Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bones of Contentions.
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 240 (232874)
08-13-2005 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by JavaMan
08-08-2005 6:16 PM


Re: More invalid conclusions & unsubstantiated assertions in place of any real argume
Thank you JavaMan. An excellent exercise. Statistical analysis, probabilities, means, etc, have been very useful in forming my own conclusions.
Where the measurement capability is good and the hypothesis were true, a correlation would be expected even with slight variations. We could all agree (I think) that a big guy with a big head has no intelligence advantage over a small lady — where the variations are significant from the mean on either island.
Some reflections on the thought exercise:
1) If I understand correctly, you are proposing that the greater sense of smell on island A is the result of genetic isolation of pre-existing traits — similar to variation in Darwin’s island Finches, thicker bird beaks and peppered moths discussed previously. RAZD claims that DNA code for thicker bird beaks, peppered moths, etc, are the result of prior DNA mutations but there is no direct evidence for that from a DNA perspective — only conjecture according to the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm.
JavaMan - Is it correct that you are not inferring random beneficial mutations for increased olfactory capability in the exercise? This is an important consideration.
First, we do have human brains today that are roughly twice the size of other human brains — but no more intelligent. There are plenty of significant deviations from the mean.
Second, the evidence indicates there are practical limits within existing DNA codes. In other words, no matter how long we try to selectively breed intelligence into an ape, it will never approach the intelligence of a human.
RAZD admits this with his example that you cannot continually breed horses to run 10% faster. Then he seemingly contradicts himself by presenting the supposedly unlimited mechanism for change whereby each individual evolves from its parents. Under this second scenario, you could eventually breed a cheetah from horse genes. We simply don’t have any evidence of those types of transitional leaps in design today among highly developed organisms due to mutations — whether gradual or sudden. We only see superficial change of existing genetic traits within a type — dogs, cats, cows, horses - no transitional forms to new highly developed species - or between highly developed species - None.
Third, leaps in intelligence require, as a minimum, a vast increase in structural complexity not size. The probability of random DNA translation errors producing - just one single mutation - that increased complexity and functionally of the supposed hominid brain is very nearly zero - no matter how much time is allowed.
RAZD states in Msg 124 that the 8088 microprocessor was designed by a random process.
RAZD writes:
John Ponce writes:
Do you suppose random processes could EVER be responsible for the development of computers - even the most simple 8088 microprocessors?
It already has...
Not sure if that is what RAZD meant to say but it is absurd. The leap in intelligence from a critter to a human brain is analogous to an 8088 microprocessor morphing into a Pentium 4 processor via random error processes.
In RAZD’s analysis, beneficial brain mutations are relatively simple and the mechanism happens all the time. It is analogous to saying just duplicate and expand the existing memory structure and — voila — an 8088 microprocessor becomes a Pentium 4. Never mind the complex redesign of the I/O bus, mountains of complex control code, denser construction with orders of magnitude increased processor interconnections, power and cooling requirements, etc, etc.
More and more evolutionists have come to understand the absurdity of millions of random complex beneficial mutations required by neo-Darwinism. Some have embraced alternatives such as the Panspermia model of human origins, intelligent aliens performing genetic engineering on hominids, etc.
Reference Everything You Know Is Wrong, subtitled Book One: Human Origins authored by Lloyd Pye (Barnes and Noble bookstore).
I don't subscribe to this stuff but it illustrates some of the problems from a Darwinian evolutionist's perspective.
2) Is the supposed correlation of improved smelling ability and increased Olfactory Bulb volume based on any evidence?
For example, a common rat’s sense of smell is probably better than any human’s. Are the olfactory bulbs of a rat larger than a human’s? I have not been able to determine the answer yet, but my guess is they are not. If my guess is correct, the exercise would tend to support my postition.
3) The island example is a good exercise but it does not reflect the Darwinian human evolutionary theory - in that supposed small populations inhabited the same territories in Africa — thus the gene pools were not isolated as in the island example.
For this scenario to be a working analytical model, each significant alleged brain mutation must be exclusively selected via reproduction and all supposedly non-mutated — yet healthy - specimens (every single one) must necessarily be cut of from the gene pool. Similar to every person on island B snuffed out - for no apparent reason.
