quote:Originally posted by peter borger: Evolution theory relies on two pillars (random mutation and natural selection). If these pillars cannot hold than the theory of evolution has no foundation, and all explanations that rely on it are invalid.
Not in complete agreement with the above, since random mutation and natural selection are the supposed mechanisms of evolution you could perhaps argue that even if they were not quite right, that evolution itself could still happen by some other mechanism.
BUT, for now I would agree that falsifying either or both of these would cause a huge shake-up to the evolutionary camp (to say the least )
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: Example 1) “Che Guevara was widely recognised as a man of many talents. Yet one talent the 1960s revolutionary lacked was the ability to hear music, a shortcoming he was acutely aware of. According to one account, Guevara was at a party one evening when he spotted a nurse he wanted to dance with. He asked a friend to give him a nudge when the orchestra struck up a tango. But the friend got the signal mixed up, sending Guevara out on the dance floor to dip and swirl his partner absurdly to the tune of a soft Brazilian samba. Guevara suffered from congenital amusia, a nearly total tone deafness that turns music into mere noise. Although 5% or more of some populations suffer from this syndrome, it has not been widely studied” (Balter, M. What makes the mind dance and count. Science 2001, volume 292: p1636-1637.).
Che Quevera demonstrates the most straightforward example of a redundant trait of the human brain: the ability of hearing music. The absence of this trait does not affect the fitness/survival, as clearly demonstrated by individuals suffering from amusia. The brain has several additional intrinsic -apparently redundant - capacities that have puzzled scientists and philosophers for ages. And still, “…nobody has been able to suggest any plausible survival payoffs for most of the things that human minds are uniquely good at, such as humour, story-telling, gossip, art, music, self-consciousness, ornate language, imaginative ideologies, religion and morality [and arrhythmics]. How could evolution favour such apparently useless embellishments? The fact that there are no good theories of these adaptations is one of science’s secrets.” [(Miller, G. The Mating Mind, William Heineman: London, 2000: p18]
Of course, evolutionists will strongly object against this example of redundancy with a lot of "story telling" and therefore I will proceed to the next:
Natural selection doesn't explain EVERY trait in an organism, almost by definition.
The interpretation of the above example suggests that ALL traits should be generated via natural selection, but that is not the case.
Traits which DO provide a survival advantage are selected for, but there are other genes on the same chromosome, and other chromosomes within the gamete which have to be carried forward because they are all part and parcel of the same organism/gamete.
More importantly, natural selection cannot work at all without this type of redundancy. For natural selection to work at all there needs to be variability within the population that, in the current situation/environment, provides no survival advantage but that might should conditions change.
Many of the stated 'things the human mind are good at' are a by-product of higher 'intelligence', and I'm reasonably sure that that has given humans the survival edge that is denied them in purely physical prowess.
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: Example 2: Several amphibians and lizards display the remarkable feature of regeneration. When physically threatened, for instance when caught by a predator, the tail of the animal instantly becomes detached from the body and starts living a life of its own. For the predator it is as if the pray has split in two, and it must be completely astounded by the sudden apparition of another pray. Usually the predator is left behind with the smaller part of the meal: the wiggling tail. If the lizard managed to flee its tail will regenerate and within a couple of months it has grown a complete new one. Evidently, it is a superb survival trick, since it provides the animal an opportunity to escape. The phenomenon of regeneration has attracted a great deal of scientific attention, and biologists are still trying to elucidate the underlying mechanism. In previous centuries dissection of living amphibians was the way to go to get insight into regeneration. In 1768 Lazzaro Spallanzani published that tadpoles were capable of regenerating their tales, and that salamanders could regenerate most of their body parts, including tail, jaws and eyes (Alvarado, A.S. Regeneration of the metazoans: why does it happen? Bioessays 2000, Volume 22: p578-590). In one of his renowned experiments the lens from the eye of the salamander was carefully removed. Surprisingly, the animal’s lens completely regenerated. Within a few weeks a perfectly shaped new lens had developed in place of the removed lens. The regeneration of a new lens is a feature which can not be explained by natural selection, simply because there has never been evolutionary pressure to evolve this capacity. An example of a hidden redundant trait is uncovered. Proponents of the theory of evolution must admit that the phenomenon of regeneration cannot be explained by natural selection and turn evolution upside down. They pose the idea that regeneration is a remnant of a common primitive characteristic exhibited by all primordial life forms and it has disappeared in the major part of organisms today due to selection against (Wauau, that sounds very scientific, isn't it) (Alvarado, A.S. Regeneration of the metazoans: why does it happen? Bioessays 2000, Volume 22: p578-590). It is, even for evolutionists, hard to conceive why an apparent advantageous characteristic was selected against. Notably, the disappearance of advantageous characteristics violates the basic principle of the theory of evolution as formulated by Darwin. Other intriguing questions involving the phenomenon of regeneration are “why does the human liver regenerate and why do bones?”
