all extant forms of life."

It seems this universal common ancestor was born with EVERYTHING ever needed, eh? Not only DNA (inexplicable in itself) but the means of repairing it, too (since that is required if DNA is to survive).

Such "explanations" are cheap, easy, and virtually mindless. Whatever the trait, whatever the level of complexity, it's existence and explanation is always imputed to a predecessor, in this case one that is an ancestor of all life. This is a glib "explanation" but the chain of infinite regress has to end with an extremely "primitive" organism who had it all. And, of course, it didn't "evolve" at all. It just sprung into being spontaneously.

aintnuthin said...

Here's another instance of curious reasoning:

"Cells cannot function if DNA damage corrupts the integrity and accessibility of essential information in the genome (but cells remain superficially functional when so-called "non-essential" genes are missing or damaged). Depending on the type of damage inflicted on the DNA's double helical structure, a variety of repair strategies have evolved to restore lost information."

1. Since (essential) cells cannot function if DNA damage corrupts them "strategies" must have to repair them must have evolved. But how could non-functioning cells "evolve" any helpful improvements?

2. How does a "repair strategy" evolve anyway? Is a "repair strategy" something you find via a point mutation? Who (what) concocted the "strategy" (sounds rather teleological, don't it) which then "evolved?"

aintnuthin said...

How could "mutating" an extremely finite amount of mass with a finite amount of properties, eventually turn it into something entirely novel?

Suppose I take a couple hundred components of primitive children's "lego" building blocks and put together an assemblage that I call building, like a "hut." Now, over a virtually limitless amount of time, I bombard it with x-rays, altering it's atomic structure little by little in the process. Will it someday become the empire state building, with ya figure?

How does a bacterium eventually and randomly become a whale by mutating it, then mutating it's mutation? Seems like there's gotta be sumthin more there for that to happen, don't it?

aintnuthin said...

Please understand: I'm not looking for, and will not accept, any kind of explanation that makes any appeal to "life forces." I reject occult notions of "vitalism" and know a priori that they don't exist, and couldn't possibly exist. I want a non-vital, strictly mechanical and materialistic explanation, get it? I'm a naturalist, ya see?
====

Vitalism, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is:

1. a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from biochemical reactions

2. a doctrine that the processes of life are not explicable by the laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part self-determining.

"In 1967, Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, stated “And so to those of you who may be vitalists I would make this prophecy: what everyone believed yesterday, and you believe today, only cranks will believe tomorrow.”

Me and Crick, homeys to the end, I tellya.

"A refinement of vitalism may be recognized in contemporary molecular histology in the proposal that some key organising and structuring features of organisms, perhaps including even life itself, are examples of emergent processes; those in which a complexity arises, out of interacting chemical processes forming interconnected feedback cycles, that cannot fully be described in terms of those processes since the system as a whole has properties that the constituent reactions lack. Whether emergent system properties should be grouped with traditional vitalist concepts is a matter of semantic controversy."

I don't want no truck with no "semantic controversies." Just the facts, Maam. If it smell vitalistic it IS vitalistic. End of story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

aintnuthin said...

I kinda like this here quote of Mayr, in that same article:

When one reads the writings of one of the leading vitalists like Driesch one is forced to agree with him that many of the basic problems of biology simply cannot be solved by a philosophy as that of Descartes, in which the organism is simply considered a machine…..The logic of the critique of the vitalists was impeccable...

[Impeccable logic critiquing vitalsim, eh? Cool! Now what?]

"But all their efforts to find a scientific answer to all the so-called vitalistic phenomena were failures.…

[What? Failures!? No adequate alternative theory to advance? That aint scientific, eh? Ya can't "critque" sumthin if ya don't have the "true" answer].

"...rejecting the philosophy of reductionism is not an attack on analysis.

["Philosophy of reductionism?" Maybe Mayr aint heard,, eh? There aint no "philosophy in science.]

"No complex system can be understood except through careful analysis. However the interactions of the components must be considered as much as the properties of the isolated components."

Kinda funny, that's what guys like Shapiro and Woese say too. Science has gone to hell. Where is Crick when ya really need his ass, I ax ya.

One Brow said...

One Brow said: "Considering we don't even have body plans for many/most of the Precambrian fossils, how could you possibly know that any link is not plausible?"

I didn't say there was no plausible link. Read it again.


Probably closest is "VERY FEW have any plausible link to organisms for which fossils have every been found after centuries of diligent searching."

If "very few" have "any" plausible link, what did you mean except the rest (those not among the "very few") have no plausible link?

Obviously, but what does that have to do with UNIVERSAL common descent? "In common" with who? My brother? Or me and every other single living thing on the planet?

The initial variety-shopping was performed billions and hundreds of millions of years ago. Since then, it's been passed to every living thing on the planet.

One Brow said: "Why does snow get associated with low air temperature, sippery surfaces, and moist heads? To answer that, you need to add in additional facts, and then connect them with explanations. We call those explanations hypotheses initially, and theories after they are tested."

So are you agreeing that, by your stated criteria, when I say it's snowing outside, I have postulated a theory?


Did you add in the additional facts and explanations needed to connect your predictions to the existence of snow?

In what way did I misread it? Common descent, once assumed, gives the "evidence" for the purported cause.

In that way. The paper nowhere says common descent is an unevidenced, assumed position.

I'll quote it again, for convenience:

Your quote doen't claim that common descent is an unevidenced assumption. The paper is very clear about which types of commonalities can be used as good evidence for common descent (those not explainable by environmental pressures).

