|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Foundations of ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4865 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
This has been mentioned in previous posts, but I'll try and clarify.
There are two concepts in evolutionary biology, punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradulism. The main difference between these two hypothesises (sp?) is the rate of evolution. PE supposes that major evolutionary changes occur during speciation events, and are punctuated by periods of stasis in terms of evolution. Phyletic gradulism supposes the rate is constant throughout a lineages time, and that speciation is the result of this constant changing. These are extreme ends of a spectrum. I don't know one phyletic gradualist or one pure punctuated equilibrist. Everyone, including Gould and Eldridge, admit that there are cases in the record which show constant evolutionary change. For instance: Sheldon, P.R. (1987) Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature, 330, 561-563. The arguments are for which rates are more prolific, not if they exist or not. Directional, disruptive, and stabilizing selection were known before Gould and Eldridge, along with allopatric speciation. In light of this, I don't think G & E's paper was a huge revelation, and many evolutionists didn't think so either. There is an equivocation going on with the word gradualism. There is phyletic gradualism (above) and "gradualism", i.e., evolutionary changes mainly occur through small changes in the genome which build up to a larger changes over time. Gould and Eldridge both support that kind of gradualism, but not phyletic gradulism, i.e., the rate of evolutionary change is constant throughout time. Gould isn't referring to marcoevolutionary jumps occuring in a few generations between periods of stasis. The jumps are short geologically speaking, in the order of 10's, 100's, or 1000's of thousands of years. They are not so short to preclude gradualism. I have the Ridley textbook you refer to, and it clearly states the equivocation of phyletic gradulism and gradulism in it's chapter on the rates of evolutionary change, so I wouldn't go quoting him in support of your position. I also apologize to the admin's for my previous post. This message has been edited by JustinC, 05-04-2005 03:26 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
What do you want ? Full references ?
Here they are: Eldredge and Gould (1972):Punctuated Equilibria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism In T J Schopf (Ed) Models in Paleobiology pp82-115 Freeman, Cooper & Co, San Francisco Cheetham A (1986):Tempo of evolution in a Neogene bryozoan: rates of morphological change within and across species boundaries. Paleobiology 12:199-202 The Eldredge and Gould paper is available online, free of charge. The Cheetham paper costs money.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Then you better cough it up if you expect to use it in debate. It's certainly not up to me to provide evidence to support your argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Of course I don't need the paper itself. The simple fact that you have not even heard of it, when I found it in a few minutes indicates that you are not sufficiently familiar with the literature to claim what is and what is not in it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: OK Paul, this particular discussion is going nowhere and it's getting really silly. I NEVER stated I had not heard of these papers, these are your words. I stated that I could not find them to have in front of me to debate you on them. And since you seem to think you can just throw out papers you never present and claim that they "prove" something, this discussion is over and I'll leave it to the readers to judge the contents. Thanks for your posts P.S. And readers: observe that Paul never introduced a SINGLE peer-reviewed paper to show this "fact of science" to be even a hypothesis of science. This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-04-2005 04:52 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Jerry writes: observe that Paul never introduced a SINGLE peer-reviewed paper to show this "fact of science" to be even a hypothesis of science. On account of your silly notions of how science works, Paul wins anyway. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
From your Message 94
quote: Yet you won't even discuss the evidence in the Eldredge and Gould paper which is freely avialable on line. Your sole argument on that paper seems to be:
quote:Did it even occur to you that a scientiifc paper setting out an idea is, by it's nature as a scientiifc paper likely to include empirical evidence in support of that idea ? On the Cheetham paper, you make statements like:
quote:But none dealing with the content - so clearly you are unfamiliar with it. So essentially your position is that since you refuse to read any scientific papers containing evidnece for punc eq, no such papers exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5836 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
Jerry,
Just thought I'd warn you that it might be a couple of days before I can reply properly. I'm a little shattered at the moment, and work and other 'stuff' is likely to get in the way tomorrow. There's lots of things I want to pick up on though; I'll try not to let the next post turn into too much of a monster "Anything that is true of E. coli must be true of elephants, except more so." -Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
What happened to observers and quantum universes?
Was this abandoned so Jerry could be educated?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
Thanks Ooook. No hurry, duty may call at any time from my position as well. I do enjoy your well crafted posts that utilize logic and civility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: It seems now to be a settled matter. Good. We have moved on. Life is much too short for the beating of dead dogs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
gnojek, msg 114 writes: What happened to observers and quantum universes? the precepts for his argument were invalidated (by several people) and that rendered the conclusion false. he has not addressed that {issue\failing} but has moved on to other issues. if that is what he calls "settled" then so be it.