If pretty much all of the salamander can regenerate, then that surely suggests that regeneration is a general characteristic of salamander cells. The last point would tend to suggest that some types of cell, even in man, can regenerate too.
The disappearance of 'advantageous' traits is NOT contrary to natural selection. If by shedding that trait a trait of more immediate benefit is preserved, then so be it.
Genes are not passed on one at a time ... they are linked together and thus the baby can get thrown out with the bath-water in some cases.
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: Example 3) To disperse, seeds need to be transported away from the parent tree or plant, and this is accomplished in a variety of ways. The most perfect seed is undoubtedly that of the tropical liana (Zanonia macrocarpa). It grows high up in the canopy of the rainforest of south-eastern Asia. The liana seed develops two very elastic, curved wings. The seed is a perfect flying wing, as it exhibits auto-stability. Auto-stability means that the seed’s centre of gravity and centre of lift, two imaginary points where the force of gravity and the force of lift act on the seed, are independent of the seed’s position in space. Hence, it does not have the propensity to spin around its axes. When the seeds release the glider carries them away for miles: autostable. What make the Zanonia’s seeds so remarkable is that natural selection should account for the evolution of auto-stability. What on earth could have been the driving force on the tropical liana to evolve seeds with perfect auto-stability? Randomness and selection? To disperse and enlarge the liana’s (it's a liana!) habitat the seeds do not need to evolve this trait, and therefore it is a redundant trait.
I don't know much about this plant, but plants in general survive better if they are not competing for resources with other plants don't they ?
Wouldn't that suggest that there would be a survival advantage to a seed that fell further from the parent ?
Is that story-telling ? :0)
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: To my knowledge, NDT does not include the evolution of redundant traits. Maybe they call them exaptation, or so, but giving them a name doesn't make it a scientific explanation.
Natural selection, by definition, requires such redundancy.
There must be variability within the population, which has NO net survival impact in the current environment, but if the environment changes might.
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: The big surprise of contemoprary molecular biology was the dicovery of redundant genes. Let me introduce how they were discovered.
Redundancies are a general phenomenon in any biological system and doubt the significance of natural selecetion in the generation and maintenance of genetic information.
The redundancy and 'knock-out' effects add support for ToE, and detract from a couple of the major arguments against it put forward by creationists.
If you can modify the genes, without any noticeable phenotype differences then we no longer require transitional fossils, because you can have a genetic modification that isn't immediately expressed. It is even concievable that we might see a sudden and abrupt change in phenotype because of this phenomena.
Equally it knocks-out the argument that mutations would be detrimental and lethal. If we can add a stop-codon that has little or no discernable effect on the organism then we can have mutations.
Perhaps these studies should be extended to generation by generation add variations to see if a new species can be produced ?
That would put more of a dent in evolution (if it couldn't) than anything you have described here.
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: From evolutionists I expect that they understand the concepts and molecular backgrounds (and implication for their theory) of all above, otherwise it does not make sense to discuss on this topic. NB: Let's keep it scientifically. We need only one observation that cannot be explained by natural selection and the theory has to be revised. I already demonstrated several of them and I will give even stronger examples if you like.