There is a false dichotomy involved here, and there is more. There is a highly-valued philosophical world view to be defended, promoted, and promulgated as being indubitable (just ask Dawkins, eh?).

Even at the cost of supporting Dawkin's world-view, common sense should not be rejected simply because you don't like that consequence.

The DNA code of various species could be the same by virtue of a COMMON cause, which is NOT COMMON ancestry.

Of course. Should you find such a cause, it's a blow against common ancestry. There could also be tiny strings that pull us down to the earth, but are too small to perceive. Until you find the cause or the strings, youdon't say that common descent and gravitational pull are not facts because they could someday be overturned by evidence we've never seen a sniff of (especially since the genetic code is actually not quite universal).

Even if he were, that would not suffice to to refute every fact he presents, answer every question he raises, or refute every criticism he makes.

Shapiro's "third way" is actually naturally occuring phenomena that allows for some strings of DNA to mutate more in certain conditions. What part of that is supposed to be incompatible with standard evolutionary theory?

... that's it's not a simple choice between biblical creationism or neo-darwinism, help yourself.

Hasn't "neo-Darwinism" already been found to be hopelessly inadequate? Why would anyone feel the need for that choice? Is Shapiro a visionary for rejectinig the humour theory of disease, too?

One Brow said...

Yeah, I did. He's sayin that a "close external semblance" will conceal the proper (i.e, "two most distinct lines"-not common lines) lines of descent if adaptive. Did you notice that also?

Absolutely. For example, it's one reason we cn be confident the grey wolf is more closely related to the rhino than the Tasmanian wolf, even though it resembles the latter much more closely externally.

Shapiro's work (and that of many other researching in the fielf) shows a lot a things, and he clearly claims that a lot of genomic change is NON-RANDOM,

Any genomic change that arises from something other than nuclear decay is NON-RANDOM in the same way Shapiro's mutations were NON-RANDOM, and Shapiro's mutations were random in the way most genomic mutations are random. Not a quibble, a characteristic.

I know you have tried to deny it in the past, but any authority on the subject will concede that the randomness of genetic change is a CENTRAL TENET of neo-darwinism (the modern synthesis). A central tenet of ID theory is that it could not possibly be strictly random? Are these contrasting views testable?

I have tried to clarify the definition or randomness these authorities use, but you prefer to keep your definitions slippery and easily confuseable.

I'm talking about. I'm talking about the randomness of genetic variation.

The rate of this change is not random, though. Whether it is elevated or not, the rate is consistent. What's random are teh changes themselves. Shapiro found an elevated rate of random changes.

One Brow said: "Wow, you really haven't been listening at all, have you? I don't expect you to agree with me. But apparently you think I don't believe what I'm actually saying, or just don't care to read closely enough to understand it."

I'm basing my answers on things you have said.


Which does not dispute either clause of the "or".

You said, for example (the record is presumably in this blog somewhere) that "science" had no philosophical assumptions or underpinnings whatsoever, while religion, ID theory, and virtually any other subject of inquiry DID have them. You have conceded that certain unproven assumptions, such a uniformalism, may guide science, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Then, you're not going to launch into a discussion of confusing philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism?

As philosophers of science who we have discussed have pointed out, any attempt to clearly distinguish naturalism as a "methodology" from naturalism as a fundamental philosophical foundation is bound to fail.

Since the latter is based on the former, sure. While it's easy to operate naturally even when you accept the possible existence of the supernatural, the reverse is much more difficult.

... 80% of scientists ...

So, you're not making a claim to be discussing my views after all.

Your response was, of course, to express great amazement (that I could be so stupid) and to exclaim that you would find it quite entertaining to you if I could explain how and why I could possibly questions those assumptions and give any credence to criticisms of the way those assumptions had been devotedly indulged by "modern" evolutionary theory.

It has been entertaining, although the eventual result (your determination that every theory is highly tenuous simply because it is a theory) and your unwillingness to apply it universally (I don't think you've ever said the germ theory of disease was less than extremely reliable) was disappointing.

One Brow said...

But, in point of fact, such inquiries have generated a ton of theoretical investigation into the issue of biological complexity, and this research has uncovered evidence which is strictly at odds with the dogmatic neo-darwinism that strongly prevailed from 1930 to virtually 2000.

Please list the research that actually quotes the work of Behe or Denton on ID and has uncovered new evidence.

No, it's not mutation at all, it's a repair function. As one would suspect, it is a process which would have an effect of mutation rates.

If that is not a mutation, why is the result of Shapiro's work a mutation? Both are relatively permanent changes to DNA.

Suppose I take a couple hundred components of primitive children's "lego" building blocks and put together an assemblage that I call building, like a "hut."

Another tornado-builds-747-in-junkyard argument! Good show!

Kinda funny, that's what guys like Shapiro and Woese say too.

And Gould before them.

aintnuthin said...

If "very few" have "any" plausible link, what did you mean except the rest (those not among the "very few") have no plausible link?

"FOR WHICH FOSSILS HAVE BEEN FOUND" Did ya see that part?

"The initial variety-shopping was performed billions and hundreds of millions of years ago. Since then, it's been passed to every living thing on the planet."

Thanks for you unqualified claim of fact about what happened billions of years ago. I take it that, by asserting this "fact," you are hereby withdrawing your (implied) claim about the "fact" of universal common descent, eh?

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "In that way. The paper nowhere says common descent is an unevidenced, assumed position."

Darwin himself said it. It is a speculative claim, with some evidentiary support from which unproven inferences can be drawn (as can opposing conclusions) not a fact. That is the "hypothesis," which provides the basis for the theory.