This same (highly unlikely) scenario supposedly occurred many, many times, over the supposedly uniform transition from ape to man. Otherwise, transitional hominid genetic throwbacks would be walking among us today. We would actually have verifiable irrefutable evidence for Darwinism. That is not the case. All we have is bone fragments and conjecture.
Another thought exercise.
RAZD claims to have logically refuted some of my arguments by claiming the fallacy of incredulity. RAZD is correct in that I cannot prove these highly unlikely scenarios did not happen. Neither can he prove they did.
The fact of the matter is theories of origins are beyond the reach of the scientific method. Science cannot prove anything concerning origins.
However, in the last fifteen years, we have learned much about the complexity of life combined with probability theory and analytical tools. We are better able to assess the likelihood and probability of millions of theoretically random beneficial genetic mutation mechanisms that are the necessary foundation for neo-Darwinism to create new organs, higher intelligence, etc.
RAZD claims millions of mutations are not required for the human brain to evolve from a critter. Again, consider the amount of additional data in blueprints and code required to build a working Pentium 4 processor compared to an old 8088 processor — it is millions, if not trillions.
So here is the exercise:
Suppose RAZD lived across the sidewalk from me and RAZD managed the state lottery. Let’s further suppose that I invest in 100 lottery tickets per year for 10 years, each ticket having a winning probability of 1/10,000,000. It just happens that you live on the corner down the street and you win the lottery every year for those ten years. After some careful thought and analysis, I determine that the lottery outcomes are too incredible to believe that the process is random. Therefore, I inform RAZD that I am no longer investing in his lottery. With great indignation, RAZD runs out in the street and loudly proclaims that I have committed the logical fallacy of Personal Incredulity. He professes the "willful ignorance" of anyone who doesn’t buy in to his lottery and claims that his lottery outcomes are common and they happen all the time! RAZD is correct that I cannot prove his lottery outcomes are not the result of random processes. But all of a sudden, all the neighbors armed with new knowledge, also suspect my analysis is correct and they also quit investing in RAZD’s lottery. The neighbors determine to examine other alternatives for investments that they consider are more likely to bear fruit.
This appears to be the trend concerning dogmatic neo-Darwinism via random beneficial brain mutations as a reasonable explanation of the complexity we see today. Whether RAZD is willing to acknowledge it or not, probabilities are useful scientific tools for analysis of proposed mechanisms.
Personal Incredulity is the same objection, right or wrong, that Einstein expressed for Werner Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle — God doesn’t shoot craps.
If only RAZD was available, he could have admonished Einstein for his "willful ignorance".
Analytical Regards to "Big Headed" hominids!
Message is identical to original post.
This message has been edited by John Ponce, 08-13-2005 02:39 AM
This message has been edited by John Ponce, 08-13-2005 02:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by JavaMan, posted 08-08-2005 6:16 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by NosyNed, posted 08-13-2005 1:26 AM John Ponce has replied
 Message 207 by JavaMan, posted 08-13-2005 6:48 AM John Ponce has not replied
 Message 212 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2005 12:06 PM John Ponce has not replied
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 08-13-2005 1:51 PM John Ponce has not replied
 Message 218 by JavaMan, posted 08-14-2005 12:33 PM John Ponce has replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 240 (232880)
08-13-2005 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Omnivorous
08-12-2005 11:17 PM


Re: Welcome & Thanks
Omnivorous writes:
....yes, John, RAZD ate your lunch.
Hi Omni! You must be one of those folks in the gallery that RAZD said was imaginary. Congratulations - you are the first to buy into RAZDs contention!
May I ask you what is the most persuavive points RAZD made - in your opinion?
See msg 201. Could I interest you in a lottery ticket? They're cheap...
This message has been edited by John Ponce, 08-13-2005 02:18 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Omnivorous, posted 08-12-2005 11:17 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by RAZD, posted 08-13-2005 11:26 AM John Ponce has not replied
 Message 213 by Omnivorous, posted 08-13-2005 12:25 PM John Ponce has not replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 240 (232884)
08-13-2005 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by NosyNed
08-13-2005 1:22 AM


Re: Skull similarities
NosyNed writes:
You do understand that the degree of similarity is not determined by looking at them, right?