The examples you have cited are examples of traits for which there is no apparent selective pressure.
That's OK as far as ToE is concerned. Not ALL traits in organisms are there because of selective pressure, but maybe they are on the same chromosome as one that was.
The genetic redundancy you state is required by natural selection.
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: Dear Peter, Your arguing doesn't make sense considering the underlying molecular mechanisms. It is story telling. These are 19th century arguments. I was expecting this and therefore I introduced genetic redundancies.
Could you perhaps at least respond to the suggestion (and I'm not the only one making it) that the genetic redundancies you are citing are actually both required and predicted by current evolutionary thinking ?
I've put forward my reasons for this in previous posts.
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: I've sent you a mail yesterday where I outlined the rules/definitions. Have a look at it and tell me you agree. You are free to adjust them to what you think is appropriate.
Not received anything.
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: Next, I will finish off with NDT. Question: Who is the utmost defender of evolution theory at this site. I like him/her to respond too.
I'm not sure I'd heard of much research into genetic redundancy, but natural selection has always assumed that some parts of the genome would produce effects that are apparently not necessary for the organism's survival.
If that were not the case, how could natural selection work at all ?
Your suggestion that ALL genetic traits have to have emerged by natural selection, is a little strange. Why is that the case ?
Natural selection says that selective pressure is placed on those traits which provide a net survival advantage. This implies that no survival advantage/disadvantage means no selection either way, which means distribution is just about genetic characteristics of the allele/gene, and on which chromosome it resides.
You seem to have provided a lot of raw data on GR, so I accept that it exists. Could you elaborate your case for why this refutes natural selection. From your posts so far that doesn't seem very clear.
And you are still not repsonding to suggestions that redundancy is necessary for and predicted by natural selection.
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: Dear Peter
I could agree to this if 1) GR correlelated with gene duplications (as I wrote before) and 2) redundant genes change more rapidly than essential genes They do not. It is falsification of molecular evolution.
Why should redundant genes change at a rate any different from any other gene ?
I don't see how the relationship (or lack of it) between GR and GD has any bearing on the issue at hand.
The way I see it is this, for natural selection to occur in a way that drives evolution, there must, at any one snap-shot of a species genome, be elements of the genome which apparently serve no survival purpose. These can be passed to a subsequent generation (regardless of fitness) because they are attached to genomes which have, elsewhere, aspects which DO provide a survival advantage. If the organism changes environment (or its environment changes) those 'redundancies' may contribute to survival ... in which case they become non-redundant.
We may even say, that the existence of genes which have no effect even when removed is consistent with a macro-evolutionary scenario. Genes do no operate in isolation (at all times) and often require another enzyme to activate them. Loose the enzyme and you loose the effect, but the section of genome is still there. This sort if change can cause the loss of teeth in birds, or the loss of appendages in crustaceans ... i.e structural modification.
How ... in DETAIL ... is genetic redundancy incompatible with NDT ?
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: Dear Peter,
You wonder: 1) "Why should redundant genes change at a rate any different from any other gene ?"
I invite you to read a book on molecular evolution and study the neutral theory (Kimura). A redundant gene is a gene that can be knocked out without any effect on the organism. In contrast to essential genes, redundant genes are not under selective constraint and thus a lot of variation is expected. In particualr a lot of variation is expected at the socalled "silent" positions and third codon "wobble" positions. If you do not find variation than you have a problem, because the prediction you made by molecular evolutionary theory was wrong. This is called a falsification. If you find your theory falsified than you have to rethink your theory.
Kimura: "Of course, Darwinian change is necessary to explain change at the phenotypic level -fish becoming man- but in terms of molecules, the vast majority of them are not like that."
The above link is about Nuetralist Theory. Basically it does not refute natural selection as the mechanism behind adaptation, it simply says that natural selection is not the whole story.
