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 8:33 AM
32 online now:
Aussie, GDR, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Stile, vimesey (6 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,578 Year: 9,614/19,786 Month: 2,036/2,119 Week: 72/724 Day: 4/68 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Pre-natal Parent-Offspring Conflict: Human pathologies explained by Ev. theory
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3990 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 16 of 24 (297228)
03-22-2006 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Wounded King
03-22-2006 5:50 AM


Re: conflict perspective not problematic for id/creo
message received and complied.


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Wounded King, posted 03-22-2006 5:50 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
EZscience
Member (Idle past 3324 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 17 of 24 (297258)
03-22-2006 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Silent H
03-21-2006 5:51 PM


Re: conflict perspective not problematic for id/creo
I need some time to reply to this. Just had a few things hit my desk that will swamp me for the rest of the week.

Nice find on the articles. I'll try and examine them more closely this weekend and come back with some comments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2006 5:51 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
Redeemed
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 24 (297397)
03-22-2006 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by EZscience
03-16-2006 9:08 PM


I am not a creationist or an evolutionist but a Bible believing Christian who finds faults in both theories. Because of my belief that the Bible is 100% accurate though, I do have a bias.

I may not fall into the stereotypical group of an ID person but I do believe this world was created. I find no problem explaining this through what the Bible says in its context.

Part of Genesis 3:16 says: To the woman he said (God),"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children." This is not a huge disertation on the subject (but a general statement given), because the Bible's purpose is not to clue you in on every aspect of creation, but to give history and to spread a message of salvation (in my opinion) but I would look upon the theory in question with that in the back of my mind.

I do not know your background or how much you have read of the Bible, but i suggest you read it to see where Christians are coming from. I myself am involved heavily in finding out what scientists have to say about evolution;Just a friendly challenge.

Oh and sorry I did not read all 2 pages of the post, but I did read most of it, I don't mean to change the subject.

Just my 2 cents

~CAP~


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EZscience, posted 03-16-2006 9:08 PM EZscience has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by EZscience, posted 03-23-2006 6:44 AM Redeemed has not yet responded

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 3324 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 19 of 24 (297498)
03-23-2006 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Redeemed
03-22-2006 6:02 PM


Belief vs. explanation
I think this is an important distinction.
Because literal belief in the bible or any other sacred text is a subscription to something as an absolute truth, it is not really a theory at all, e.g.

Redeemed writes:

Because of my belief that the Bible is 100% accurate...

There is no need to work out any functional mechanisms for anything, nor is there any framework provided for doing so. It just 'is' that way because God said so.

In contrast, scientific theories seek actual mechanisms of how things work or how they have come to be as they are. They may not be more true, but they are certainly more useful.
It is pretty much assumed they are imperfect, but they are designed so that imperfections can be detected and their structure modified through continued observation and experimentation.
A lot of 'theistic evolutionists' are quite happy to see evolution as a mechanism of creation, something set in motion by God, but not necesssarily micro-managed by him. This view prevents their beliefs from interfering with their ability to advance and test actual theories.

Redeemed writes:

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children."

Fine. But where is the explanatory power? It seems simply a cofirmation of what is obviously known to be true.

In my mind, I am not so much interested in the absolute truths that religions seem to concern themselves with as I am in useful ways of figuring our how living things work and interact. So I don't take issue with whether or not the above statement is 'true' (God made women suffer after the Fall, whereas they didn't before), I just don't view it as a very useful premise from which to advance our understanding of the mechanisms involved in the genetic conflicts apparently occuring between a fetus and its mother.

In contrast, ToE predicts differential levels of competition between individuals in proportion to their degree of relatedness, all in the interest of individuals promoting their genetic representation in the next generation. This is borne out pretty well by observation and can be useful for anticipating various types of interactions among individuals, and in this case, among genes within individuals.

Redeemed writes:

I am not a creationist... but I do believe this world was created.

That's pretty much what a creationist is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Redeemed, posted 03-22-2006 6:02 PM Redeemed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 03-23-2006 10:01 AM EZscience has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 20 of 24 (297540)
03-23-2006 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by EZscience
03-23-2006 6:44 AM


small OT correction
That's pretty much what a creationist is.