Of course, the hypothesis "proves" the conclusions. Once you have universal common descent, all "speciation" is implied and there can be no argument about it.

Do you see that?

aintnuthin said...

I said: "The DNA code of various species could be the same by virtue of a COMMON cause, which is NOT COMMON ancestry."

You replied: "Of course. Should you find such a cause, it's a blow against common ancestry. There could also be tiny strings that pull us down to the earth, but are too small to perceive. Until you find the cause or the strings, youdon't say that common descent and gravitational pull are not facts because they could someday be overturned by evidence we've never seen a sniff of (especially since the genetic code is actually not quite universal)."

This is always your typical response, Eric, and you don't see that you are the party guilty of it, not the one you are accusing.

Let's go back to the "car made in Gary, Indiana," example which you responded to. By analogy, you say it is a "fact" that the car was made in Gary. I say "not necessarily." You respond that I haven't proved otherwise, therefore your claim is "fact."

The "evidence" (similiar forms, etc.) don't "prove" one thesis over the other here. All "proof" of common ancestry is just as compatible with my thesis as yours. It is simply an assumption, now so deeply engrained in Darwinists that it cannot be questioned. For them it is a "fact."

You haven't disproved my alternative hypothesis, does that make mine a "fact" until you do?

I grant you that all evidence can be "interpreted" as being consistent with, for example, either SR or LR. So how is one a "fact" and the other simply the "false" claim of a crank?

You want to bring up the fact that multiple DNA codes have been found as "evidence" against my hypothesis. To begin with, I said "virtually inevitable," not UNIVERSALLY inevitable. But that aside, how is that discovery evidence against my thesis, but not yours?

It aint. But you always seem to think any argument againt a position you favor strictly decides the issue in your favor, even when the exact same argument appies to the position you take. Go figure, eh?

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "Hasn't "neo-Darwinism" already been found to be hopelessly inadequate?"

In my opinion, yes. Many brilliant and talented scientists have rejected (and even ridiculed) the theory from the time it emerged as the "modern synthesis" in the 1930's. Many (most) others fell in step with the "party line" and for many decades, repeatedly tried to imply that the theory was "proven fact."

That's part of the problem here. You don't distinguish "evolutionary theory" as a large class (there are many, many theories of evolution, and they are not all compatible with each other) from any particular theory. Each of these theories have their own premises (and underlying philosophy about what kinds of evidence and conclusions are permissible and "accepable").

"Universal common descent" is Darwin's hypothesis. Other theories may also accept that hypothesis as a reasonable one, without any pretense of claiming that it is "known fact." Other theories reject it. Still others see the question as being of minimal ultimate importance, and hence do not concern themselves with declaring it to be a "fact" or "non-fact."

For decades neo-darwinists sneered at any "unacceptable" evidence and bellowed (as you tend to do) that there theoretical premises were "fact."

Nobel prize winners were urging the University of Illinois to fire Woese (apparently on the grounds that he was an uninformed crank who had, and would continue to, embassass(ed) mainstream evolutionists with his crazy research). Barbara McClintock, Gould, and many others were severely criticized (and ridiculed) in like fashion.

For all the "fear" of a dogmatic theocracy that atheists like to express, they have no similar concern about a dictatorial dogmatism that favors their views. On the contrary, many of them work hard to establish it. Go figure, eh?

aintnuthin said...

Edit: "But you always seem to think any argument againt a position you [DIS]favor strictly decides the issue in your favor, even when the exact same argument appies to the position you take. Go figure, eh?"

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "It has been entertaining, although the eventual result (your determination that every theory is highly tenuous simply because it is a theory) and your unwillingness to apply it universally (I don't think you've ever said the germ theory of disease was less than extremely reliable) was disappointing."

1. We've been through this before. "Germ theory" is not, in itself, a scientific theory. That's what our disagreement has been about from my perspective.

2. Why should the proposition that germs can cause disease by universally applied? We know that not "every" disease is caused by germs. Psychosomatic diseases, for just one example. Your apparent "point" is directed only against fools who might declare that germs CANNOT cause diseases. Once again, there seems to be an all-or-nothing, falsely dichotomous aspect to your implied reasoning.

In the same manner, comparision of "evolution theory" to "germ theory," is simply directed AGAINST biblical creationists. But scientists make often such claims in an ambiguous, equivocal manner carelessly (or perhaps deliberately) giving the uninformed the impression that scientific theories are "certain."

3. I don't say every theory is "tenuous" just because it is a theory. I say that it is not a "fact" and that theories and facts are fundamentally different things, that's all.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "The rate of this change is not random, though. Whether it is elevated or not, the rate is consistent. What's random are teh changes themselves. Shapiro found an elevated rate of random changes."

Many scientists are reporting results of research which suggest that there is a strong bias in favor of "helpful" mutations at these elevated rates. Check it out before stating the "facts," why doncha?

That aside, the point of all of these studies is multi-facited vis a vis the strict presupposition of the (then-prevailing) "current" theory. The (anti-lamarkian) claim, for example, that an organism does not, and can not, genetically respond to environmental conditions. If they are genetically "unfit" they simply die, or so the theory said. They can do nothing to influence of affect their genetics or the chang (mutation) thereof.

Another implication I addressed later (and you may have addressed it later, I dunno cause I'm just responding in the order I read your comments), is that the uniformity of rates, and other notions of randomness and passivity of the organism, are built into the assumptions (and mathematical analyses) which underly many "indisputable" conclusions which have been made in the past

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "Please list the research that actually quotes the work of Behe or Denton on ID and has uncovered new evidence."

