|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution impossible as cannot apply meaning to code | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
WS-JW writes:
The brain has no role in cell regrowth and tissue repair - that is entirely chemical (cell-cell signalling and some hormonal influence). If it required a brain, then a plant wouldn't be able to repair a cut. And a self healing body with a brain that does a supreme diagnosis of whats wrong if you get a cut or something like that. It also does a pretty lousy job too - haven't you seen scar tissue before?
WS-JW writes: Well anything that can't be repeated, is not science. Tell that to a forensic scientist trying to investigate a murder scene. Edited by Doddy, : spelling Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others. Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Nice Post Dwise1.
However, I fear you spent more time, consideration and effort than WS-JW has ever invested pondering the concepts of evolution. I suspect he will not return. I have noticed a certain trend around. Folks like WS-JW, highly intoxicated with creationist propaganda, blaze out into the world from their protected and unchallenged environment to expose the fallacies of the stoopid evilolutists; correcting the wrongs and setting people straight, like a shinning Don Quixote sitting high on their proud steed of "biblical truth". They quickly initiate several wide offensive fronts, when they can't even adequately defend a single narrow front, and soon wither on the battlefield of reality confronted the first time with reason, logic and established facts. They are as you noted "armed with blanks". Typically they disappear after a few days never to return, sometimes with some parting comment like "I did my job and preached the truth but you do not have ears to hear or eyes to see ... you are hell bound ... your blood is not on my hands ... i shake the dust from my feet" In this respect, the Creationist should really teach these eager beaver recruits of misfortune, your referenced quote from St Augustine and temper their enthusiasm with some sense of the magnitude and complexity of the questions at hand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I do believe that you are quite correct that we will never again hear from WS-JW ("Jehovah's Witnesses"?). Did he learn anything from this experience? Doubtful, but perhaps a seed has been planted. And even though we won't hear from him, I suspect that he might be back in lurk mode and so may still have a chance to read the truth.
In the meantime, I had also rediscovered my quoting of Dr Jonathan Sarfati of Answers In Genesis in his feedback article (my quote at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/quotes.html#AiG; I provide a link to the original, "AiG Negative Feedback, 02 December 2002", but just now it wouldn't connect so I don't know if it mightn't be broken) responding to Kent Hovind's attack against them for their earlier article warning against certain arguments that creationists should not use (and which Hovind over-uses -- er, used, since he's now in the slammer). Part of my quoting:
quote: Here we have a leading creationist saying the exact same things I've been warning creationists about for over a decade and for which I have been repeatedly viciously [verbally] attacked with the accusation that I was "attacking Christianity" (in one such case, all I did was to demonstrate that a Hovind claim was wrong and why). Despite the other goals that have developed over the years, the primary goal of "creation science" has been to stop the teaching of evolution in the public schools, something that the "monkey laws" had done for four decades but are no longer allowed to do (Epperson vs Arkansas, 1968). I believe that it is the worst folly for them to have that goal, just as it is the worst folly for them to rely on strawman attacks -- and not for the reasons mentioned above, but for the reason that I gave WS-JW. If they really and truly want to oppose evolution and to disprove evolution, then they must know everything they can about evolution. They need to promote the truthful study of evolution and the truthful study of science among their children. That way, their children will be able to directly address the real problems with evolution and direct their attack based on truth and knowledge, instead of basing their attacks solely on lies and deceptions and ignorance. Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Damouse Member (Idle past 4934 days) Posts: 215 From: Brookfield, Wisconsin Joined: |
Gah iceage, sorry. i was responding to WS-JW's post, but i had a moment of lazeiness and didnt want to search for the original post. Apologies.