In it's unadorned use the term "creationist" doesn't refer the the general believer that a god created the universe etc. I.e. it does not mean "theist". Creationist is used as a short cut for those who believe in a literal view of genesis. The timing may vary though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by EZscience, posted 03-23-2006 6:44 AM EZscience has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by EZscience, posted 03-23-2006 10:14 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Wounded King, posted 03-24-2006 5:41 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 3324 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 21 of 24 (297547)
03-23-2006 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by NosyNed
03-23-2006 10:01 AM


Clarification
OK Ned,

I meant Redeemed appeared to be a 'creationist' in the broader sense - not specifically a YEC literalist - but one who believes in an omniscient 'creator' of the universe, and likely holds a teleological world view that follows from this belief, although I'm speculating here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 03-23-2006 10:01 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

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


Message 22 of 24 (297734)
03-24-2006 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by NosyNed
03-23-2006 10:01 AM


Re: small OT correction
Well he does believe his bible is 100% accurate, I would think that suggested some literalist tendencies.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 03-23-2006 10:01 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
EZscience
Member (Idle past 3324 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 23 of 24 (298327)
03-26-2006 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Silent H
03-21-2006 5:51 PM


The best interpretive framework is still an evo perspective
I would contend that you haven't shown any superior inferences are derivable from any alternative interpretation of the observations (other than evo).

holmes writes:

you continue to make statements which suggest evo plays a vital role in explaining the phenomena, beyond just consistency.

I continue to claim that the evolutionary perspective is the most useful framework for thinking about how imprinting came to be and what its potential consequences are. I don’t see ID reasoning being useful for either.

holmes writes:

…evolutionary theory would not inherently suggest a conflict model, and concepts tended to genes being complimentary rather than conflict.

I don’t entirely agree. Relatively old ideas implied genetic conflict on various levels, right down to different genes jockeying for the best positions on a chromosome. That evo theoy had not until recently been applied to conflicts between genes arising from different *parents* doesn’t mean much. The theory continues to be refined and ‘evolve’. At least it has a working framework capable of recognizing errors of omission which is more than can be said of ID.

holmes writes:

This means that evo theory was neutral to the new model and predictions.

This doesn’t necessarily follow.

holmes writes:

Thus the switch Haig is arguing for is from one evo explanation to another.

I think it’s a bit of a stretch to infer that ‘traditonally viewed’ can be construed to mean an evolutionary perspective was already being applied.

holmes writes:

As I have already shown evo theorists could or did incorrectly assess the situation before

I don’t think you have shown this. All you have done is superimpose a possible ID interpretation on the results an imply that evolutionary theory was previously mis-applied. Maybe it was, or maybe nobody had thought to applying it in this way.

hoolmes writes:

As I have already shown evo theorists could or did incorrectly assess the situation before,

We can be thankful that evolutionary theory, being an actual scientific approach, is capable of modification and refinement. Theories go out on a limb sometimes because they makes actual predictions about what we can expect to observe. I don’t seen any testeable predictions emerging from your contrived ID interpretation.

holmes writes:

I did not say ID or creos WOULD, I said they COULD.

I say they CAN’T – they don’t make any testable predictions. You are just showing they can be shoe-horned to fit any set of observations after the fact.

holmes writes:

That does raise some question as to why these people could not have come up with Haig's theory if it is the ONLY theory which evo could produce.

Who said it was the only theory? It is simply a previously unstated hypothesis that seems to be a better fit to the data (and have more explanatory power) than any other model that anyone has thought of yet. You can argue in retrospect that it is now obvious that that is how things should work regardless of what model of nature one subscribes to, but the fact remains that the evolutionary perspective produced the insights and will work best for modifying and improving our understanding of these mechanisms over time.

holmes writes:

Haig is described as adopting a conflict model of resources in social settings, to that within gestational settings.

Actually, PO conflict theory was developed to apply to kinship, not ‘social settings’ per se.

holmes writes:

Thus the novelty is not the use of evo, but the use of a conflict model.

Again, I think you are working with a rather narrow definition of what evolutionary theory comprises. Genetic conflicts can be predicted by evolutionary theory in many different contexts.

holmes writes:

the last article suggests a possible problem for Haig's conflict theory as much as it seems to hinge on maternal-fetal conflict.

I don't think it's a problem. It only indicates that invasive placentation is not a prerequisite for imprinting to evolve, since marsupials such as opossums also show imprinted genes, whereas egg-laying mammals do not. To my mind this merely discounts the role of the placenta as being essential to selection for imprinting. However, recall that marsupial young are born extremely altricial - there is a very extended period of maternal dependency even if it occurs outside the mother’s body in a pouch (not sure that is even technically 'outside'). The key factor here is the high level of physiological maternal investment, regardless of whether it involves a placenta or not. This is considerably reduced for montremes that merely lay eggs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2006 5:51 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Silent H, posted 03-26-2006 3:10 PM EZscience has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3990 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 24 of 24 (298347)
03-26-2006 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by EZscience
03-26-2006 1:01 PM


Re: The best interpretive framework is still an evo perspective
I would contend that you haven't shown any superior inferences are derivable from any alternative interpretation of the observations (other than evo).