1. I said "such inquiries," (about complexity, weakness in the prevailing theory, etc.) and many scientists have acknowledged the stimulus provided by ID advocates.

2. Please list the research which says it is NOT concerned with any of the questions raised by Denton, Behe, et al.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "If that is not a mutation, why is the result of Shapiro's work a mutation? Both are relatively permanent changes to DNA."

Why don't you read some of his work and find out, eh? Why is manufacturing a new car different than repairing an existing engine. Both effect relatively permanent changes to an an automobile engine (or the materials they are composed of)?

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "Another tornado-builds-747-in-junkyard argument! Good show!"

Have you read (and did you understand) the rigourous mathematical analysis which led Hoyle to come up with the 747 analogy? Or do you just take it on faith that his analyisis is preposturous?

Virtually every evolutionary theorist, neo-darwinian or not, acknowledges that the origin of novelty has not been adequately explained. Of course it has all been perfectly explained to the "ultradawinists" and can be explained in two words: "natural selection."

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "Please list the research that actually quotes the work of Behe or Denton on ID and has uncovered new evidence."

One more comment in response to this demand: While most of it cannot be characterized as "research" (as opposed to debate which sometimes purports to rely on particular interpretations of reseach), just about every "evolutionary scientist" on the internet has seen fit to "refute" ID claims, very often based upon the theological insight that a God, if he existed," would act in a certain known way. Which kinda implies that claims about God's doings are "testable," know what I'm sayin?

aintnuthin said...

A couple observations about alternative competing theories and other topics we have discussed before.

1. Even though both heliocentric and geocentric premises can "explain" the phenomena and make highly accurate predictons based on those premises, no one would seriously argue today that the earth is motionless while the heavens move. An ancient greek, Aristarchus, had in fact developed a sophisticated heliocentric astronomy long before christ, so the idea is not "modern." Nonetheless it required strong resistance, over a period of centuries, to established dogmatism to finally get astronomers to even accept the "possibility" of a geocentric solar system.

2. "Evidence" that the earth "really" moves had been accumlating for centuries, but the experiment designed by Foucalt to test the hypothesis about the earth's rotation was accepted as the final demonstration of this.

3. Later, labored for many years attempting to develop a theory which would explain Foucalt's pendulum and all other phenomena as strictly a relative motion, or, failing that, showing that intertia originated in an observable thing, such as the total mass in the universe or the "fixed stars," as Mach had demanded.

4. Despite his aspirations, GR failed in both of these respects, as he explicitly acknowledged. GR cannot explain the action of foucalt's pendulum as a strictly relative motion and according to it's field equations, GR predicts that even if only one solitary object existed in the universe, it would still have inertial qualties (such as the generation of a "fictitious" force if it change directions, i.e., accerlates). Or so I am told by people who purport to understand those equations (I don't). Likewise, one could still tell if it was "really" rotating, even if no other object existed [unless maybe Newton's "absolute space" is an (unobservable) object] as a reference for what it was rotating "with respect to."

5. The origin of inertia is still unexplained to the satisfaction on any consensus. Same with many biological phenomena, such as the origination of genetic novelty. No one has "demonstrated" universal common descent in the conclusive manner that foucalt demonstrated the rotation of the earth. It is simply assumed by some and, once assumed, the assumption is built into all "proof." It's all very circular, ya know? Again, I am not equating universal descent in common (all extant beings descended from something), with universal common descent (all extant beings descended from a single ancestor). The first proposition seems true, while the second is speculative and virtually impossible to "prove" at this point in history.

But, even though the first proposition "seems" true, who can say that inert chemicals are not spontaneously creating a living thing (which would not have a ancestor) on this planet right now. Again, if you assume it can happen once, then you must assume it can happen again, I figure.

aintnuthin said...

Kuhn and other have convincingly (to me) argued, competing "paradigms" of science often are not, and in some cases can not, be resolved by reference to "the facts." Often it is simply a matter of favored assumptions. "The paradigm, in Kuhn's view, is not simply the current theory, but the entire worldview in which it exists, and all of the implications which come with it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

This article also reports that: "Fritjof Capra describes a paradigm shift presently happening in science from physics to the life sciences. This shift in perception accompanies a shift in values and is characterized by ecological literacy."

Also per wiki: "Ecological literacy (also referred to as ecoliteracy) is the ability to understand the natural systems that make life on earth possible...Ecological literacy is a powerful concept as it creates a foundation for an integrated approach to environmental problems. Advocates champion eco-literacy as a new educational paradigm emerging around the poles of holism, systems thinking, sustainability, and complexity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_literacy

Sumthin to think about, eh? What Kuhn calls "the entire worldview and the implications that come with it," I would just call "philosophy," for short.

aintnuthin said...

Edit:

"3. Later, [EINSTEIN) labored for many years attempting to develop a theory which would explain Foucalt's pendulum and all other phenomena as strictly a relative motion, or, failing that, showing that intertia originated in an observable thing, such as the total mass in the universe or the "fixed stars," as Mach had demanded.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "youdon't say that common descent and gravitational pull are not facts because they could someday be overturned by evidence we've never seen a sniff of (especially since the genetic code is actually not quite universal)."

No, I don't say they are not facts based on a(very reasonable) alternative hypothesis. I say they are not "facts" for the same reason I say the alterative hypothesis is not fact. My hypothesis is no more of a "Santa Claus" claim than yours (or no less, if you prefer, I'm willing to go either way with that characterization) is, yet you try to pretend that it is utterly absurd. Nice try.