Well, was that not the claim that was made by an evolutionist with the comparison of the first two skulls - by looking at them?
Granted, the anle is not perfect for the modern human skull, but the slope of the forhead and size of the skullcap are very discernable - and are nearly identical. Those were the same exact features compared between Javaman and Homo Erectus - No?
Are we only allowed to compare features if they support your particular paradigm?
Starting a road trip now - be out for a while.
Good weekend to all!
Analytical Regards to "Big Headed" hominids.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by NosyNed, posted 08-13-2005 1:22 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by RAZD, posted 08-13-2005 11:07 AM John Ponce has not replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 240 (232888)
08-13-2005 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by NosyNed
08-13-2005 1:26 AM


Re: Use of analogies and understanding probability
NosyNed writes:
Perhaps you should understand it before you think you will have any chance of actually critisizing it.
I understand it quite well.
NosyNed,
1) What would you estimate the odds of a random beneficial mutation increasing complexity in a critter brain?
2) How many of those events would you estimate it would take to transition from a critter brain to a human brain?
Analytical Regards to "Big Headed" hominids!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by NosyNed, posted 08-13-2005 1:26 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by RAZD, posted 08-13-2005 11:13 AM John Ponce has not replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 240 (240173)
09-03-2005 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by crashfrog
08-13-2005 12:02 PM


Re: More invalid conclusions & unsubstantiated assertions in place of any real argume
Hi Crashfrog.
Crashfrog writes:
There's no selection pressure for larger brains (and considerable pressure in the developing world against)...
If that is true, then neo-Darwinism would not have produced larger brains in humans from critters - correct?
Crashfrog writes:
Humans are apes. How could there be a transitional fossil between two things that are the same?
I initially jumped into this forum illustrating what I felt to be absurdity.
I don't know anyone who goes to the city zoo to look for a wife. Do you? Assuming one could somehow develop a certain level of intimacy with an ape, I doubt the conversation would be too stimulating...!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2005 12:02 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2005 8:26 AM John Ponce has not replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 224 of 240 (240180)
09-03-2005 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by JavaMan
08-14-2005 12:33 PM


Re: More invalid conclusions & unsubstantiated assertions in place of any real argume
JavaMan, thanks for your response. What did you think of the striking similarities between the JavaMan skullcap and modern human (fully intelligent) Aborigine skull's low forehead and skullcap in message 200?
RAZD seemed to be overwhelmed by the different angle of the picture and would not comment.
Do you consider it a possibility that the JavaMan skullcap may represent an individual who is essentially no different than modern humans with respect to intelligence or DNA?
Or do you consider the JavaMan skullcap to be irrefutable evidence that apes slowly mutated into humans via random mutations?
JavaMan writes:
1. You don't believe that the variations arise randomly, by mutation;
2. And you believe that there is a limit on the extent to which the morphology of organisms can change by the process of natural or artificial selection.
You left out an important word from my previous posts. My view correctly stated:
1. There is no evidence that "beneficial" mutations arise randomly.
The particular focus in this discussion is how random errors in DNA code (combined with natural selection) could possibly produce a human brain from a critter brain (analogous to random processes producing the design for a Pentium 4 microprocessor from a much simpler 8088 microprocessor).
2. The evidence indicates there is a limit on the extent to which the morphology of organisms can change by the process of natural or artificial selection.
Any animal breeder will verify the limits they encounter among dogs, horses, tropical fish, etc. - without exception - when selecting certain traits. Breeders will also attest from experiential evidence that the further we select a given trait, the more propensity we have for developing related problems - and reduced viability - in the selected population. An example would be hip problems for Golden Retrievers.
There are many examples of practical limits to genetic variation: chickens, dairy cattle, etc.
Southern Asssociation of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors writes:
Genetic progress in production has been strong and sustained for many years, but undesirable correlated responses continue to occur in fertility, health, and fitness traits.
http://www.lgu.umd.edu/lgu_v2/homepages/home.cfm?trackID=...
The negative impact of genetic trait selection limits can sometimes be mitigated with best practices, but the limits are real and cannot be ignored.
