Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Criticizing neo-Darwinism
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 211 of 309 (434156)
11-14-2007 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Elmer
11-14-2007 3:55 PM


Re: bump
My Dearest Elmer,
No, don't turn away my pet. I know there have been harsh words between us but your latest missal touched my heart! Please don't ignore my words, surely you could not be so hard hearted?
ahhem...
I would assume that he did failed to mention non-random, non-accidental, organism-directed genetic information change, not through carelessness, but because he assumed that no such thing exists, at least insofaras neo-darwinian 'theory' is concerned.
Well he probably failed to mention them because A) There isn't a shred of evidence for 'organism-directed' genetic information change, unless you mean modern genetic engineering. B) The existence of non-random mutations, to whatever extent, doesn't affect the fact that heriditary infromation does change randomly.
In fact the extent of observed 'non-random' phenomena are merely a variety of factors which change the probability of mutation in general or particular types of mutation based on a wide variety of both environmental and genetic factors, i.e. specific sequences can be predisposed to particular mutation, certain types of mutation are more liable to occur, etc...
If you want to make a case for the existence of non-random intentional changes then I'm sure we would all be interested in seeing it.
Moreover, by making the cause of any of these changes a random, anomalous, irregulat, and unpredictably accidental one, he implies that change 1/ and change 3/ are identical; which is illogical, since less can never be more.
There seems to be a disconnect in what you say here. I don't see how those two have to be identical except to the extent that they have same cause in the form of a random mutation. He suggests that the causes may be identical but not the mutations themselves. For instance the change from a Cytosine to an Adenine might be beneficial in one instance but in another produce a premature stop codon leading to a truncated protein being formed. The causes and types of mutation may be identical but there localisation can have an extreme effect on the result.
If you consider any original sequence to some ideal form of old information then I agree that 1 and 3 might be identical, but there is still no contradiction. While you may have lost the information in the original sequence you will have gained the information of the de novo mutation. You may well have no net change in information, depending on how exactly you are measuring the genetic information. There is certainly no contention that less, if there is less, need be more. And if we see this process as it occurs either amongst duplicated genes in a single genome or in the whole set of multiple forms of a gene present in a population we can see that you can have the introduction of the novel mutation into the population without having lost the old information. So while there might be a local loss of that particular genetic form in one individual's genome the genetic information is still extant in the population.
And rendered even sillier, unfortunately, by the inane ( but accidental, I'm sure) redundancy of the entire phrase, "if the environment can only sustain the better adapted, which is also a fact, then the environment can only sustain the better adapted, which is also a fact".
Hmm, that seems to be an artefact you yourself have generated. When I look at post #1 what I see parasomnium saying is...
Para writes:
Not wishing to blow my own horn, I must say I find nothing more plausible than the fact that, if hereditary information randomly changes, which is a fact, and if the environment can only sustain the better adapted, which is also a fact, then the adaptive changes are preserved at the expense of the less well adapted. A long cumulation of these changes naturally leads to extremely well adapted, very complex structures.
So I'm not quite sure how but somewhere in the process you managed to add Para repeating a phrase where he didn't in the original. You also seem to have managed to excise the phrase he did finish that sentence with. So the question here should maybe be 'what gives?'
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Elmer, posted 11-14-2007 3:55 PM Elmer has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 212 of 309 (434167)
11-14-2007 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Elmer
11-14-2007 3:55 PM