I.e. it says that not all genes are fixed in populations by natural selection ... which is more or less what natural selection already implies since it focusses on the passing on of those traits which DO have a survival impact.
http://www.xrefer.com/entry/462336 has the following (my emphasis in bold):: "Its [neutral theory's] proponents,while recognizing the importance of selection in determining functionally significant traits,hold that the great majority of the differences in macromolecular structures observed between individuals in a population are of no adaptive significance and have no impact on the reproductive success of the individual in which they arise. Hence, frequencies of the corresponding mutant alleles are governed by purely random events. This contrasts with the orthodox neo-Darwinian view that nearly all evolutionary changes have adaptive value for the organism and arise through natural selection"
I think a perceptual problem has arisen in re-defining Darwin's changes in traits over time to changes in allele frequency over time.
The link between allele frequency and traits seems to be the stumbling block ... it's kind of a 'systems' problem. Applying functionalist reductionism to the problem doesn't appear approriate because of emergent properties.
Non-the-less, not even Motoo Kimura was suggesting that natural selection didn't happen ... only that it wasn't the whole story.
Hmm ... perhaps Syamsu's 'General Theory of Reproduction' would have some benefits after all
quote:Originally posted by peter borger:
1)"I don't see how the relationship (or lack of it) between GR and GD has any bearing on the issue at hand."
Evolution theory says that all genes have been derived from gene duplications. (the hypothesis that they are derived from chromosome duplication has been falsified over and over by Hughes et al). Thus, if redundant genes are derived from duplications, one expects to find a correlation between duplication and redundancy.) This prediction has clearly been falsified in Saccharomyces (Winzeler et al; Science 1999, volume 285, p901). There was no correlation whatsoever. So we do not know the origin of genetic redundancies.
Doesn't that just mean that we do not yet know the complete story about how genes are formed (which I thought was common knowledge) ?
Not knowing something bears little on any topic, surely ?
quote:Originally posted by peter borger:
You say: 3) "The way I see it is this, for natural selection to occur in a way that drives evolution, there must, at any one snap-shot of a species genome, be elements of the genome which apparently serve no survival purpose. These can be passed to a subsequent generation (regardless of fitness) because they are attached to genomes which have, elsewhere, aspects which DO provide a survival advantage. If the organism changes environment (or its environment changes) those 'redundancies' may contribute to survival ... in which case they become non-redundant."
How do you think genetic redundancies, if duplicated genes, can stably reside in the genome, while there is no selective constraint on these genes? They should change rapidly even if they are linked to possible survival traits. It is a major problem, and nobody knows the answer. In addition, the change of environment and an additional survival improvement due to these genetic redundancies implies that redundant genes should be change more rapidly (because according to your theory this is the reservoir the organisms has to drain for adaptation). And a correlation between genetic redundancies and duplications is not what we see (see reponse 2).
If they are carried on the same chromosome as a survival trait, they would be subject to selective pressure by default. You don't inherit one gene off of a chromosome, you inherit the entire chromosome.
Likewise, survival doesn't depend on one gene, it depends on the sum of all the genes and how that relates to the phenotype. Natural selection operates on the expression of genes (i.e. traits).
And isn't this issue what Kimura et al talked about anyhow ?
quote:Originally posted by peter borger:
You say: 4) "We may even say, that the existence of genes which have no effect even when removed is consistent with a macro-evolutionary scenario. Genes do no operate in isolation (at all times) and often require another enzyme to activate them."
Here you introduce (irreducible) complexity and I am not going to respond to that here. That is not the issue here. It is an unsolved problem, that I will address someday. The existence of genes in general should also be explained. You just ignore that fact. However, than we talk about the origin of life. It is another unsolved mystery.
I think it is directly relevent. You are interpreting genetic redundancy as a refutation of ToE, I am supplying an alternative interpretation that is, if acceptable, in keeping with ToE.
quote:Originally posted by peter borger:
You say: 5) "This sort if change can cause the loss of teeth in birds, or the loss of appendages in crustaceans ... i.e structural modification."
I am not interested in the loss of characteristics, they are easy to comprehend. I am interested in the gain of characteristics. Another unsolved mystery.