Here are some interesting comparisons:
Maned Wolf Skull:
English Bulldog Skull:
Wouldn't Neo-Darwinist theorists have a heyday digging up these bones in the future? They might say the English Bulldog had "mutated" a specialized lower jaw, a higher forehead, and a larger brain to use the jaw in clever new ways...
Note that these dogs are the result of selecting pre-existing genetic traits - there is no evidence of mutations. RAZD protests that these variations were actually the result of "pre-existing mutations" but he neglects to offer any evidence. Genetically - the dogs are still the same old canine species just like Caucasians and Aborigines (and likely Java Man) with different shaped foreheads and skull caps are the same old Homo Sapiens.
JavaMan writes:
Variation
To me the obvious question to ask when faced with this variation in genetic traits is, How did the variation arise?
Generally we find two types of answer to this question:
1. Variation is random and caused by mutation (Darwinian theory);
2. Variation is directed, either by being designed up-front by God or some super-intelligent alien (intelligent design theories), or resulting from changes in the behaviour of the organism (inheritance of acquired characteristics - Lamarckism).
So my second question would be, Do we have evidence for any of these processes causing variation in present day populations?
No evidence of beneficial mutations among humans or other high level organisms that I am aware of. Are you aware of any real evidence - not just conjecture? If so, please share it.
JavaMan writes:
Well we certainly have evidence that random mutations occur. The following link is to a paper investigating the differences in spontaneous mutations between different strains of the Herpes virus:
Difference in Incidence of Spontaneous Mutations between Herpes Simplex Virus Types 1 and 2
Inheritance of acquired characteristics.
Viruses are unable to replicate without a host cell and are typically not even considered living organisms (reference: Dictionary.com). They are essentially complex molecules, and as such, cannot logically support the proposed Neo-Darwinist mechanism for an allegedly beneficial mutation (adding functionality) of replicating DNA within a cell.
JavaMan writes:
No one has yet found evidence for the inheritance of acquired characteristics, despite a great deal of investigation, especially by Soviet scientists during the 1930s.
Lamarkism is a classic example of misguided ideology presented as science - by the Soviets. The Communist government funded much research in Lamarkism even after it was an evidently failed mechanism for evolution. Those Soviet scientists who objected were merely dismissed from their positions or jailed. Was the communist motivation strictly for scientific knowledge? Perhaps they were convinced the Lamarckism dogma was true. We know they felt Lamarckism could be used to promote the supposed strength of the Communist political and philosophical dogma. You may have noted that long after Lamarckism was scientifically invalidated - it was still taught as a valid evolutionary mechanism to Russian school children in the name of "Science".
The giraffe's long neck was a favored example of Lamarckism. Concerning neo-Darwinism, how many beneficial mutations do you suppose it took for the giraffe to develop the structure for its long neck? Do you believe those mutations occurred simultaneously to other supposed mutations for a cardiovascular system complete with blood flow restrictions to prevent too much or too little blood flow to the brain? One without the other would likely be deadly.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence (fossil or otherwise) that neo-Darwinism produced the giraffe's long neck any more than Lamarkism.
JavaMan writes:
Theories of intelligent design
Although we can't judge theories of intelligent design by the same criteria (because the theories generally claim that the variation was imposed in the past, so you wouldn't expect to see any changes in the current population), we can still make the following observations:
I disagree here JavaMan. We can judge all theories of the origin of man equally - based on evidence and analysis. All theories of human origin are equally beyond the reach of the scientific method because we cannot repeat the process. We see no beneficial mutations among humans today. There have been countless (millions?) attempts to use radiation and chemicals to accelerate mutations with multi-celled organisms and create beneficial mutations such as with the fruit fly. The results reveal zero beneficial mutations. All mutational experiments and medical evidence produce one of three results: No immediately apparent affect, degradation in viability, or death.
Now some may disagree and claim that a moldy slime of some sort adapts to its environment but there is no evidence this is a result of "beneficial mutations". Even if it were, that is a far stretch from a long series of supposed critter brain mutations vastly increasing the complexity and functionality for a human brain.
JavaMan writes:
1. First of all, as we do observe change by random mutation in current populations, then it would seem that the total variation in a population must be due to the variation inherent in the original design plus any mutations that have occurred since that time;
Yes. The problem for Darwinian evolution, in my opinion, is random mutations are not a workable mechanism to account for the complexity of the human brain.