Was this abandoned so Jerry could be educated? lol. well, one could consider the attraction of ID as the first step of a 12 step program to educate people on what really is involved in science, but in order to be educated one has to be like the psychiatrists burned out light bulb ... and want to change. this may be a very gradual process. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5836 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
Hello again,
Because the thread is about the validity of ID, and not the perceived failings of ‘Darwinism’, I’m going to try and focus on the second part of your last post. There were, however, a few things that I just can’t leave hanging: either because you’ve asked me a question or because you’re just plain wrong . Apologies in advance if I go on a bit of a ramble. If I miss anything you consider important, point it out. Equally, if you would like to expand on anything, give us a shout and I’ll see if I can open a new topic (or point you in the direction of an existing one). Predictions from Darwin:(Specifically those relating to common descent). The first thing to remember is that these are real predictions. Darwin obviously didn’t know about DNA, - he wasn’t even aware of Mendalian genetics - but once these things were discovered then predictions could be made directly from Darwin’s theory. Once the tools were there, they were tested and they could have been shown to be wrong. Phylogenic trees constructed using DNA sequences would have to mirror those suggested by the fossil record. A separate origin for mammals, reptiles and birds would have been an almighty falsification, but the ToE stood firm. I’ve just done a Pubmed search with the words "molecular" and "phylogeny" and got over 13,000 hits, with the first ones dated to the mid 1970’s. That’s an awful lot of mileage out of something that’s not meant to be a prediction. Similarly, if Darwin was right about evolution working by modifying structural elements already present then you would expect the patterning mechanisms during development to be conserved in the same way. Wings and other forelimbs would be modified versions of the same body plan, using the same genes, with similar expression patterns. Signalling events early on in development would be conserved throughout the tree-of-life. Some of these predictions have been tested, and some are being examined as I type (watch this space). The classical example of this is the expression pattern of Hox genes. The pattern of expression of these master control genes is strikingly conserved. Falsification in science:
In many other fields of science, when a scientist looks at the major source of evidence in his field and concludes that there is no evidence there to support the current hypothesis (Darwin's gradualism), wouldn't that scientist logically conclude the hypothesis just falsified due to no evidence? It would be nice and easy if life (and science) was a case of black and white, wouldn’t it? Somebody thinks there’s a problem with one aspect of a theory: some people agree, some people disagree, and some try to develop new ideas. Everybody discusses their point of view in relation to the evidence available. This sounds to me like a healthy, lively area of science. It would definitely be symptomatic of a sick and dogmatic system if one high profile person could declare a judgement and expect everyone to follow them. I find it odd that you state that Punk Eeek has no scientific basis, and yet you use it to justify your position. If it is a valid argument then you have to take the other parts of it into consideration (RM+NS, common descent). If it is scientifically unsound then why should you include it in your argument? Pre-Cambian Fossils: I’m at home at the moment so I don’t have full access to journals. Here’s a review of the pre-Cambian evidence covering actual fossils, molecular evidence, and the fossilisation of worm tracts, some of which may date back to 1,000mya. Oooops! That first bit lasted for a little longer than I expected.
On to ID: Well, I'm not a creationist although many ID theorists are (unless you view quantum mechanics as a god, in which case I plead nolo contendere). This is one of my bug-bears. So far on this thread you have questioned common ancestry, used the classic ‘micro’ versus ‘micro’ argument and have failed to address the pattern in the fossil record. If it quacks like a duck In addition to this, you’ve still got to tackle the hurdle that all IDists fall at. If you are saying that ‘something’ designed life, then what did it do after that? Surely it would have to have designed it? Or did it just carelessly leave the blueprints lying around for someone to pick up?
Really. I'm not familiar with this "thin air" math as all the formulas I am aware of are quite solidly based on science. And since I teach this, I would be quite interested in you pointing out the specifics so I can clarify for you. I’m not saying that the equations themselves are not proper maths. I don’t doubt that all of the adding up, taking away and various other squiggly bits have been applied correctly. It’s the assumptions on which they are based that seem to have a thinnish and airy quality. Take the infamous ‘protein probability’ equations for example. I’ve never seen one of these providing the probability of a process starting in a proto-cell which has a genetic code of 3-4 amino acids, which then changes a protein over millions of years (via an unknown number of useful intermediate steps) to it’s present form. You couldn’t possibly do that kind of calculation because of the amount of unknown parameters, but that’s what the evidence suggests happens. The evidence doesn’t bother ID though because it plucks the assumption that proteins just appear de novoout of thin air!!