Re: bump
Elmer writes:
My critique of the notion that 'parasomnium' finds "plausible" begins with his statement, " hereditary information randomly changes, which is a fact". There are two main 'sins of omission' in that statement. The fist is, that by failing to mention it, he implies that there are no 'no-random', i.e., intentional and systematic, teleological changes in genetic information.
You may notice that I've also failed to mention, say, gravity in my statement. Would that mean that I imply that gravity doesn't exist? Certainly not! If I were deemed to imply the non-existence of everything I fail to mention, then posting would become a rather burdensome task, and I would decidedly decline any further participation in discussions such as these.
Nevertheless, it is true that I think that the changes in genetic information are nothing but random. Why do I think this? Because each and every statistical analysis of the data singularly and consistently points to randomness. There is not a shred of evidence that suggests "intentional and systematic, teleological" causes for mutations in genetic material.
Moreover, by making the cause of any of these changes a random, anomalous, irregulat, and unpredictably accidental one, he implies that change 1/ and change 3/ are identical; which is illogical, since less can never be more.
I fail to see how the randomness of a mutation would imply that changes 1 and 3 are identical, and a supposed intentionality of the same mutation would not. You might want to elaborate on that.
He then adds--"the environment can only sustain the better adapted, which is also a fact", but isn't. Not unless you play games with the words 'environment' and 'adapted', making them so general and all-encompssing as to become nebulous, meaningless and absurd. At which point his statement becomes the vacuous tautology that those that the enviroment sustains are the better adapted, and vice-versa. Which is perfectly "plausible", but silly. And rendered even sillier, unfortunately, by the inane ( but accidental, I'm sure) redundancy of the entire phrase, "if the environment can only sustain the better adapted, which is also a fact, then the environment can only sustain the better adapted, which is also a fact".
From countless discussions about evolution, both here in these forums, and elsewhere - and even elsewhen - it should be clear that to say that "the environment can only sustain the better adapted" is to recapitulate the notion that living creatures generally spawn more offspring than the environment has room for, in various meanings of the word 'room'. I trust I do not need to spell it out any further.
By the way, if you check out what I actually said you will find that I did not make the redundant remark you quoted. As far as I can determine, the redundancy originates in your own misquote - accidental, I'm sure - of the original message by nwr, who quoted me correctly. I'm afraid any silliness in the resulting argument is entirely of your own making.
[...] the notion that a series of accidental genetic changes confronted by a meaningless tautology is the cause and explanation for, "extremely well adapted, very complex structures", is at best dubious. It does not strike me as the least bit plausible.
In light of the fact that the tautologous nature of what you suppose I said rests on your misquoting nwr, I trust it all becomes a bit cleared now that I've pointed it out. If not, then I think personal incredulity is the next best explanation for your last remark.
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Elmer, posted 11-14-2007 3:55 PM Elmer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2007 7:02 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 213 of 309 (434175)
11-14-2007 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Parasomnium
11-14-2007 6:21 PM


copy error?
By the way, if you check out what I actually said you will find that I did not make the redundant remark you quoted. As far as I can determine, the redundancy originates in your own misquote - accidental, I'm sure - of the original message by nwr, who quoted me correctly. I'm afraid any silliness in the resulting argument is entirely of your own making.
You mean it mutated with a copy error?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Parasomnium, posted 11-14-2007 6:21 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 214 of 309 (434177)
11-14-2007 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Elmer
11-14-2007 3:55 PM


Problems
The fist is, that by failing to mention it, he implies that there are no 'no-random', i.e., intentional and systematic, teleological changes in genetic information.
The problem with this is that there is no evidence of such changes. There are no "intentional and systematic, teleological changes in genetic information."
To refute this, all you need to do is provide evidence of such change.
Any discussion of this without evidence will be taken as tacit admission that there is no evidence for "intentional and systematic, teleological changes in genetic information."
He also failed to take note that when speaking of changing information within a system, [such as a genome or organism], that information can be changed in any one of three ways--1/brand new information can be added to the total. 2/ old information can be totally lost, and 3/old information can be damaged and rendered partial and incomplete. Moreover, by making the cause of any of these changes a random, anomalous, irregulat, and unpredictably accidental one, he implies that change 1/ and change 3/ are identical; which is illogical, since less can never be more.
Information that is changed so that it is different from what it was before, but which is still does something not done by any other part of the total before would be .... ? (Hint: N _ _ , rhymes with you)
I belive that when he says, "naturally", he intends, "mechanically, deterministically", since that is the customary sense in which Materialists, Mechanists, Physicalists, Naturalists, and Positivists [i.e., Darwinists], use that word.
No, he means naturally, naturally.
It does not strike me as the least bit plausible.
Which is completely irrelevant to what really happens, what reality and truth are, and how naturally accumulating changes lead to extremely well adapted, very complex structures.
So the Elmer Theory of Neo-Lamarckism is ... ?
... these others refer to me in insulting and disparaging ways, then I will ignore any further posts that they subsequently address to me.
Well that is one way to avoid reality: everybody who disagrees with you is insulting you and you can then ignore them. Is that why you stopped responding on Message 158 and started posting here, rather than a total inability to refute the points made?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : link

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Elmer, posted 11-14-2007 3:55 PM Elmer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Otto Tellick, posted 03-16-2008 2:59 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5904 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 215 of 309 (434573)
11-16-2007 11:55 AM


Hi parasomnium;
Sorry about the misquote. Since I thought I had done a straight, 'cut 'n paste', I've no idea what happened. My bad in any case.
As for personal incredulity, I find that in matters scientific, personal scepticism of notional claims is pretty much 'de rigeur'. Beats personal credulousness every time.