JavaMan writes:
2. Second, given observation #1 it must occur to any parsimonious scientist that the notion of an original design is a bit superfluous when the observed mechanism of random mutation could readily account for the development of variation from an unvaried initial state - there doesn't seem to be any need to posit a designed state;
How parsimonious is the notion that random events (mutations) could add functionality (vastly increased brain capacity)? I am asking you to give an example of it among any higher order organisms today (not inanimate complex molecules).
Go into your PC operating system code and start randomly changing ones to zeros and zeros to ones to see how long before your PC crashes (dies). The answer - quickly. Added functionality in your PC operating system typically requires a minimum of thousands to millions of bits of directed code. If every person on earth were randomly changing bits on a PC operating system, there is no parsimonious hope that anyone would ever add functionally before their PC system crashes. Thus, as I see it, there is a necessity to posit a designed state.
Here is another mental exercise. This type of exercise may not be a perfect analogy but it illustrates the problems with Darwinian evolution. Remember, nobody can "prove" anything using science concerning origins. I and many analysts would conclude this type of exercise is useful in determining the viability of a given event over time. This can be used to evaluate proposed mechanisms concerning theories of origin.
The San Francisco Chronicle writes:
Researchers can also compare the code to sequences from different individuals to find slightly misspelled genes associated with disease -- discoveries that could lead to better treatments. Each gene is made up of thousands of chemical compounds called nucleotide bases represented by the letters A, T, C and G. In the ladder-like structure of DNA, matched pairs of the bases form the rungs linking two long backbone strands of DNA.
Reference: Genome Project completes map of human DNA / Celebrating scientists expect medicine to be transformed as result
So complex brain DNA designs can be represented by a system of "spelling of sorts".
Now - Let's suppose that a beneficial brain mutation in a critter could be modeled using random "spelling" processes and mathematical probabilities.
Let's take a seemingly "small" mutation that could be approximated by randomly spelling "BENEFICIAL MUTATIION" in eight bit ASCII coded text. Although we have no evidence of beneficial mutations occurring today, let's assume that enough random binary events to correctly spell "BENIFICIAL MUTATION" represented "random DNA transfer errors" sufficient to increase critter brain functionality and be promoted by natural selection. All other combinations (misspelling "BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS") are either seemingly neutral, detrimental, or deadly (as in loss of functionality or brain cancer).
Let's generate the required random ASCII text bits once every minute (every minute of the year) until we get the "beneficial mutation" equal to the correct spelling. This gives us 1,440 randomly mutated individuals every day.
Some evolutionists may argue more than one "beneficial" random error sequence. However, the "one beneficial sequence" seems reasonable because there is no evidence of "any" beneficial brain mutations today.
Okay, start randomly generating sets of binary code once per minute (Coin flips would do with heads equal to one and tails equal to zero)...
How many years would statistically be required to produce this random "beneficial mutation" represented by just spelling it correctly?
The answer for this single - seemingly simple - randomly correct spelling, minute by minute, is roughly once every 42 Trillion, Trillion, Trillion years.
This is on the order of 9,200 Trillion, Trillion times the age of the Earth (assuming the Earth is actually 4.6 billion years old).
My friend RAZD likes to call this type of analysis "snake oil" but I suspect even he would not buy a lottery ticket with these odds.
Someone may protest that random mutations do not have to meet this standard of probability in order to increase the complexity of a critter brain. In fact, that is the only reasonable option if you understand the math and remain faithful to the Darwinian dogma.
But this is literally "brain surgery" - not tinker toys. If the code were a few simple blocks, we would have broken it long ago.
NosyNed may respond that I am ignorant of the theory and this "in no way" represents neo-Darwinism as he did before - but he will likely neglect to point out specific inconsistencies.
RAZD may propose that first you only have to partially spell the words and then gradually build on each correct letter. Something like "Nah, it's easy: first spell "Ben", then spell "if" then spell "icial" etc.
But the evidence indicates that partial or incomplete code crashes the system - just like with your PC. The only evidence we have is obvious errors in DNA code (incorrect or incomplete spelling) result in seemingly neutral or undesirable outcomes (crashes) - Nothing beneficial for natural selection to favor.
