Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 11:40 AM
32 online now:
AZPaul3, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Stile, vimesey, xongsmith (8 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,595 Year: 9,631/19,786 Month: 2,053/2,119 Week: 89/724 Day: 21/68 Hour: 0/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
Author Topic:   "Modern Cell Biology doesn't support Darwinism"
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 87 (288044)
02-18-2006 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by randman
02-17-2006 11:22 PM


Re: A reassessment
Small "evolution" is incorporated into creationist and ID models.

Uh-huh. And the definition of "small" is, "any time we actually observe it, it's just 'small' evolution."

Circular reasoning, of course.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 11:22 PM randman has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 340 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 77 of 87 (288313)
02-19-2006 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by randman
02-17-2006 11:22 PM


Re: A reassessment
quote:
Nah, you can do that, please. Define kind,

I know of no useful definition of "kind" with regards to how you are using it in this context, which is why I thought I'd ask you to define it.

Otherwise, it is meaningless and useless.

Please stop dodging this very basic, very direct question of clarification.

Define "kind". I'd also like to know what system to use in identifying which "kinds" are which. For example, is my housecat and a Bengal tiger the same "kind"? Are a Chimpanzee and Homo Sapiens the same kind?

What consistent system do I use to determine if they are or not?

quote:
and while you are at it, define species, random, and vestigal.

I definitely will, after you provide a definition of "kind".

Considering I have not used "species, random, nor vestigial" in this thread, while you have used "kind" in this thread, I think it makes more sense for you to define your meaning of the word so we can discuss it first.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 11:22 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 1:16 AM nator has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 78 of 87 (288508)
02-20-2006 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by nator
02-19-2006 7:37 AM


Re: A reassessment
Sorry shraf. Please define kind, will, randomness, etc,....

If you cannot, then why are you mentioning these terms?

On "kind", I have defined it before for you and you still bring it up. If you don't want to learn, why should I repeat it for you. Kinds refer to the theoritical life form groupings stemming from the first created life forms. Barimonology is the study of kinds.

Even though I am not a YECer, I find evo criticism laughable in criticizing imprecision in determining and measuring for kinds, defining kinds, when evos have the same problem with randomness, and even at times with "species."

As such, I don't consider your post and you worthy of paying much attention to since you don't seem to be willing to acknowledge the reality of these issues.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by nator, posted 02-19-2006 7:37 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by nator, posted 02-22-2006 9:53 AM randman has not yet responded

  
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 87 (288543)
02-20-2006 5:03 AM


Back to the topic ?
The recent discussion seems wholly generic. This thread has a topic, if no one is interested in discussing it then I might as well close the thread down.

Anyone care to discuss the Maresca and Schwartz paper and its agreement, or lack thereof, with Randman's ideas about the fossil record? Or should this thread be put to bed?

TTFN,

AW

This message has been edited by AdminWounded, 22-Feb-2006 12:58 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 11:24 AM AdminWounded has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 80 of 87 (288641)
02-20-2006 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by AdminWounded
02-20-2006 5:03 AM


Re: Back to the topic ?
It's an interesting claim in the paper. I am not sure why it did not or is not getting more responses and comments. Sorry for my part in taking the thread off-topic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by AdminWounded, posted 02-20-2006 5:03 AM AdminWounded has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by nwr, posted 02-20-2006 1:20 PM randman has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 81 of 87 (288687)
02-20-2006 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by randman
02-20-2006 11:24 AM


Re: Back to the topic ?
It's an interesting claim in the paper. I am not sure why it did not or is not getting more responses and comments.

That's because the paper really doesn't address the EvC dispute. The paper is part of the continuing discussion with evolutionary science, as to exactly what the mechanisms are. It is not opposed to evolution.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 11:24 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 1:24 PM nwr has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 82 of 87 (288689)
02-20-2006 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by nwr
02-20-2006 1:20 PM


Re: Back to the topic ?
nwr, can you explain what the paper is talking about when the authors say:

Modern cell biology does not support Darwinism.

You guys seem fond of claiming they are talking about PE, but they do not believe they are reiterating Punctuated Equilibrium.

Can you explain that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by nwr, posted 02-20-2006 1:20 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by nwr, posted 02-20-2006 1:57 PM randman has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 83 of 87 (288703)
02-20-2006 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by randman
02-20-2006 1:24 PM


Re: Back to the topic ?
I have only read the abstract and the newspaper article. I haven't had time to check the library to see if there is a copy available that I can read.

nwr, can you explain what the paper is talking about when the authors say:

Modern cell biology does not support Darwinism.

That's where I'm at a disadvantage, not having read the paper. If "Darwinism" is narrowly defined, almost everbody is against it - we know a lot that was unknown to Darwin. If broadly defined, it means about the same as "evolution", and nobody is against it (except creationists).

I'm opposed to narrowly defined Darwinism. I'm also opposed to narrowly defined neo-Darwinism. But most biologists seem to have a rather broader view of what that is, broad enough to adequately account for common descent.

Apparently Maresca & Schwartz have problems with gradualism, which they see as contrary to the evidence. I tend to agree with that, as do the PE folk. I don't see it as a problem for evolution, although I do see neo-Darwinism as not dealing with it adequately. The proposal of the authors, that there can be bursts of high rate mutation, doesn't strike me as the correct explanation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 1:24 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Wounded King, posted 02-22-2006 8:02 AM nwr has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2265 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 84 of 87 (289476)
02-22-2006 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by nwr
02-20-2006 1:57 PM


Re: Back to the topic ?
You aren't at a disadvantage, it isn't as if Randman has read the paper after all.