LOL....I'm not laughing at you but about the misconceptions we CANNOT seem to get cleared up. Complexity (and information) is defined specifically and denoted mathematically. There is nothing obscure with this. Again, I’m sure the pure maths etc is OK, but the application to the real biological world is lacking. If I gave you two organisms would you be able to calculate which one was the more complex? If I gave you two DNA sequences, would you be able to declare which contained the most information?
Hmmm....You mean after all the effort I have put into quantum mechanics on this thread you still think we are vague on the designer and the implementation? I mean, I don't think I could have gotten much more in detail. I’ll accept that you are trying to tie the physical world to your designer. But in addition to the number of problems that have been already been pointed out, it still boils down to The designer did it with Quantum Stuff!. This is a small step forward from the classic ID position - which states that the sole purpose of ID is simply to detect design — but it leaves a number of uncomfortable questions unanswered. When (precisely) is the presence of a designer detectable in the history of life on earth, and when can natural processes be said to be enough? When (and how) did the designer step in, in the past? Why do so many of the ‘Intelligent’ designs point to a botched job? Why do you reject common ancestry?
1) ID predicts that that DNA can only be designed by an intelligent agent or preprogrammed code designed by an intelligent agent. This prediction stands in science and can be falsified by simply finding DNA in nature that was not designed by preprogrammed code.
These aren’t proper predictions. 2) ID predicts that genomes are at their best when they are just designed and the second law of thermodynamics takes it from there to DEVOLVE genomes in direct opposition to the musings of Darwin. This has been shown to be true in vertebrates in this study. 1)If you want to say that the ‘universal’ code couldn’t have arrived on its own then that gets you to the first proteinatious replicator and no further. If you are suggesting that DNA in general can’t be produced without intelligence then I will point you towards your friendly neighbourhood E. Coli. 2)If your prediction that an initial human population was ‘perfect’ and then started to degrade is correct then you’re going to have to show that the first humans were perfect. The data from great apes seems to contradict this, how would show this was the case?
quote:Like what? You lost me with this one. Mousetraps, tornadoes in junkyards, computer programs, Cadillacs and speed guns , take your pick. None of these has any connection with the real worldor can you explain how making a mousetrap is anyway similar to making a protein?
And finallyPhew! organisms just don't start giving birth to other species. Look at the experiments of Redi and Pasteur. Pigs give birth only to pigs no matter how reproductively isolated they are from other pigs. But you see pigs giving birth to slightly different pigs don’t you? What is natural barrier stopping them changing to something completely different over time? This is why I gave you the horse example: surely there are examples in the fossil record of horses turning into other horses?!? I’m sure there is plenty for you to chew on here, but this last challenge is the one I would really like to see you attempt. If you do nothing else, answer this question. Aplogies for the length of the post This message has been edited by Ooook!, 08-05-2005 12:00 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5008 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
Hi Oook,
Great post (POTM) I just wanted to add to Jerry's considerable tasks by referring him to my "oink challenge" on the Macroevolution thread. Nobody there has been able to describe a way of distinguishing between macro and micro evolution for these animals. It seems to depend largely on how broad is one's conception of the Platonic Pig. Mick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
Hello Ooook
quote: This is impossible as I have NEVER been wrong. Just ask me.
quote: Mileage yes, predictions no. You see, the entire structure of Darwinism is anathema to science because everything in it is circular. The conclusions explain the fossil record because the fossil record is used to glean the conclusions. Phylogenies validate the fossil record because the fossil record extrapolates the phylogenies. This reminds be of the fundies in the good old days when both sides would laugh at them when they went into something like: God is real because the Bible says He is, and God is infallible because the Bible says He is, and since God wrote the Bible, we know it is also infallible, so this all HAS to be true. What I think you're missing is that THE SAME PEOPLE DO ALL OF THIS. Get my point? Therefore, since everything in Darwinism is based on everything else in Darwinism you have independently confirmed no predictions from Uncle Charles.