Remember that a random redesign of a critter brain would most likely require considerably more information content and meet a much higher hurdle that this simple one of spelling the words.
Now consider that many similar recurring random mutation events would be required to design a human brain from a critter brain (ignoring all the other physical attribute mutations that would require a DNA critter to become a DNA human).
There is a reason why beneficial brain mutations are not observed today. Designing any functionality with high degrees of complexity requires directed events. The above hopeless exercise would be analogous to just filling in the title block of the blueprint - the actual blueprint detailed design changes are reasonably orders of magnitude more difficult.
As before, I expect my friend RAZD will proudly proclaim he has "invalidated" this analysis as a "logical fallacy". Meanwhile, he cannot offer "proof" of the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm - and fewer neighbors are buying his "Mega Mutation" lottery tickets.
JavaMan writes:
3. Third, any directed mechanism for generating variation has a fundamental flaw - it must assume a particular future environment for the organism. When you see the word 'random' you probably understand something like 'accidental' or 'mindless'; when I see the word I understand 'unbiased by any assumptions about future conditions'. You see, it's the very randomness of the variation generation that provides organisms with the ability to adapt when circumstances change.
Javaman, do you find it difficult to explain the "Reverse Cone of Diversity" as Gould called it? Many more types of organisms lived in the past than are living today. The evidence indicates that Earth was populated relatively quickly (Cambrian Explosion) with much more diversity than we see today. If ongoing mutations were actually increasing diverse designs and the "ability to adapt when circumstances change", would you not expect a "Forward Cone of Diversity" with respect to time? A parsimomious conclusion based on the evidence would be that random mutations are "reducing population adaptability and viability" of all species - rather than enhancing them.
JavaMan writes:
Point #3 continued: The process is ongoing and random, so that at any point in its history the population has a large set of alternative traits that it can call on.
Again, the evidence indicates that at any point in history since the "Cambrian explosion", the population of Earth (diversity of all organisms) has a "smaller" set of alternative traits that it can call on. Thus so many extinct species through time - and we see no evidence of existing species developing new organs or functionality today.
JavaMan writes:
Point #3 continued: If the process were directed by inheritance of acquired characteristics, small changes in environmental conditions would tend to push the whole population in a particular direction all at once.
Yes, that's the evidence we see. Both environmental and cultural factors may cause the variation of diverse populations and selection of pre-existing genetic traits among humans with different geographic lineages.
JavaMan writes:
Point #3 continued: If the process were directed by intelligent design, then the initial variation would be limited by the designers' assumptions about future environmental conditions. Only an omnipotent God could design in all the variation required - but if you appeal to an omnipotent God, you're not doing science any more, you're doing religion.
Let's see if we can agree on a definition for "science".
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science writes:
Science:
a) The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b) Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c) Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
We do not see critters mutating into humans over the course of recorded history so it is not a "natural phenomenon" for us to examine today. RAZD would likely disagree, arguing that each individual human "evolves" from its parents but there is no evidence of "beneficial" mutations among humans today - only cancer or some other degradation of functionality. Therefore, the scientific method cannot be applied to theories of human origins since the event(s) are not available or repeatable for testing. Thus, we are left with definitions (a) and (c) above.
Do you find this reasonable so far JavaMan?
Let's suppose an Aborigine from an isolated jungle tribe found a Pentium 4 microprocessor on a beach of Australia. Our intelligent Aborigine investigator would likely consider the dark rectangular "rock" with patterned metallic protrusions an odd peculiarity - an "unnatural phenomenon" - not the result of random ocean wave action.
Using your definition of scientific investigation in point #3, our Aborigine investigator would only be permitted to conclude the unnatural object was the result of naturalistic random events. Examining the outside shell of the "small dark rock", he would likely reject your restriction of science to "only naturalistic causes". He would intelligently attribute the origin of the unusual relic to a designer - a "Man in the Gap" explanation.
So our investigator, having no clue of the complexity within the Pentium 4 chip, might assume the peculiar object was fashioned by a native with an artistic flair for honing a decorative piece of adornment. Only much later he learns of the incredible complexity and code (analogous to DNA) designed into the "small dark rock" by literally thousands of scientists and engineers. He also learns that these designers who were not "Omnipotent" or "Omniscient" planned for a wide operating temperature range, voltage supply range, etc, to function and survive in changing environments.
