Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Is 'genetic determinism' empirically valid, and is it essential to the "Modern Synth
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 1 of 49 (442040)
12-19-2007 7:09 PM


Hi;
I think that just about everybody has now denied and distanced themselves from the old, 'genetic determinism' model, but because the selectionist approach to evolution, in the form of Fisher, Haldane, and Wright's RM+NS model, does not hold water if their random genetic mutations are not solely responsible for, and do not entirely compel, phenotypic traits and their variations, it is still respected in certain quarters. My question is, how can random genetic mutations be the cause of evolution if genes are not the determining cause of traits? If, as modern genomic studies show, 'genes' do not 'cause' traits, (that is, do not compel and determine traits), but only enable and facilitate their development, then how can random genetic mutation be said to be the responsible mechanism for the origins of biological novelty? To enable and to facilitate is not the same as to cause.
Mechanisms are compelling causes, not the conditions that enable them to operate. A forest fire is not caused by dry timber, although that does enable one; only a flame from a fire started by a match or a lightning bolt is the direct, immediate and compelling efficient cause. If 'genes' are only the 'dry timber' wrt evolution and development, then what is the 'flame'?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2007 12:12 PM Elmer has not replied
 Message 4 by molbiogirl, posted 12-20-2007 3:28 PM Elmer has replied
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2007 5:36 PM Elmer has replied
 Message 49 by Brad McFall, posted 02-06-2008 8:18 PM Elmer has not replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 5 of 49 (442361)
12-20-2007 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by molbiogirl
12-20-2007 3:28 PM


hello molbiolgirl;
Since you ask a sensible question in a an objective manner, I'll give you my response.
You say;
quote:
To enable and to facilitate is not the same as to cause.
Many diseases, including hemophilia and cystic fibrosis, result when a single defective gene causes the production of a non-functional protein.
If you carry the defective gene, you suffer the consequences.
How is this not a causal relationship?
If you check back to the context in which my quoted statement was made, you will find that I do not say that 'randomly mutated genes' cannot cause a _loss_ of function. They most certainly can, and very often do.
What I said is that they cannot, in a direct and linear fashion, determine/compel the formation of an original, functional,(that is, productive),trait. And also, now that I think of it, the diminution and elimination of any trait that is no longer functional, or no longer serves its original function, eg., the wings of flightless birds. That is what organismic evolution is all about, in my adaptationist, dynamist view.
Sure, molecular structures [nucleotides, genes] that are randomly altered can no longer enable and facilitate the developmental and evolutionary operations of an organism. They have accidentally lost the information that facilites the organism's work in originating or reproducing that trait, with its function, and its productivity.
Loss of a functioning, productive trait can also arise from developmental accidents and random system failure, without any genetic alteration whatsoever. Accidents can and do cause damage, loss of function, and with that, loss of productivity. Random biosystem changes do that with depressing frequency. But that is not the issue I raise.
I am not concerned with any loss of function and productivity in a trait, directly or indirectly brought about by either randomly mutated genomes and/or randomly mutated developmental mechanisms.
My concern is primarily evolution, that is, the origins of increased productivity wrt to the organism in terms of its innate goals--to survive, thrive, and reproduce individually, and to serve, in its fashion, the goals of the collectivity [taxon, population, etc., possibly including the biosphere entire].
I do not see how random genetic mutations can achieve anything productive without 'genetic determinism', but I grant that random genetic mutations can cause, or contribute to, dysfunction and loss of organismic productivity, with or without actual 'genetic determinism'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by molbiogirl, posted 12-20-2007 3:28 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by molbiogirl, posted 12-20-2007 8:06 PM Elmer has replied
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2007 4:25 AM Elmer has not replied
 Message 9 by Fosdick, posted 12-21-2007 11:33 AM Elmer has replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 8 of 49 (442455)
12-21-2007 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by molbiogirl
12-20-2007 8:06 PM