Once again, you try to parrot Gould, but you just subsitute "common descent" every time he said "evolution." He did not say (universal) common descent is a "fact." Here again, you call it a fact, which merely says something about the basis (or lack thereof) you regard as sufficient to state it is a "fact."

aintnuthin said...

If you assume Darwin's "causal" assumptions, then there is no reason to conclude that only one ancestor "caused" every other extant living thing.

If every trait of every descendant could be traced to an ancestor, there would still be only one species, presumably some bactrium-like critter. Throwing in the elusive phrase "with modification" merely adds a claim of novelty for later descendants which the ancestor did not possess. The implicaton is that later critters are NOT a product of their heritage, but rather of that plus random novelties.

These novelties are alleged to occur constantly, with drastic macroevolutionary consequences over time. Since novelty is presumably omnipresent, why would you presume any feature or trait which a later (but different) creature possesses came from an ancestor? It could simply have come from this never-ending process of generating "novelty," even if some other non-ancestor had also generated the same random novelty in the past. In fact, Darwin and Sober show why that would be the primary presumption if the trait were in any way "adaptive."

I have heard that one square millimeter of human skin hosts over 100,000 bacteria. How many billions of billions of billions, then, were in the oceans for billions of years? Maybe more than one of these arose "spontaneously" and maybe more than one of them tranformed it's progeny into different creatures. Nothing in the "causal" part of the theory prevents that, or suggests it is inherently unreasonable. In fact, such an assumption seems more plausible than the assertion that, out of all these trillions of potential ancestors, all surviving descendants came from ONLY ONE critter, given both the stated and implied assumptions (one such assumption being some process of abiogenesis which generates life ex nhilo).

When you start asking how many creatures were created ex nihilo, it's kinda like askin how many reindeer Santa has, and how many elves he employs, ya know?

aintnuthin said...

Let's pretend ya could go back billions of years and roam the oceans. One day, for the first time, you see a critter which was never there before. You conclude it came to be by way of abiogenesis.

Now a month later, you visit that same spot, and see 20,000 of these same type of creatures. Where did the other 19,999 come from? The same place (abiogenesis) the first one came from? Or all from the one? How could you possibly know?

aintnuthin said...

Darwin's fanciful quantitative assumptions about the very beginning of life are as much based on "fact" as are biblical tales of Adam and Eve.

aintnuthin said...

For decades now, it has been "popular" to say that the Michelson-Moreley experiments "proved" that there is no ether. It proved no such thing (even ignoring later claims that the experiment was flawed in a number of ways), and Einstein himself never claimed it's existence had been disproven (in fact, he said an "ether" in some form was basically required for physics to operate). At best, it proved that we can't "detect" the ether, not it's non-existence. Einstein merely said the existence of an ether was not a question that needed to be answered.

Likewise, it has been popular to claim that Einstein proved there is no "preferred" frame of reference that is "at rest." Einstien never made this claim either (again, only that it couldn't be detected if it were there). Much of this came from the highly empirical philosophy of Mach, who also inspired the once-raging (but now discredited) ultra-"empirical" school of logical positivism with it's "verificationist theory of truth" and it's claims that if there was no material "referrent" for a concept, then the concept was meaningless.

An interesting article analyzing Mach's empiricism can be found at the following link, if you're interested. Among other things, the author claims that a careful reading and analysis of Mach's thought reveals that he was misinterpreted by Einstein: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1259/1/MachContributionToInertia.pdf

Generally speaking, the founders of the modern synthesis were also enamored with logical positivism, it seems, and with the mathematically rigorous scientific "model" presented by mechanics in physics. They were determined to forge a biological theory of evolution which conformed to, and exemplied, their most highly valued philosophical convictions, not excluding their (anti) religious views.

They succeeded. However, their agenda, with all it's arbitarily-imposed limitations, did not, and has finally gone the way of logical positivism, it seems. How it ever lasted so long when it's philosophical underpinnings were widely rejected shortly thereafter is a source of amazement to many.

One Brow said...

aintnuthin said...
"FOR WHICH FOSSILS HAVE BEEN FOUND" Did ya see that part?

Again, since many of the fossils are tracks in the ground, and show no body plans, how can you know that various Cambring fossils have no plausible link to them?

Thanks for you unqualified claim of fact about what happened billions of years ago. I take it that, by asserting this "fact," you are hereby withdrawing your (implied) claim about the "fact" of universal common descent, eh?

It's an integral feature of common descent.

You still seem fixated on the notion there must either be a LUCA or separate ancestry. It's simple enough to show otherwise with a diagram, so I'm going to ask you to draw one. Let's start with generation A, which has four men (A01 through A04) and four women (A11 through A14). People with the same last digit have two children together, in this and each subsequent generation.

A01 and A11 beget B01 and B12.
A02 and A12 beget B02 and B13.
A03 and A13 beget B03 and B14.
A04 and A14 beget B04 and B11.

B01 and B11 beget C01 and C02.
B02 and B12 beget C03 and C04.
B03 and B13 beget C11 and C12.
B04 and B14 beget C13 and C14.

C01 and C11 beget D01 and D02.
C02 and C12 beget D03 and D04.
C03 and C13 beget D11 and D12.
C04 and C14 beget D13 and D14.

Is there a LUCA (in this case, couple) for D01 and D11? Do they have separate lineages back in generation A? My answers would be no, and no. D01 and D11 have common descent, but not a LUCA.