Hmm ... tricky one that. Is it a LOSS of teeth, or the GAIN of a beak ?
[This message has been edited by Peter, 07-16-2002]
Why should these 'redundancies' (and you have yourself stated that they are more likely to be 'of unknown function' in any case) have a different mutation rate than any other section of DNA ? (I've asked this before and you haven't given an answer).
DNA is subject to copy errors, and any part can be mis-copied.
Trying to claim that gene selection happens at the individual gene is a little ridiculous isn't it?
Aren't large numbers of genes present on each chromosome?
Wouldn't that mean (and I'm not talking about duplication) that a gene that exists on the same chromosome as a gene that produces a phenotypic effect of use would be preserved with the trait in question?
If we didn't have sections of genetic make-up (with currently unknown function and apparently no survival benefit to the organism) we couldn't have natural selection at all, could we? (This has been asked before and you have not answered).
You have in no way refuted random mutation. You have said that some DNA sites have a higher tendancy to be copied wrong. That does not make the mutation non-random. Giraffes don't generate mutations to neck lenght control mechanisms becuase they need longer necks.
Peppered moths (and they MUST rest somewhere during in the day even if it is not near a biologist's trap ... most moths I have seen during the day are sitting high on the wall of my house, or on a high window) show a natural variation, and the distribution of that variation can be affected by environmental conditions. That IS natural selection isn't it?
That we haven't found the exact molecular level explanation does not refute the theory ... it just means there are pieces of the puzzle missing ... we already know that.
Redundancy doesn't refute ToE, it is an expected feature.
Mutation enables evolution, and mutation happens. you have not shown that there are any non-random mutations in the sense that 'random mutation' is used in ToE, only that some sites are more prone to copy errors. This is good for ToE, it means that there is an observed mechanism that can explain away the 'you can't get enough mutations for that' arguments.
Read some 'Information Science' literature (or cite that which you have read) before agruing from Information Theory.
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: Your say: "Why should these 'redundancies' (and you have yourself stated that they are more likely to be 'of unknown function' in any case) have a different mutation rate than any other section of DNA ? (I've asked this before and you haven't given an answer)"
Ever heard of neutral evolution theory? What does it say for DNA sequences that are not under selective constraint? Indeed, the suppose to change more rapidly!! In fact this has been well established. I recommend you to read reviews by Kimura on the topic, than you will find out. So either Kimura isn't right or NDT isn't, or both aren't.
I have read some articles by Kimura, and he doesn't himself seem to doubt natural selection as acting, just not on ALL traits.
I'll look up some more though.
quote:Originally posted by peter borger:
And: "If we didn't have sections of genetic make-up (with currently unknown function and apparently no survival benefit to the organism) we couldn't have natural selection at all, could we? (This has been asked before and you have not answered)."
That is exactly the point! I try to show that natural selection does not work at the level of the genome and therefor the pardigm is wrong!!!!!! At last someone who gets the point.
I understand what you are saying (I think), but it seems backward logical to me.
If there are parts of the genome which are neutral in terms of survival at the level of the organism now, then something changes that makes that very feature important ... then that's exactly what we need for ToE to work.
You have said that we do have sections of the genome which have no selective pressure associated at the point in time when the genome was investigated.
For mutations to drive evolution, we would require areas of the genome which, if changed, would not outright kill the carrier, but on subsequent changes might promote new function.
You said we do find that ... or at least apparently functionless junk sections.
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: And: "You have in no way refuted random mutation."
Denial. One of evolutionists primary tactics. I clearly demonstrated with the Drosophila example that in this particular gene there is non-random (directed?) mutation, and if you had read the thread properly you would have seen that one of the first tenets of NDT is that non-random muations do NOT exist. You are free to ignore that, I don't mind. If you like I will also falsify common descent, and show that reconsiliation of gene and species trees is nothing but a mathematical trick to get the data in accord with the theory. (as a matter of fact, I already mailed the example of IL-1beta to you. Maybe we have to discuss that too).