If he had he might have noticed that his quote

Modern cell biology does not support Darwinism

isn't actually in the paper at all.

One of the authors may have said it, but they didn't say it in the paper.

You can make an argument that the statement is a natural corrollary of what is said in the paper, but that is not what Randman chose to do.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by nwr, posted 02-20-2006 1:57 PM nwr has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2265 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 85 of 87 (289482)
02-22-2006 8:25 AM


I hope this isn't too substantial a lift from the paper.

Maresca and Schwartz, 2006 writes:

If an organism’s features are not adaptations to specific environmental circumstances, we can decouple “evolution” and “adaptation.” The apparent “order” with which organisms seem to be distributed in nature results from the elimination of the “wrong” phenotypes, not necessarily the selection of better adapted ones. Phenotypes do not change to “fit” their environment as a result of “correct” sequences of mutation. Rather, the environment provokes organismal (plant and animal) change via stress. Since the cause of cell function disruption is random, the resultant mutation’s effects on the regulation of development and its ultimate phenotypic expression are also random. In short, if a newly emergent phenotypic property does not kill you, you have it [...]

We can see a number of straw man representations of evolutionary theory here.

The apparent “order” with which organisms seem to be distributed in nature results from the elimination of the “wrong” phenotypes, not necessarily the selection of better adapted ones

What the distinction is between eliminating 'wrong' phenotypes and selecting 'right' phenotypes is is beyond me, it seems purely semantic. This is especially a problem since what is the 'wrong' phenotype is determined by a number of environmental factors one of which is the rest of your population, so there is nothing to stop the criteria for a 'wrong' phenotype shifting as one might expect in some form of directional selection.

Phenotypes do not change to “fit” their environment as a result of “correct” sequences of mutation

This isn't a claim which is made, there is no hypothetical "correct" sequence, there is just what works and what doesn't and some things work better than other in certain conditions.

Rather, the environment provokes organismal (plant and animal) change via stress. Since the cause of cell function disruption is random, the resultant mutation’s effects on the regulation of development and its ultimate phenotypic expression are also random.

This could apply to almost any scale of mutation. The only 'unique' thing about this theory seems to be the blending of the stress induced mutation models common in bacterial studies with some sort of large scale make or break level of catastrophic mutation, such as you might see with large scale chromosomal rearrangements or wholesale duplications.

TTFN,

WK


Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by nwr, posted 02-22-2006 9:55 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 340 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 86 of 87 (289506)
02-22-2006 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by randman
02-20-2006 1:16 AM


Re: A reassessment
quote:
Sorry shraf. Please define kind,

I can't. I have never been able to find a definition.

...which is why I asked.

quote:
will, randomness, etc,....
If you cannot, then why are you mentioning these terms?

I would happy to define randomness as it pertains to evolution, although your demand that I define "will" is new and I am not sure why it is relevant.

However, YOU are the one who used the word "kind" in this thread.

I have never found a definition of that word, so I do not know what you mean when you use it.

..which is why I asked you to define it.

quote:
On "kind", I have defined it before for you and you still bring it up.

I am terribly sorry. I don't remember seeing your definition of "kind". Could you please either link to the post where you defined it or provide it again for me?

Even better, you could participate in my new thread that is devoted to defining "kind" as you have used it. Faith is on her own in there and could really use your help. she is, in fact, under the impression that "kind" has no definition currently and that there is no consistent way at present to tell the difference between different "kinds".

Since you clearly DO have a definition, perhaps you could pop in on that thread and help us all out.

I, for one, am looking forward to learning from you, randman.

quote:
If you don't want to learn, why should I repeat it for you.

Why don't you pretend that we're talking about Haeckel, but instead of talking about his drawings, substitute the definition of "kind"?

That way, you might not mind repeating yourself so much. :)

quote:
Kinds refer to the theoritical life form groupings stemming from the first created life forms.

I am confused.

I thought that the first created life forms as listed in the Bible were the "kinds", not the life form groupings which have stemmed from them.

Also, how can I tell what "kind" an organism is? What consistent system can I use to tell where organisms should be grouped?

(Don't answer those questions here, please take them to the thread where Faith needs your help.)

quote:
Barimonology is the study of kinds.

Yes, this a knew.

Can you link to a baraminology site which has a precise definition of "kind", and also describes the system they use to determine what "kind" a given organism fits into?

This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-22-2006 09:56 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 1:16 AM randman has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 87 of 87 (289507)
02-22-2006 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Wounded King
02-22-2006 8:25 AM


Thanks for those quotes and comments.

It seems that the paper is refuting the creationist's strawman theory of evolution.

It seems to me that evolutionary biology does have a problem. Much of the general public has picked up a strawman version of ToE. And a lot of the skepticism (and consequent support of ID) is because they find the strawman ToE quite implausible. And they are right about that.

quote:
Phenotypes do not change to “fit” their environment as a result of “correct” sequences of mutation

This isn't a claim which is made, there is no hypothetical "correct" sequence, there is just what works and what doesn't and some things work better than other in certain conditions.



That is perhaps the most serious of the common misunderstandings. Many people want to think of evolution as progressive, goal oriented. There are deeply held views in western culture and philosophy which tend to emphasize the idea of "correct", or of judgement based on truth. People vastly underestimate the importance of pragmatic judgement (what works). The pragmatism of science is not properly appreciated, so that science is often described as a search for truth.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Wounded King, posted 02-22-2006 8:25 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Prev12345
6
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019