quote: But if I were the designer I would do this the same way when designing organisms. Why come up with a helicopter design for bats when the wings I designed for birds do the job perfectly well? Why not similar legs in both horses and dogs? Why not homologous hox genes in several different organisms? Can you imagine General Motors trying to reinvent the sparkplug for every different automobile they design? How silly would that be? We find stark similarities in organisms and this is exactly what I would expect to find. We also observe diversity in the species of planet earth. Neither of these lend credence to any particular view of origins, neither ID nor Darwinism.
quote: It was supposed to be an experiment. The results of that experiment then needs to be interpreted by the peers of those researchers. Instead of doing this, they simply did not like the results of that experiment because it showed no gradualism in the record to support the notions of Darwin, so they came up with punk eek. Not because they discovered any evidence to lead them to a new hypothesis, but because they knew that was the only thing that could still keep Darwinism in the public view. One can never know what lurks in the hearts of men.
quote: I' not sure what you mean here. I do not use punk eek from an evolutionary stance in my argument, I just look at the fossil record. There I see organisms coming into the record fully formed. I suppose this is punctuated equilibrium, but it certainly is not Gould's version of it.
quote: Fine. Feel free to use that review and others to bring an argument. As soon as you do, I will be happy to address it.
quote: OK, and.......? You didn't say anything here. Is it that you think 'micro' verses 'macro' and the fossil record are not concepts of science? I mean, I frankly don't see how a teacher of evolution could ever teach the concept without using these terms. Scientists use them, why wouldn't I?
quote: Do what?
quote: Oh. I think I see what you are saying. Many do not understand why we use that math. The reason we do is we are calculating the way things ARE not the way they got there. This math doesn't care what particular path a protein takes to get to be the way it is, all that matters is the way it is. Slow evolution through protocells, aptamers, lyposomes or organisms just jumping together by magic does not change the math. Can you show me mathematically why it would be any different if an organism suddenly jumped together or if it formed over a million years through many simpler organisms? No. Because there IS no difference. This is because the math then again multiplies together with each step in these cases. Observe: If I flip 12 coins together at once and want them to all come up heads, I will have 1 chance in 2^12 of this happening. But suppose the system slowly evolves into existence. I will flip 3 coins together, wait a year, flip another 3 and add them to the system, and continue this for four years. The first year, the odds I will get all heads is 1 chance in 2^3. And I will have those same odds each year for four years. Then to calculate the entire system, I have to multiply all the steps together: 2^3*2^3*2^3*2^3 = 2^12 -- It's exactly the same! Hope that helps and wish you would study science and math rather than talk.origins. That site is a crock and EVERY anti-ID page there is easily refuted.
quote: Of course, providing you provide the information I need and define your view of complexity.
quote: Yes, that one is easy as with protein coding sequences, the biggest one will contain the most information, of course.
quote: There are no uncomfortable questions, have you seen me shy from any? And I don't see any problems presented with the quantum mechanics I presented. Attempts to diss an idea do not extrapolate to the refutation of that idea. No one presented anything to refute Heisenberg, Bohr, Young, Wheeler or Tipler. They just didn't like what that science says, so they attempted to twist it into a new meaning to suit their religion. You didn't find that obvious?
quote: Just look at the fossil record to find the when and the quantum mechanics I presented to find the how. I have spelled this out in great detail for this forum.
quote: They don't. You don't believe in evolution and the second law? Well, do you expect a 25 year old lawnmower to be in the same mechanical condition as a brand new one? It's just common sense.
quote: I reject it because there is not one shred of evidence to suggest it. It's just quite silly in that abiogenesis and common descent violate some of the most well proven laws in science. This is not science, it's pseudo-science that many Darwinists teach in schools as facts.
quote: As to the former, no it doesn't, I can take it far as I have to go. And you think E. Coli just magically makes itself? No, it uses pre-programmed code little different from a computer program . Code is intelligence. Do you really think that Window XP could just magically 'poof' out of a dead rock?
quote: No I don't, I can back as far as I can and then use statistics to extrapolate. I did this in the other thread, BTW. Read the study I posted. It goes back 6 million years.
quote: They're not useless unless you can refute the logic behind them. Can you? You certainly haven't thus far.
quote: No. And I don't think I've ever seen anyone use a mousetrap to describe protein synthesis. Where did you pick up that little tidbit?
quote: I see pigs giving birth to slightly different pigs and slightly similar pigs. FACT: They are still pigs. Have you ever seen a pig give birth to an elephant? Something similar to this is what you're going to have to show if you expect anyone to actually swallow this stuff. Design Dynamics
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024