It is a speculative claim, with some evidentiary support from which unproven inferences can be drawn (as can opposing conclusions) not a fact. That is the "hypothesis," which provides the basis for the theory.

All evidence-based claims are speculative. We have a far greater amount of evidence than Darwin had access to.

Of course, the hypothesis "proves" the conclusions. Once you have universal common descent, all "speciation" is implied and there can be no argument about it.

Do you see that?


Those statements I agree with. Where we seem to disagree is the meaning of common descent, which affects our impressions of the quality of the evidence for common descent.

One Brow said...

Let's go back to the "car made in Gary, Indiana," example which you responded to. By analogy, you say it is a "fact" that the car was made in Gary. I say "not necessarily." You respond that I haven't proved otherwise, therefore your claim is "fact."

Cars can be made all over the place. There are other factories, and sometimes people assemble them at home. If perfectly reasonable to see five or six known alternative possibilities, and say we can't choose one of them to be a fact without more evidence.

On the other hand, if you said "this car was assembled from smaller parts", and I told you "Maybe they used a previouslyy-never-seen method to carve a car out of a single block of metal, and in such a way it looks assembled from smaller parts", how seriously would you evaluate that idea when I couldn't produce a single reason to support it or a single way to test it?

The "evidence" (similiar forms, etc.) don't "prove" one thesis over the other here. All "proof" of common ancestry is just as compatible with my thesis as yours. It is simply an assumption, now so deeply engrained in Darwinists that it cannot be questioned. For them it is a "fact."

The difference is that common descent has characteristics that can disprove it, while created separate lineages do not.

I grant you that all evidence can be "interpreted" as being consistent with, for example, either SR or LR. So how is one a "fact" and the other simply the "false" claim of a crank?

One is the result of GR, the other leads nowhere.

But that aside, how is that discovery evidence against my thesis, but not yours?

There is no evidence that can be used against special creation.

In my opinion, yes.

I agree. Can we stop discussing it now?

That's part of the problem here. You don't distinguish "evolutionary theory" as a large class (there are many, many theories of evolution, and they are not all compatible with each other) from any particular theory.

Scientific theories don't work like formal theories. They fold up heirarchically intead of standing on their own. YOu can discuss the broad stokes of evolutionary theory without referring to the specifics, in a way often not possible with, say, Geometry (although even there, there are some theorems that are true in almost all used geometries).

For all the "fear" of a dogmatic theocracy that atheists like to express, they have no similar concern about a dictatorial dogmatism that favors their views. On the contrary, many of them work hard to establish it. Go figure, eh?

I am unaware of any form of evolutionary theory that has been demonstrated to favor atheism.

1. We've been through this before. "Germ theory" is not, in itself, a scientific theory. That's what our disagreement has been about from my perspective.

If you think that, you don't understand what germ theory entails, or what a theory is. No, the contents of "germ theory" is not "germs cause many diseases", that's just a fact within germ theory. If you can think of any feature of a theory that germ theory lack, please bring it out explicitly.

2. Why should the proposition that germs can cause disease by universally applied?

It shouldn't. I was referring to the pattern you exhibit of not universally applying your standards for theories to all theories, but just a selection of them.

3. I don't say every theory is "tenuous" just because it is a theory. I say that it is not a "fact" and that theories and facts are fundamentally different things, that's all.

So, you think it is possible for a theory to be so well confirmed that it is ludicrous to withhold consent? If not, what would a non-tenuous theory mean with regard to the level of confidence you can have in it?

One Brow said...

Many scientists are reporting results of research which suggest that there is a strong bias in favor of "helpful" mutations at these elevated rates. Check it out before stating the "facts," why doncha?

Back when I read Shapiro's work, it was random mutations in regions where random mutations were more likely to be helpful. That is what I have described. If you have seen something different, where?

Another implication I addressed later (and you may have addressed it later, I dunno cause I'm just responding in the order I read your comments), is that the uniformity of rates, and other notions of randomness and passivity of the organism, are built into the assumptions (and mathematical analyses) which underly many "indisputable" conclusions which have been made in the past

Some of the timelines may be a little more flexible, sure.

One Brow said: "Please list the research that actually quotes the work of Behe or Denton on ID and has uncovered new evidence."

1. I said "such inquiries," (about complexity, weakness in the prevailing theory, etc.) and many scientists have acknowledged the stimulus provided by ID advocates.

2. Please list the research which says it is NOT concerned with any of the questions raised by Denton, Behe, et al.


You don't know of any actual research, got it.

Why don't you read some of his work and find out, eh? Why is manufacturing a new car different than repairing an existing engine. Both effect relatively permanent changes to an an automobile engine (or the materials they are composed of)?

A remarkably poor comparison. You're now trying to create an artificial divide between different types of genomic change. Interesting.

Have you read (and did you understand) the rigourous mathematical analysis which led Hoyle to come up with the 747 analogy? Or do you just take it on faith that his analyisis is preposturous?

Yes, but it has been a decade or so. Has it improved? Since when are you so impressed by mathematical models, especially those relying on such questionable foundations? We both know all the rigor in the world won't rescue a model from a bad foundation.

Virtually every evolutionary theorist, neo-darwinian or not, acknowledges that the origin of novelty has not been adequately explained.

It's all quite exciting.

One Brow said...

One more comment in response to this demand: While most of it cannot be characterized as "research" (as opposed to debate which sometimes purports to rely on particular interpretations of reseach), just about every "evolutionary scientist" on the internet has seen fit to "refute" ID claims, very often based upon the theological insight that a God, if he existed," would act in a certain known way. Which kinda implies that claims about God's doings are "testable," know what I'm sayin?