Well that would be correct. I didn't have to show superior inferences, so I didn't even try.

I continue to claim that the evolutionary perspective is the most useful framework... I don’t see ID reasoning being useful for either.

Are we discussing the article and the hypotheses presented in that article, or are we now discussing all of science? I feel that things are shifting here.

I don’t entirely agree... That evo theoy had not until recently been applied to conflicts between genes arising from different *parents* doesn’t mean much. The theory continues to be refined and ‘evolve’.

This makes no sense, particularly given the evidence that I provided. The point I made is that evo theory had been applied to the system under investigation. Evo did not suggest conflict or cooperation, and indeed that is because evo does not suggest either.

You are correct that evo can refine and in this case it did. Predictions based on cooperative evo models failed to produce results, so someone tried a conflict evo model and it worked.

In this case the same thing could have occured in ID, and you still have not shown any bar to this except your own incredulity. Ironically if ID had made this claim first it would have been pointed out (by evos) that that would not have discredited evo. That evo did fail the first time is no strike against it, and if this new theory doesn't pan out totally evo will still carry no strikes, yet if ID failed at any point it would.

This doesn’t necessarily follow

That is a non sequitor.

I think it’s a bit of a stretch to infer that ‘traditonally viewed’ can be construed to mean an evolutionary perspective was already being applied.

What else could he possibly have been discussing? Really, this is getting a bit thick. He specifically used the term adaptation within his discussion on this point.

I don’t seen any testeable predictions emerging from your contrived ID interpretation.

Your condescending and willfully ignorant act, is actually making me feel sorry for ID. This is the last time I am telling you that your incredulity does not change a thing. That is completely fallacious logic. Ironically the same logical fallacy ID commits in certain areas.

As far as my "superimposing" an ID argument, I am really getting the idea you have little knowledge regarding what ID claims. That I have asked you what would stand in its way and you continually dodge the question does not help. That I have explained ID accepts evolutionary models and this seems not to have registered, leaves me scratching my head.

Let me say it again: ID can accept and use evolutionary mechanisms. Only when a system is deemed "irreducibly complex" would it not. Do you have any reason to believe it is NOT reducible? Have they said this somewhere? If not then they could have made the exact same claim.

Futhermore, assuming for sake of argument they found it to be irreducibly complex, they could still use a conflict model with observed social roles to predict how the "designer" engineered the system. WHAT IS THE BAR? I don't care if YOU find evo to be more satisfying. Your point is that this would present an unmeetable challenge. It isn't, especially if given the leeway to adapt to incoming evidence and "fail" when they first don't get something right.

I say they CAN’T – they don’t make any testable predictions.

Well that is patently false. Some scientists who are ID theorists make testable predictions all the time. Some are quite good in their fields of study, including bio. They only fail when trying to argue for design based on "complexity" of certain natural phenomena.

If you are trying to argue that they could not prove this to be irreducibly complex, I'd agree but then note (yet again) that nothing within your cite gave us enough info to go on.

You can argue in retrospect that it is now obvious that that is how things should work regardless of what model of nature one subscribes to, but the fact remains that the evolutionary perspective produced the insights and will work best for modifying and improving our understanding of these mechanisms over time.

Well I don't know what science you are doing, but mine could handle it if scientists discovered a patent mark within the gene sequence, or some obvious sign that it was manufactured. The explanation of how they operate together would remain the same, a system of individuals vying for nutrients, with just the story connecting how they came to be changing.

Evo was not, and does not, remain critical to understanding what is going on there. It doesn't seem to play a role at all. Only the research I pointed to regarding development of gene imprinting itself involves a whole evo approach (though I will again have to note that most IDists and some Creos might not have a problem with that).

I think you are working with a rather narrow definition of what evolutionary theory comprises. Genetic conflicts can be predicted by evolutionary theory in many different contexts.

Narrow? I'm the one saying that evo could have gone either way on this. Sometimes a coop model might be more useful than a conflict model. As evidence comes in we'll change the theory regarding the system.

That's how it would be in ID as well.

I don't think it's a problem.

I didn't say it was a problem, I said it suggests a possible problem. You can't admit it sets up some issues which could be problematic for Haig's theory?

That said, his own commentary in the article was one which emphasized invasiveness of the placenta. We now see that imprinting may exist outside that relationship. Lets suppose for a second that it is found that the genes which ultimately trigger high blood pressure in human mothers during, exists within mammals without such aggressive implantation. That couldn't cause a problem?


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by EZscience, posted 03-26-2006 1:01 PM EZscience has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019