Molbiolgirl;
You say--
Elmer,
Here is the quote from your OP:
quote:
My question is, how can random genetic mutations be the cause of evolution if genes are not the determining cause of traits?
If, as modern genomic studies show, 'genes' do not 'cause' traits, (that is, do not compel and determine traits), but only enable and facilitate their development, then how can random genetic mutation be said to be the responsible mechanism for the origins of biological novelty?
To enable and to facilitate is not the same as to cause.
Mechanisms are compelling causes, not the conditions that enable them to operate.
A forest fire is not caused by dry timber, although that does enable one; only a flame from a fire started by a match or a lightning bolt is the direct, immediate and compelling efficient cause. If 'genes' are only the 'dry timber' wrt evolution and development, then what is the 'flame'?
Yes, I am familiar with the words I wrote. What's your point? Are you insinuating that what I wrote in the passage you quote here is in any significant or meaningful way contradictory to, or even essentially different from, what I said in my latest response to you? If so, stop insinuating and honestly and openly demonstrate that difference, that contradiction. Insinuations and other passive/aggressive behaviours are not legitimate approaches to debate.
If all you want to discuss is how mutations "cannot lead to new traits", why did you bail on the Evolution and Increased Diversity thread?
Where is this question coming from?
First, I thought I had made it perfectly clear in the OP that this thread was concerned with the Fisherian notion that 'mutations',-- [meaning, in the context of 'the modern synthesis', random, accidental, unintententional, ateleological and asystematic nucleotide/gene alterations],-- are the cause/mechanism generating/originating novel, original, adaptive, productive, organismic traits and their consequent functions. The fundamental issue being whether or not this hypothesis has any merit without the assumption of 'genetic determinism' as a real empirical phenomenon, as opposed to being an empirically unsupported and empirically contradicted metaphysical postulate. What part of that did you fail to grasp on your first reading?
Second, the words that you attribute to me by enclosing them in quotation marks ["cannot lead to new traits"] are, in fact, your words, not mine. I do not appreciate false attribution. If you wish to paraphrase my words, use inverted commas, not quotation marks.
Third, I find find insinuative and loaded language like 'bail' to be uncalled for, insulting, rude, and abusive. That was my reason for ceasing to respond to you and other particular participants in that thread and others. The fact is that in that thread I was debating one-on-one with catholc scientist, and when he abruptly ceased responding, [what you would characterize as, 'bailed'], I had nobody left to carry on the debate with me.
It seems that you are reverting to you customary 'debating style' of snide remark, false insinuation, and personal abuse. I'll wait and see if you learn some manners and proper debating protocol before engaging you again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by molbiogirl, posted 12-20-2007 8:06 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by molbiogirl, posted 12-21-2007 5:05 PM Elmer has not replied
 Message 13 by AdminNosy, posted 12-21-2007 5:49 PM Elmer has not replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 10 of 49 (442503)
12-21-2007 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Fosdick
12-21-2007 11:33 AM


Re: "For the good of the species"?
Hi hoot mon;
No, I'm not aware of that fallacy. Is it a logical fallacy, or a disproven postulate? Please elaborate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Fosdick, posted 12-21-2007 11:33 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Fosdick, posted 12-21-2007 2:35 PM Elmer has replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 14 of 49 (442608)
12-21-2007 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Fosdick
12-21-2007 2:35 PM