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-16-2007 12:07 PM Elmer has not replied
 Message 217 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2007 8:38 AM Elmer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 216 of 309 (434576)
11-16-2007 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Elmer
11-16-2007 11:55 AM


As for personal incredulity ...
As for personal incredulity, it isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.
Skepticism requires analysis of the evidence, not sitting around saying "It doesn't sound right to me so it's not true".
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Elmer, posted 11-16-2007 11:55 AM Elmer has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 217 of 309 (434777)
11-17-2007 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Elmer
11-16-2007 11:55 AM


petty insult? hypocrite.
As for personal incredulity, I find that in matters scientific, personal scepticism of notional claims is pretty much 'de rigeur'. Beats personal credulousness every time.
But you don't like it when people criticize your posts. You call it insults and the pretend that because you have been (somehow) insulted you don't need to respond to the criticisms of your arguments.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Elmer, posted 11-16-2007 11:55 AM Elmer has not replied

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 218 of 309 (442247)
12-20-2007 4:31 PM


Professor John Davison's Evolutionary manifesto 2002 is one of the best critique of neodarwinian concept of evolution. It's fine that professor Davison has opened a brand new blog now. Because professor Davison has been banned from all forums I hope there is no chance to silence him on internet now. His last blog was destroyed by an adversory who posted there the whole "Origin of species".
Have a look if you like:
Free Pages Personnelles: Erreur 500 - Erreur interne du serveur

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 219 of 309 (460371)
03-14-2008 2:44 PM


fyi
Paleontologist Vaclav Petr from Uni Prague has just published his Evolutionary dictionary:
ERROR 404 - Not Found!
There are several references to John Davison’s antidarwinian work and his original semi-meiotic hypothesis of evolution. The author is another scientist form Uni Prague who mentioned professor John Davison in his work. The first one was Jaroslav Flegr in his monography Evolutionary biology where he explained professor's John Davison theory of non-homology of germ cells in mammals.
Forbidden!
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Wounded King, posted 03-14-2008 8:07 PM MartinV has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 220 of 309 (460408)
03-14-2008 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by MartinV
03-14-2008 2:44 PM


It's nice to see there are still some people out there paying attention to John.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by MartinV, posted 03-14-2008 2:44 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by MartinV, posted 03-15-2008 4:27 AM Wounded King has replied

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 221 of 309 (460445)
03-15-2008 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Wounded King
03-14-2008 8:07 PM


There is an opinion that non-German Universities influenced by German pre-war thinking have more relaxed stance towards neodarwinism. Uni Prague should be probably one of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Wounded King, posted 03-14-2008 8:07 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Wounded King, posted 03-15-2008 5:33 AM MartinV has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 222 of 309 (460447)
03-15-2008 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by MartinV
03-15-2008 4:27 AM


Unfortunately not only is the Uni Prague site in Czech, which I can't read, but it also appears to have removed the page you were linking to.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by MartinV, posted 03-15-2008 4:27 AM MartinV has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 223 of 309 (460527)
03-16-2008 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by RAZD
11-14-2007 7:19 PM


Re: Problems
RAZD writes:
There are no "intentional and systematic, teleological changes in genetic information."
To refute this, all you need to do is provide evidence of such change.
Any discussion of this without evidence will be taken as tacit admission that there is no evidence for "intentional and systematic, teleological changes in genetic information."
On the one hand, this is entirely sensible. I'm relatively unschooled in these matters, but I would expect that things like plant hybridization, animal husbandry, and the genetic engineering applied to various bacteria could all count as cases of "intentional, systematic, teleological changes in genetic information." People have the wherewithal to demonstrate changes of that sort.
On the other hand, cases of that sort are not the topic of discussion. For the cases that are on topic -- changes in genetic information that have occurred and are observable in nature without deliberate human intervention -- it's really not enough to say "show evidence of deliberate, purposeful change," because in saying that, you entail but do not specify a set of conditions for recognizing "deliberate, purposeful" behavior as such in observable processes. (That is, you beg the question of how to establish a basis of proof for externally directed causation in genetic change.)
I'm just a "junior member" here so far, but I've noticed some EvC threads that tried to explore this problem, along the lines of "what sort of evidence would it take to support a conclusion of intentional design in evolution?" Of course, none of these threads leads to a fully satisfying conclusion: no consensus is ever reached such that the ID-ists and non-D-ists agree on what sort of obtainable evidence is required, and a plan unfolds to seek out that evidence and settle the matter.
And of course, the basic difficulty is the inscrutability of any given "designer". There's no getting around the fact that we mere humans cannot know, with indisputable certainty, what the real purpose is, or even know which of the following is true: (a) all genetic changes are the purposeful work of a given designer, or (b) only some are purposeful, and the rest are mistakes / abominations / inconsequential to the designer / countermeasures from a "competing designer", etc. Both (a) and (b) (in all its variants) can be -- and have been -- used as arguments by those who simply cannot accept (for whatever reason) the complete absence of a designer. And all of these considerations are basically incompatible with the scientific method.
Viewed from the other perspective, the basic difficulty is that there really is no need for a designer, or even for any particular purpose (known or unknown) that is all-encompassing and yet only exists (is only definable) outside the physical system it's supposed to apply to. A properly empirical account of genetic change is based on principles that describe self-organizing, self-perpetuating, and eventually self-directing organisms that tend to have plenty of time to try things out and establish what sorts of patterns succeed best for propagation within a given set of circumstances -- and eventually, some of these organisms may get to work out a sense of purpose on their own.
So I'm sorry to say it, but the request for evidence quoted above is of no practical use. Either such evidence is ubiquitous and unassailable (for those who need a supernatural entity to assign meaning to their existence and who view themselves as beloved devotees of that entity), or else the very concept of such evidence is vacuous and unfounded (for those who consider a designer to be an unnecessary fabrication).