What is confusing about my post? WS-JW claimed that the ideas learned in quantum theory disproved one of the patterns that evolution exhibits (gradualism). So i responded with a pair of counter examples, the geometry and the thermodynamics examples, and ended by saying that independant scientific fields/systems begin with different givens and so that the same question asked of both systems will yield a different, yet still correct answer. lol the thermodynamics example probobly wasnt the best example, i had meant that (to one not looking at the whole picture) the law that said that all matter seeks its lowest energy level and the tendancies of certain reactions to seek stability in higher energy states would contradict. Lay off the joe, eh? Sorry bout the confusion. This statement is false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
No problem. Perhaps I am bit too twitchy, as someone pointed out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote: Well isn't *this* a can of worms?? If neo-Darwinism does not admit that there can be continuous motion in a discontinuous space or if the physical basis of quantum theory has not been detailed to molecular evolution then "anagensis" may be extripated but this does not mean process has been fully patterned out. The seemingly unusual aspects of QM when related to evolution or post-NeoDarwinism depend on if it is obvious or not if geographic range is a property of the species or the individual, or if one is hyper reductionist, only on the information content of the code expanded. I think there is some room for equivocation among the postingings and Freudian slips in postings in this thread. Part of my own position can be gleaned from some recent correspondence with Dr. Gladyshev
quote: And the results that as soon as someone posted a linkhttps://lis.snv.jussieu.fr/...eography/2007-06/msg00003.html to my website http://www.axiompanbiog.com over 60 people world wide have looked into the pages overnight. Of course looks can be deceiving but there is just too much going on in this thread on EVC and related issues for me to think that there is nothing here. There is a concept of "temporal paraology" in panbiogeography where one may indeed think that calibrating cladistic branchings with phylogenetic inference is mistaken as this is a property of the node not the branch. Gould's insistence that species selection is like branching for demes but budding instead only confuses the four seasons of thought of the expansion of older "evolution" with any newer thought about the function of evolutionary theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5224 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Brad,
Well isn't *this* a can of worms?? No, QM is in no way contradictory to RM & NS either gradualistic or punctuationary. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I believe it was Damouse that used the possible word "contradictory".
I only said that QM has not been properly worked into theoretical biology. If you can show me that I am wrong on this then I can show you that the notion of the adaptive landscape makes sense for both gene frequencies IN a population and for gene combinations within individual organisms. It seems to me that lack of application is PRECISELY because, whether gradual or puctuated, the probabalistic syntax, prevents QM meaning to be dissected for gene DNA in an individual and a species AT THE SAME TIME (hence we can get QM at the notion of the molecular bonds but not at supramolecular temporality). This division becomes confused with space itself and will do so as long as logic is not better applied. If one thinks that the only way humans can get information to change this state of research is by atoms then genes get short shrift but one only assumes genes then individuals get the same but in a bad way. QM, if it implies some idea of empirical geometry that Reimannian math *may not*(if) may not support, may not necessarily support a different graudal approach to the space-time continuum, but yes I would not draw people in this direction as of yet. There are more fruitful ones based on simple linear extrapolations, no matter the philosophy. Besides, the number of visitors at my site is almost double what it was this morning now that my work was properly looked into. "Contradiction" is one of logic. One would need to know more specifically what the "energy levels" being referred to are rather than what they may be. I see no a priori reason why biology may not "contradict" QM if the data says so. Those who disagre prima facie are a kind of reductionist that I think would not even survive the gene as made of atoms actually counted/aggregated. I do not think that QM necessarily implicates puctuated/saltus biology but if properly continuous in a discontinuous space of genes it may implicate a different kind of plenum than that which went by anagenesis. I rather think that the continuity is such that anagenesis will trump any divisivity that QM can contribute, but my point was only we do not have this "science" as of yet. Again, I did not sayquote:. I said the problem depends on if "range" is meant for individuals or species. This is not solved by simple use of the term "evolutionary individual" but DOES go back to origins. Thermodynamics of life's origin and the diversification of life need not be kept seperate necessarily. This is why I have decomposed panbiogeography into "recapitulatory" and non recapitulatory parts (see my website's home pagehttp://www.axiompanbiog.com ). More than one origin of life may impute a different figure for the recapitualtory dissection irregardless of that which has no bearing on recapitulation either way, but there can still be 'recapitulation' (depending on information in the meaning of the code expansion(genetically)) even if life on earth all goes back to a single start. That would be hard to say without directly addressing the topic here as to if there really is the kind of meaning of life given by the codon relations or if there is some other kind of genetics extractable from future molecular biology research.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5224 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Brad,
I only said that QM has not been properly worked into theoretical biology. Why does it need to be? Biologists need to understand the patterns of behaviour of atoms & molecules, of course, but understanding that a mutation occurred because X reacted with Y at Z stage of meiosis is good enough. Anything else is physics.