Re: "For the good of the species"?
Hi again;
You say;
Hi Elmer,
Here’s one statement against the “for-the-good-of-the-species” concept:
This citation is pertinent to the thread, since Evolutionary Psychology, like Wilson's Sociobiology, Watson and Skinner's Behaviourism, and other mechanical explanations for human behaviour, are all dependent upon genetic determinism or some other materialist/determinist interpretation of reality. IOW, 'genetic determinism' is the 'sine qua non' of materialist biology. Therefore
I'll examine it in detail.
[qs]
quote:
Why are adaptations not for the good of the species?
Adaptations evolve through the differential reproduction of alternative alleles within a population or species.
This is senseless verbiage, AFAIAC. The cart, as is so often the case in materialist biology, has been placed before the horse. The empirical fact of the matter is that "differential reproduction" is not a cause of, nor even a contributing factor to, the evolution of adaptive/productive trait functions. Rather, the evolution of an organism, that is, the generation/origins of its personal adaptive traits is, if not the direct and essential efficient cause that is responsible for "differential reproduction" between it and its 'taxon
mates', then it is at the least a very important contributing factor.
IAC, the issue we have before us is not differential statistical fluctuations in the comparitive quantities of surviving offspring between members of any given population or taxon or whatever. The issue is the mechanism/engine that drives the origins of adaptive phenotypic traits that cause or contribute to increased productivity, including increased "differential reproduction".
quote:
Thus, organisms acquire properties which allow them to out-reproduce members of their own species, not members of other species.
What an arbitrary, hence silly, distinction to make!! Surely the fact that invasive exotic species, such as cats, rats, rabbits, pigs, goats, fish, tree snakes, and on and on and on, that displace and even drive native species to extinction, cannot be airily dismissed from an examination of "differential reproduction", "adaptation", and even, "natural selection"?!?!
quote:
It is theoretically possible for the differential survival of gene pools (species) to result in the evolution of organism features
It is fantastically imaginative, he means. Basically he is saying that if the status quo persists long enough, it will somhow change itself, all by itself. That stasis causes change. Next he'll claim that long cold winters cause hot summers, or somthing equally absurd.
quote:
which would promote species survival at a personal reproductive cost to individual members of the species;
"Species survival" is not a matter of "personal reproductive cost", but of collective, i.e., species, "productivity", or lack of same. Just so long as the birth rate equals the death rate, it does not matter to 'species survival' just which individuals supply the requisite number of offspring, just as long as at least some do. Connecting his " differential survival of gene pools (species)" to his "would promote species survival' is simply uttering the inanity, 'differential survival of species would promote species survival'. This stuff is so stupid that it's giving me a headache!
quote:
... differential reproduction of alleles within species can produce complex functionality much faster than can differential reproduction between species.
First, who says that "differential reproduction of alleles", which, once again, is a case of an effect that may sometimes be the result of 'complex functionality', being falsely put forward as the cause of 'complex functionality'. By which I take him to mean, in darwin-speak, that 'fitness'[differential reproduction rates] causes 'adaptedness', when most adaptationists, including Darwin, [and possibly even Fisher, et al], would say that it is really just the reverse.
quote:
An allele that provided a benefit to the species at an expense to the individual would be driven to extinction long before it could have a measurably positive impact on the survival of the species.
Nonsense. Apparently he has never heard of eusociality, as in honey bee hives, termite colonies, etc., or even cellular apoptosis [where healthy cells self-destruct once they have finished being constructively useful to the biosystem]. Which is strange, since ev. psych is built around eusocial insects, and so forth.
The empirical facts show us that in fact individuals do sacrifice themselves for the common good. The only explanation for that fact is either that such self-sacrifice is epigenetic, or that, quite simply, every individual in a 'population', 'species', or other taxon, that possesses a 'gene for' [genetic determinism] altruism and self-sacrifice is never suddenly called upon to sacrifice themelves, en masse, and so such a 'gene' persists unless and until all members of a population/species with that genotype have been driven to simultaneous, fatal, self-sacrifice. This guy really needs to catch up on his reading.
This seems relevant to your OP question because it pertains to cause and effect.
Actually it pertinence lies in its connection to 'genetic determinism'.
And, wrt, don't you suppose that a "cause" and a "facilitation" are conflations of each other?
I do not take 'cause' and 'facilitate' [or 'enable'] for synonyms. That is, for example, I do not believe that a nest in a tree was 'caused' by the tree. Nor do I believe, for instance, that a broken window causes insects to enter a room, or heat to leave it. But it certainly remains a contributing factor.
When a single gene can alter a mouse's natural fear of cats, for example, did that gene "cause" the change or "facilitate" it.
As I said to molbiogirl, when it comes to evolution, I speak only of the supposition that random genetic mutations 'cause'[determine, impel, force] increased adaptedness, productivity, and functionality. I heve no problems with accidental mutations causing a decrease in adaptedness, productivity, and functionality. As is the case with any mouse that loses its fear of cats.
Does a sperm "cause" a woman to become pregnant or does it only "facilitate" it?
I would say that a viable sperm cell, [and a viable egg cell], are necessary to conception, and so enable it. I'm not sure that they can be said to 'cause' it, since in many cases, even in 'in vitro' fertilization attempts, they simply do not. They are necessary, but not sufficient. What actually causes fertilization/conception to take place, I do not know.
IAC, the nature of causation is an interesting and difficult question. I still prefer Aristotle's approach to it. But, thankfully, in this thread we only have to decide whether or not random, accidental, unintentional genetic mutations can and do deterministically and mechanically cause the origin of particular, novel, productive, and adaptive traits and functions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Fosdick, posted 12-21-2007 2:35 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Fosdick, posted 12-21-2007 9:54 PM Elmer has not replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 16 of 49 (442961)
12-23-2007 8:19 AM


Another study showing that selection, in this case true and actual selection [thoroughbred racehorse breeding] based on supposed genetic superiority/fitness, has a negative correlation to actual phenotypic fitness [race winners], even though race winners, 'champions', exemplify neo-darwinian 'fitness', that is, they have more [offspring since they are artificially bred more often than 'losers']. IOW, the production of racehorse is based upon the genetic assumption of "The Modern Synthesis", i.e., genetic 'fitness' by means of 'selection', i.e., breeding, but the production of results, 'winners', 'the fittest', is not. Development trumps genetics. Genetic determinism is a 'non-starter'. See--
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/...content/full/2007/1219/3
P.S.-- I see a parallel here and the debate about human 'differential IQ', which is seen by some to be a genetic, even racial, effect--as opposed to home and neighborhood environment, parental care, diet, schooling,etc. Also the actual negative correlation between 'IQ' and financial success.
Edited by Elmer, : add postscript