Or, that they hope people will find a God who allows 99.9% of his species to die off to be unacceptable as a choice.

4. Despite his aspirations, GR failed in both of these respects, as he explicitly acknowledged.

So, the choice of theories and interpretations were dictated by the evidence.

Again, I am not equating universal descent in common (all extant beings descended from something), with universal common descent (all extant beings descended from a single ancestor).

You ignore the alternative of universal descendency (all extent beings descend from each one of the same set of populations), again.

But, even though the first proposition "seems" true, who can say that inert chemicals are not spontaneously creating a living thing (which would not have a ancestor) on this planet right now. Again, if you assume it can happen once, then you must assume it can happen again, I figure.

Naturally, universal descendency would not apply to such a creature, should one appear.

Now a month later, you visit that same spot, and see 20,000 of these same type of creatures. Where did the other 19,999 come from? The same place (abiogenesis) the first one came from? Or all from the one? How could you possibly know?

Either way, universal descendcy will apply.

aintnuthin said...

To clarify what I said about when referring to gravity and common descent:

1. The existence of gravity (in the sense that "apples fall") is a fact. "The" theory of gravity is not a fact.

2. The existence of evolution (the word Gould used--not "common descent"--in the sense that living species can "change" with time) is a fact. "The" theory of evolution is not a fact.

3. The doctrine of common descent is NOT "evolution" nor is it a "theory" of evolution

4. The doctrine of common descent is NOT a fact (insofar as we know), and it is far from "certain" (other than on a subjective level, for some faithful individuals). It is a hypothetical proposition.

Your claim is that common descent is both a theory and a fact. I say it is neither, at least if those two terms are properly understood in the context used.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "Again, since many of the fossils are tracks in the ground, and show no body plans, how can you know that various Cambring fossils have no plausible link to them?"

What I am saying is relatively straightforward. Let me rephrase it: To date, no one has found a fossil that anyone has plausibly claimed is an intermediary link, etc. Some implausible claims to that may have been made, but, if so, such claims are implausible. Such fossils may be found someday, who knows?

Tracks on the ground, showing no body plans, cannot plausibly be claimed to be the type of "fossil" in question.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "Do [Do1 and Do11] have separate lineages back in generation A? My answer would be no."

I'm not sure what you even mean by "separate lineage" or what your point is here, Eric. These are all interbreeding organisms. Let's say they are all zebras. Is the zebra lineage a "separate lineage?" Separate than, let's say, the crocodile lineage? Sure it is. Let's say one of these zebras later mates with a crocodile (impossible, I know, but...). Would the offspring of that union have a different lineage than one who mated with another zebra? Is your chart supposed to show that all living species come from generation A (the zebras)? If so, then what came from A of the crocodiles? Nothing, in the case of this union?

Prior to any such subsequent mating, are the crocodiles "descended from" the zebras or are the zebras "descended from" the crocodiles?

As long as you stay within one species, you have a separate lineage than that of another species. Where is the crocodile lineage in your chart?

aintnuthin said...

If you're simply saying that a lineage is not "separate from" itself, what does that even mean and what does it tell you? A=A, sure. Does that mean that A(the zebra lineage) = B(the crocodile lineage)?

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "On the other hand, if you said "this car was assembled from smaller parts", and I told you "Maybe they used a previouslyy-never-seen method to carve a car out of a single block of metal, and in such a way it looks assembled from smaller parts", how seriously would you evaluate that idea when I couldn't produce a single reason to support it or a single way to test it?"

At least keep your analogies in the ballpark, OK?

Take two organisms extremely primitive organisms that have the same genetic code.

Hyp 1: The reason these two creatures have the same genetic code is because they both inherited it from another (extremely primitive) organism which had that code.

Does the same code in two different organisms provide "evidence for" the hypothesis? Well, yeah, in the sense that the evidence is not inconsistent with the hypothesis. Where did the extremely primitive ancestor get the code, though? How is that question even addressed?

Hyp 2. The reason these two creatures have the same genetic code is because they both came to be by virtue of inert chemicals combining in such a way as to result in an extremely primitive living creature. The laws of chemistry are such that when such cominations occur, they will also tend to result in similar chemical structures in the genetic code.

Does the same code in two different organisms provide "evidence for" the hypothesis? Well, yeah, in the sense that the evidence is not inconsistent with the hypothesis.

The VERY SAME "evidence" supports both hypotheses in that sense. How does one have "more evidence" than the other? It is the same evidence.

aintnuthin said...

I've probably said this before, but the "let's start in the middle, and then go from there" approach is what induces some to buy the cosmological argument from the existence of God.

1. The argument starts by extracting the concession that, in our experience, every effect has a prior cause.

2. We don't say that is "generally true," but that it is ALWAYS true.

3. Now we are confronted with the impossibility of an "infinite regress" of causes and told we must conclude that there was a "first cause" which was itself uncaused.

One problem here is that the very premise that we are told to assume (every cause has a pre-existing, prior cause) is the same premise we are later told we must reject. If we reject that, then why should we assume it to begin with? If we don't assume it to begin with, the argument loses all it's perceived force.

Darwinistic assumptions "start in the middle" and ignore questions about the "first cause." If all traits are inherited from a living ancestor (as could seem to be the case if we start in the middle and refuse to confront questions about what happened previously) then we cannot assume that life started on earth 4 billion years ago. Life has to be infinitely old, and even then, the question of where life "started" is never answered.