I'll re-read to check.
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: And: "Giraffes don't generate mutations to neck lenght control mechanisms becuase they need longer necks."
How do you know that?
Reasonable point ... it's an assumption on my part.
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: And: "Peppered moths (and they MUST rest somewhere during in the day even if it is not near a biologist's trap ... most moths I have seen during the day are sitting high on the wall of my house, or on a high window) show a natural variation, and the distribution of that variation can be affected by environmental conditions. That IS natural selection isn't it?"
Yep, and it doesn't help NDT.
If it supports natural selection as a process, how is that bad for NDT?
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: And: "That we haven't found the exact molecular level explanation does not refute the theory ... it just means there are pieces of the puzzle missing ... we already know that."
That is a completely different issue. What I did is falsify the theory, and thus demonstrated the theory to be not good/wrong/incomplete. As I mailed to John, there are not only a couple of pieces missing, but the ET cannot explain:
1) the origin of life,
2) the origin of genes,
It doesn't seek to ... so that's a given (hey we agree on something!)
quote:Originally posted by peter borger:
3) (the origin of) biodiversity. I wouldn't call that just a couple of pieces. They are the quintessence.
We are in disagreement over 3), so stating your conclusion is not marking a hole in the theory.
Many of us are of the opposite opinion, and thus the discussion.
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: And: "Redundancy doesn't refute ToE, it is an expected feature."
We are starting to move in circles. I am not going to explain again that redundancies do not have a correlation with gene duplication etc... I already did that several times. Apparently, nobody gets the point.
I mention it again because you are still hanging on to duplications, which I said I wasn't talking about, and not responding to the suggestion that some 'by default' selection goes on because many genes are physically linked on one chromosome.
If I have three books each containing three stories, but I only want to keep one story ... by default I have to keep the other two in the same book (assuming I don't rip it out of course).
I have 'selected' two stories indirectly because I had no choice.
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: You finally say that: "Mutation enables evolution, and mutation happens."
I do not doubt that mutations happen. I am sure that they do not lead to evolution.
How do you know that ?
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: Also: Here you show your strong believe in mutations as the driving force of ET (I recommend you to read Spetner. At least his book is scientifically backed up).
"You have not shown that there are any non-random mutations in the sense that 'randommutation' is used in ToE, only that some sites are more prone to copy errors. This is good for ToE, it means that there is an observed mechanism that can explain away the 'you can't get enough mutations for that' arguments."
Wow, do you propose integration of this mechanism in the NDT?
It's already in ... has been since people knew about genetics.
It says that mutations + selection drive evolution.
Anything relating to the mechanisms behind mutation (barring a serial number on a genome) is OK.
I'll re-read some of the examples you give, but if you can show me a mutation that couldn't have happened by chance I'll go 'Hmmm .... er .... ' and start making stuff up
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: That is pretty quick. So your conclusion will be: Peter Borger did not falsify anything?
My current opinion is that nothing that you have put forward FALSIFY's ToE, that's true.
Provide me with some more compelling analysis of data and I will change my mind on that.
[This message has been edited by Peter, 07-31-2002]
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: Dear Peter,
You write: "My current opinion is that nothing that you have put forward FALSIFY's ToE, that's true."
You are of very short memory. Three weeks ago I mailed the topic: "molecular genetic evidence against random mutation" and thus I falsified the NDT.
But have consistently failed to answer the criticism that you use two different interpretations of random to do so.
Evolution requires mutation + selection. Mutation is considered random in the sense that it is not a response to an environmental stimulus per-se ... and that the time and site of the mutation cannot be predicted in advance.
Not even sure whether 'randomness' is 'required by' or 'assumed by' evolutionary theory ... and that would be important.
What ToE does suggest is that mutation is a naturalistic process, and it has long been assumed to be accidental.
There is an article in New Scientist or Scientific American (I'll try to dig it out for a proper reference) which suggests that DNA in brain cells is deliberately re-arranged ... perhaps as a quantum memory store ... which suggests a mechanism for deliberately changing cell DNA sequence.