I said the problem depends on if "range" is meant for individuals or species. I fail to see it as a problem for either. Understanding the chemistry that affects both is good enough. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I don't know about the QM implications for biology, but there are clearly QM effects at the macro level. American football defenses that use the 2-gap system often have the problem that a tackle passes through both gaps and interferes with himself, which is why observers (usually called fans) attend football games in order to prevent this from happening, since tackles can never be observed passing through both gaps simultaneously. Still, it happens sometimes, and you will occasionally hear a tackle in a post-game interview bemoaning the fact that everyone must have been watching the quarterback, because after he passed through the gap he collided with himself and took himself out of the play.
Fortunately this never results in a two-many-men-on-the-field penalty, since if a referee is watching then the tackle only passes through one gap. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Come on Percy, Mark asked the correct follow-up.
When did sports become biology. I suppose holding the cricket bat to protect one's face is biology and not physics then? As for your sillyness. When I grew up, I wanted First of ALL to be a football player. I never could. I did not grow big. I did play in Pop Warner. I played both sides of the field, right pulling guard (a useful position for the right end run, leading the offensive surg) and right middle linebacker, penetrating the center to get to the ball(player). As little players it was against the rules to *cause* fumbles but having seen that happen I TV, I just went against the rules. Once the ball got aggregated by players I would just enter the scurm and with no one on the outside being able to look in, I would knock the ball the to the ground. If I can come up with the ball I would have a penality but if someone else did, well that was on them. Look, playing both offense and defense, I was on the field almost all the time, (only special team situations and ones when I was too tired to play did i not participate), and playing on the right side of the field all the time. I ran in a constant circle. The game however goes up and back in a line. This does not appear to be a circle because the ball spins and other players do not have the same routing. Your homology fails. You seemed to have confused the gap in the line with the field itself,which ironically IS the problem for biology if the "gap" was not between the players but within the soma. For football it is not. It was in the laces spinning, the symmetrical shape of the Cuban cigar instead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Dear Mark,
It has been a while since our mutually assurred collisioning on EvC had been averted. I will answer your question about QM and theoretical biology directly but first just tell me if you have any desire to see ANY kind of hierarchical expansion to evolutionary theory become reality in taught evolutionary thought? Range changes are issues because they actually refer to space, this is not biological in se but refers to space. One in then left with how one relates space and time to form. I will explain, but first, if you can save me digging through your posts, are you fully for reductionism or not? I know you can listen, and write on clade logic, so I may just start from there, but I would prefer to initiate my response from a deeper physical (level of organization) layer, one where it would be more obvious that QM is applicable(Gould thought species selection real but not clade selection for instance). If you think that chemistry is good enough for whatever this place is, then that is fine. I understand. The issue then is that the effect of atomic repulsions does not have a large enough share of molecular biology. Chemistry study goes to0 slow with regard to studying attractions (bonding) let alone the dynamic forms of repulsions within systems of attractions. Part of the reason is chemistry's fault. As far as I looked into that, the reason for those kinds of delays are that really only in all gas states are the physics (virials) seemingly workable. Edited by Brad McFall, : you Edited by Brad McFall, : I hope this helps Edited by Brad McFall, : study too
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
American football defenses that use the 2-gap system often have the problem that a tackle passes through both gaps and interferes with himself... Mike Singletary used to take advantage of this strategy from his linebacker position. Rather than interfer with himself in the backfield he would hold both positions behind the offensive line giving him the option of taking out the runner or slamming the quarterback as the play developed. On some occasions he has done both simultaneously. QM being what it is, however, in viewing the films you only observe the resolved Singletary in a single state, but everyone familiar with the man knows what really happened. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Here is "why" in Dr. Gladyshev's words he included in a post script today via EMAIL to me. There has to be one biological continuum (garnered by the nature of the diff. equations that does not use non-equilibria/synergism) no matter what the seperations/processes are unless there are more than one origins of life and then it is even more complicated (how then "range" is important).
quote: OK? I am not sure your characterization of Meiosis allows any relation of the Gladyshev's thermostat to interact at different times of development.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
Stronger IS better in every aspect of life how long can you tread water?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024