Where and how did it start? Evolutionary theory refuses to confront that question, and says the question is outside it's domain. OK, fair enough. But if that's the case, don't make assumptions that require knowledge of the beginning of a non-infinite regress and call it "fact."

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "So, you think it is possible for a theory to be so well confirmed that it is ludicrous to withhold consent? If not, what would a non-tenuous theory mean with regard to the level of confidence you can have in it?"

Give me any (scientific) theory, in any subject, and there will be extremely brilliant people who disagree that it is beyond dispute, for well-articulated reasons.

That said, there is always a class of dogmatic bigots who allege that anyone who disagrees with them has to be perverse, crazy, stupid, etc., ad infinitum.

aintnuthin said...

I said: "I grant you that all evidence can be "interpreted" as being consistent with, for example, either SR or LR. So how is one a "fact" and the other simply the "false" claim of a crank?"

You replied: "One is the result of GR, the other leads nowhere."

SR is not "the result of" GR. But suppose it were, then what? As experts who I cited to you in past seem to agree, GR fails as a theory of "relative motion," but does pretty well as a theory of gravity.

Within their domains (which is not "gravity") both SR and LR "lead to" the exact same place--the same predictions, the same results. We've been through this a million times. I give up. No amount of information will deter you from claiming that your philosophical preferences are "fact" and that all others are only advocated by demented cranks.

aintnuthin said...

Following Mach (and others) Einstein subscribed to the philosophical view (extreme empiricism) that anything that could not be observed was metaphysical and "fictitious." Since absolute space was unobservable, it was forbidden to postulate it. He did not say that a preferred frame did not, or could not, exist. He just said that, being unobservable, the concept was "meaningless."

This view soon took on a life of it's own, and many people will tell you today that the existence of a preferred frame is "impossible."

But, guess what? There is a preferred frame that is motionless with respect to everything else in the universe, i.e., the CMB, which can be detected, observed, and analyzed. It was detected in the 1960's about 50 years ago and is nothing new. Hubble had shown decades before that the red shift from the direction of the constellation Leo was less than expected, and that it was greater in the opposite direction, all suggesting that our galaxy was "really" moving toward Leo. Using the CMB as a preferred frame, astronomers have now measured the absolute direction and speed of our galaxy, and it is indeed in that direction.

I have cited you sources for this in the past, but you basically ignored them then and now. If you ever really want to consider, rather than just sneeringly dismiss, evidence for views which contradict your own, google it sometimes. There are thousands of informational articles available on the internet. Here's a headstart for you, if you have any interest (the answer is given by a professor of physics/astronomy--there are many others who agree)

Question:"How come we can tell what motion we have with respect to the CMB? Doesn't this mean there's an absolute frame of reference?"

Answer: "The theory of special relativity is based on the principle that there are no preferred reference frames. In other words, the whole of Einstein's theory rests on the assumption that physics works the same irrespective of what speed and direction you have. So the fact that there is a frame of reference in which there is no motion through the CMB would appear to violate special relativity!

However, the crucial assumption of Einstein's theory is not that there are no special frames, but that there are no special frames where the laws of physics are different. There clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is, in some sense, the rest frame of the Universe. But for doing any physics experiment, any other frame is as good as this one. So the only difference is that in the CMB rest frame you measure no velocity with respect to the CMB photons, but that does not imply any fundamental difference in the laws of physics."

http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/faq_basic.html

aintnuthin said...

Along the same lines, reputable physicists have developed respectable theories which claim that an "ether" (as opposed to "dark matter") can explain some of the gravitational anomalies observed in many parts of the universe.

aintnuthin said...

I just made a post about preferred frames and the CMB, which has disappeared, almost instantly. I guess it's in the spam scrap pile, I dunno.

aintnuthin said...

Mach noted that either a geocentric or heliocentric premise could accurately describe the phenomena (and make predictions therefrom) and commented that both are "equally valid." He meant this from a theoretical standpoint (as Einstein did), but even Einstien himself later attempted to argume that the "equally valid" claim somehow expressed ontological reality. You have repeatedly (and uncritically) asserted this proposition as indisputable, Eric.

They are NOT "equally valid" in any real sense, even if they are so in an abstract philosophical sense. The Sun and all other objects in the universe do NOT orbit the earth, even though it is mathematically consistent to pretend they do. With respect to the sun, the earth really moves.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "So, the choice of theories and interpretations were dictated by the evidence."

Utterly wrong. The evidence does NOT "dictate" any theory or interpretation, although it may preclude some otherwise imaginable theories.

That the evidence dictates theories is a misimpression that you seem incapable of overcoming.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "Either way, universal descendcy will apply."

In that particular example, which I was using to illustrate a different point, it could (if I understanding what you mean by "universal descendancy). But let me alter it. A month later, you go to the same spot and see 20,000 (or ten, whatever) critters that give every appearance of being utterly differenct species.

Where did they come from? The same place (abiogensis) where the first one came from, or from the one? Who can say?

When, in other contexts, I talked about the possiblity of abiogensis creating multiple creatures, I did not mean, and did not imply, that every such creature would have to be of the exact same species as the other. Quite the contrary, actually.

You seem to have assumed the opposite.

aintnuthin said...

One Brow said: "So, the choice of theories and interpretations were dictated by the evidence."

One more response to this comment: Einstien, despite years of effort could not develop a consistent mathematical scheme which incorporated the elements he desired. Even so, it was his a priori premises (e.g. that the speed of light in a vacuum is universally constant--as a matter of "fact," not just as measured) that forced him to abandon the pursuit of some his preferred goals, not the "evidence."

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 2208   Newer› Newest»