Does that refute NDT? Mutation + Selection = NDT, does it really make any difference if there is some unknown natural process that aids mutation ... or does that help ToE?
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: Although not admitted by Percy (maybe she should do that to create some clarity) it still stands as a falsification of the atheistic version of evolution theory (=NDT). I recommend you to read the thread again. Maybe that will open your eyes.
I have read the thread ... maybe you could answer your critics?
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: In the meantime I also provided a falsification (do you know what a falsification is, and why it is not so good for a theory?)
Perhaps you could be less condescending and more informative ... what do YOU mean by falsification?
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: of natural selection and thus demonstrated the NDT not to be valid on the level of the genome. What else do you want me to falsify? Best wishes Peter
You have NOT falsified natural selection.
You have suggested that not all traits in the genome are subject to selective pressure ... NDT doesn't say they are either ... does it? Perhaps you could cite the NDT references where this is stated.
Even Kimura says that some ARE subject to selective pressure.
You have still not expressed an opinion on gene selection due to location on the same chromosome as a gene subject to selective pressure as in the book+story analogy I suggested previously.
Have you heard of a gorilla named (and I'm not sure of the spelling) Koko ?
She was taught sign language, and can use a keypad that speaks the words of the picture on it (like 'banana' or whatever).
There seems to be a bias in thinking that this cannot be language use because she's only a gorilla ... but I think you are right that this bias is from the religous viewpoint of man as the pinnacle of creation.
Perhaps this is why there is such a strong feeling against evolution, after all, if ToE is correct we are just animals like every other creature on the planet ... nothing any more special than a gorilla, chimp, okapi, frog, ant, etc. etc. etc.
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: dear peter,
Yes, I know about Koko, and I am very intruiged by gorilla's abilities to communicate with human (or is it the other way around? Humans communicating with gorilla's?).
It's not communication unless it's two-way (the recipient has to understand the transmission surely).
Also Koko was asked about past experience, and described the hunt in which she was captured as juvenile (she refers to people as 'feet' incidently, which implies languistic capability since she chose that word to describe people out of the set of words that she is capable of using).
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: You also say: "There seems to be a bias in thinking that this cannot be language use because she's only a gorilla ... but I think you are right that this bias is from the religous viewpoint of man as the pinnacle of creation."
I say: I do not object to the fact that gorilla's are pretty intelligent creatures. Maybe they have even better language-understanding capacities than chimps. However, I don't understand how you link the gorilla's ability to communicate to my posts. Could you please explain. (If you think that this proves common descent, than I really have to disappoint you: it doesn't. We are also able to communicate with dolphins. It doesn't say anything, except that these are very intelligent sociable animals)
Already apologised for this error ... wrong post.
I don't suggest anything in linguistic capability that is concerned with common descent ... we can also communicate with dogs and cats and probably pretty much anything else provided we know its method of communication.
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: And you say: "Perhaps this is why there is such a strong feeling against evolution, after all, if..
(yes indeed IF)
..ToE is correct we are just animals like every other creature..
(if EoT is correct there are NO creatures)
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: ..on the planet ... nothing any more special than a gorilla, chimp, okapi, frog, ant, etc. etc. etc. "
I say: "These are not the reasons why I object to NDT.
Glad to hear it ... so long as you are sure.
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: If these were my reasons I wouldn't have registered for this forum.
Are you sure about that? Motivations for belief can be convoluted at best, and the sources of bias within our own thinking need to be constantly addressed.
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: I reject NDT because it doesn't work at the level of the genome. And if it doesn't work there it cannot be extrapolated to higher levels".
At the level of the genome all that we require is mutations, and we have those.
Do we fully understand what the entire genome is for, or how it relates to phenotypes?
If we don't then the leap you have made is based upon incomplete information, and therefore unfounded (presently).
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: Maybe it is time that you read some opposite opinions.
I don't usually respond to personal comments, but I find this last point somewhat patronising ... is that a debating ploy to undermine credibility?