Would you call our Aborigine friend's detailed investigation and recognition of unnatural complexity in the Pentium 4 an exercise in "science"? Or is it "religion"?
As defined in Dictionary.com, it is precisely - the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena - science.
Do you agree Javaman?
Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but since neo-Darwinism requires a seemingly dogmatic rule that there can be no intelligence in the universe capable of understanding and designing DNA - would you say the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) program is probably nothing more than a religious exercise?
Quoting RAZD in Msg 22 of the thread Is there any indication of increased intelligence over time within the Human species? in the Human Origins forum:
RAZD writes:
Any way that succeeds is not wrong. Any way that leads to new solutions is helpful.
This is why I am a former evolutionist. JavaMan, you have thoughtful posts here and I welcome your analysis.
* Edited punctuation.
This message has been edited by John Ponce, 09-05-2005 03:13 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by JavaMan, posted 08-14-2005 12:33 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by MarkAustin, posted 09-09-2005 9:17 AM John Ponce has replied
 Message 232 by JavaMan, posted 09-13-2005 8:40 AM John Ponce has not replied

  
John Ponce
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 240 (242197)
09-11-2005 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by MarkAustin
09-09-2005 9:17 AM


Re: More invalid conclusions & unsubstantiated assertions in place of any real argume
Hi MarkAustin,
MarkAustin writes:
John Ponce writes:
JavaMan, thanks for your response.
What did you think of the striking similarities between the JavaMan skullcap and modern human (fully intelligent) Aborigine skull's low forehead and skullcap in message 200?
RAZD seemed to be overwhelmed by the different angle of the picture and would not comment.
Do you consider it a possibility that the JavaMan skullcap may represent an individual who is essentially no different than modern humans with respect to intelligence or DNA?
Or do you consider the JavaMan skullcap to be irrefutable evidence that apes slowly mutated into humans via random mutations?
I can't see the aboriginal skull picture - has it been moved or deleted? Could you repost?
Something was strange about that post #200. The Skull displayed properly when I first posted it but the next day it would not display. Not sure if some admin disabled it or what. Perhaps an admin can advise us here if it is a problem.
As you requested, I will repeat the image here. I will also repeat the images for comparison and my questions related to them - I don't think anyone has actually addressed the questions.
Quoting the reference that RAZD gave:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java15000.html writes:
Note that the skull of the Turkana Boy is quite different from a modern skull. To illustrate this, draw a line from the eyebrow ridge to the corner made by the lower jaw and the bottom of the skull. This divides the Turkana Boy's skull into two almost equal-sized parts. With the human skull, the upper part is much larger.....
If a "human" and an "ape" that look almost identical aren't transitional fossils, what would be?
The criteria in this reference (draw a line...) would reasonably conclude a modern Aborigine to be a transition between critters and mankind - which is an obviously flawed conclusion. As with the Canine skulls in post 124, we are on very thin scientific ground drawing any conclusions concerning intelligence from shapes and sizes of skulls.
JavaMan
Homo Erectus ? Turkana Boy
Modern Human Austrailian Aborigine - Fully Intelligent!
Which of the following conclusions would you draw - based on the pictures above and the evidence we have today from neuroscience:
1) The Javaman and Homo Erectus skulls are very similar to modern human Aborigine skulls and, therefore, may be fully human.
2) The modern human Aborigine skull is very similar to Javaman and Homo Erectus skulls and, therefore, may be a transitional animal somewhere between apes and human.
3) Some reconfigured "hominid" skulls have been proven to be hoaxes. Others (many from only a few bone fragments) may either fall into the category of apes or humans. There may, in fact, be no "transitional" animals between apes and humans.
Which answer would you select based on all the evidence - including a lack of any larger mutated brains that are supposedly "more intelligent" today among seven billion people?
Answer 1), 2), or 3)?
Feel free to add an alternative conclusion if you have any.
MarkAustin, I would also be interested in the references for correlation you mentioned in post 225.
Analytical Regards to "Big Headed" hominids!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by MarkAustin, posted 09-09-2005 9:17 AM MarkAustin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2005 10:37 PM John Ponce 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