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2007 7:19 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Wounded King, posted 03-16-2008 4:31 AM Otto Tellick has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 224 of 309 (460528)
03-16-2008 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Otto Tellick
03-16-2008 2:59 AM


Re: Problems
Of course, none of these threads leads to a fully satisfying conclusion: no consensus is ever reached such that the ID-ists and non-D-ists agree on what sort of obtainable evidence is required, and a plan unfolds to seek out that evidence and settle the matter.
The main problem with ID as a science is that not only is this lack of consensus here on the forums but in the ID establishment. While a number of ID proponents may agree on some vague terms that they believe are relevant, i.e. irreducible complexity or complex specified information. The actual details of these terms and how they can be used to detect design are highly variable from proponent to proponent and even over time from one proponent, see for instance Behe's evolving definitions of what constitutes irreducible complexity.
So while these debates are not likely to ever lead to a final determination on the metaphysical aspects of the question they do serve to highlight why ID cannot be considered a suitable scientific theory.
Either such evidence is ubiquitous and unassailable (for those who need a supernatural entity to assign meaning to their existence and who view themselves as beloved devotees of that entity), or else the very concept of such evidence is vacuous and unfounded (for those who consider a designer to be an unnecessary fabrication).
It sounds like you are saying this site is pointless since neither side will ever be able to convince the other.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : Typos, including some pretty meaning changing ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Otto Tellick, posted 03-16-2008 2:59 AM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Otto Tellick, posted 03-16-2008 3:39 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 225 of 309 (460554)
03-16-2008 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Wounded King
03-16-2008 4:31 AM


Re: Problems
Thanks for the reply, WK. I fully agree with what you say, although when I first looked at your post, I assumed there was a typo of some sort in this part:
Wounded King writes:
So while these debates are not likely to ever lead to a final determination on the metaphysical aspects of the question they do serve to highlight why ID can be considered a suitable scientific theory.
You intended to have a "not" at the end of "can", right? ("ID cannot be considered a suitable scientific theory." -- that's where the rest of your comment leads). The inability ID proponents to rectify their various conflicting assertions on the basis of evidence (because the conflict arises from different beliefs, or -- heaven forbid! -- different interpretations of the Bible) strikes me as a defining attribute of their overall position in the debate.
It sounds like you are saying this site is pointless since neither side will ever be able to convince the other.
I realize that my comment could come across as being absolutely pessimistic about the value of the EvC forum, and that's not my intention (I'm still spending time here, after all). Ideally, proponents on both sides get a better understanding of how the other side thinks, and we all learn to communicate more effectively with those who don't share our own views, in hopes of establishing whatever sort of consensus may be possible. And all readers (especially the folks "in between") get exposed to a lot of very illuminating and helpful information.
My point was simply that it's impractical to request objective, verifiable evidence for the sort of "design" that ID posits for descent with modification, because there's no objective, verifiable basis for knowing what would constitute such evidence.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : No reason given.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : added to second paragraph ("... different beliefs, or -- heaven forbid! --"), in consideration of those ID-ists who assert that the Bible is not the basis for their beliefs.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Wounded King, posted 03-16-2008 4:31 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Wounded King, posted 03-17-2008 4:52 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024