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Granny Magda, posted 12-24-2007 12:35 PM Elmer has replied
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-26-2007 9:03 PM Elmer has not replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 18 of 49 (443344)
12-24-2007 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Granny Magda
12-24-2007 12:35 PM


Hi granny;
You say--
Hi Elmer,
You seem to be saying that, because environment also influences phenotype, genes don't. This is simply wrong.
Yes, that is wrong, but the mistakes is yours, because I have never said any such thing. What I have said is that 'genes'do not DETERMINE phenotype. Of course they contribute to phenotype, although exactly what that contribution consists of we have not yet discussed in this thread. Surely you will concede that there is a meaningful differnce between _determing_ an outcome, and contributing to it, leading up to it, aiding it, enabling it, and least of all, influencing it?
This thread is about examining the notion of 'genetic determinism', not that of, 'genetic influence'. If it proves to be purely notional, that it, lacking in empirical support, [as most people now concede to be the case], then in that case, what justification remains for the notion that evolution is fundamentally driven [caused] by a "mechanism" called 'random genetic mutation'? If random genetic mutation is not the determining factor in the origins of novel bioforms and their behaviours, then let's get on with it and discover or recognise just exactly what that factor actually is. Meaning, it's time to dump RMNS darwinism as THE explanatory mechanism for the fact, the phenomenon, the empirically recognised historical process we call biological evolution.
[qs] Let's take an example.
I kick a football. It flies off, into the goal. But, I have a strong wind behind me, also affecting the distance the football travels. The wind was part of the cause of the football moving forward, but this does not mean that my kick was not a cause, only that a mixture of causal effects is at play.[/quote]
Using your example, the actual question being examined here would be, did your kick determine that the ball had to fly in such a direction and at such an elevation and for such a distance that it could only fly between the the uprights, all other outcomes impossible?
As for your racehorse example, the article mentions that;
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coltman adds that previous research had shown that stud fees correlate with the speed of the offspring, but the new findings indicate that the correlation doesn't necessarily translate into winning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So genetics is having a causal effect here, namely passing on the ability to run fast.
All racehorses run fast, that's why they are called racehorses. They are also called racehorses because the only time their speed differential matters is when they are in races against other horses, where the fastest horse wins. In neo-darwinian theory that's called 'natural selection'. It's winning, not speed, that decides neo-darwinian, 'differential _fitness_', i.e., the relative number of offspring produced, and the quantity of any specified 'allele' or 'gene' in the thoroughbred racehorse population is a matter of stud popularity, [as are the dollar value stud fees] which is turn are decided by wins in races, not time trials [with or without a rider in the saddle].
Long story short, genetics [breeding] are not what determines selection [winning/losing], even though selection [winning/losing] determines 'fitness' [differential offspring rate], which in turn determines 'breeding' [genotype], which may or may not increase individual 'speed'. In short, genes do not determine selection or fitness--infact, they do not have much influence on either, since genes do not correlate to winning. The correlation that supposedly exists between a trait [differential speeds], as a , "genetic effect", and 'differential stud fees', is irrelevent to the only thing that matters in RMNS darwinian terms--winning purses.
The problem for breeders is that straightforward speed does not directly translate into wins.
My point exactly. To which you may add, despite the assumption built into your cited material, genes do not necessarily determine relative speed, either. It may or may not be that 'most of the colts' from one sire are a tad faster in the field than 'most of the colts' sired by another, but nowhere is it a genetically determined outcome that all offspring of one thoroughbred, sire or dam, will always be faster than all of the offspring of some other sire/dam. The fact of the matter is that the genetic component at play here is a matter for the bookies and the odds-makers, and is more a matter of luck than genetic determinism. Horsemen can bet as much as they like when it comes to stud fees. That's just as much a gamble as any race, and it sure is no foundation for a scientific principle--such as RMNS is held out to be. Even though Darwin, the horse-breeder, thought it was.
Environmental factors are at play here, effects in later life, like training and care regime.
Now you are trying to say that genes are still determinist; just that their determinism stops at birth, when external environmenat factors take over. Most scientists today would say that developmental factors begin shaping the offspring long before birth. Epigenetic factors [illness, starvation] in the parent can set the 'developmental stage' even before conception. Which again contradicts genetic determinism.
None of this poses a problem for the modern synthesis,
You are entitled to voice this opinion, but it flies in the face of fact and reason.
and I have a feeling that the folks who conducted this study would be surprised to hear you say that it did.
It wouldn't surprise me to hear that they were suprised, either. It never surprise me any more to hear just how oblivious to the implications imbedded in their own work some scientists turn out to be.
Merry Christmas!
Same to you,-- and a happy and healthy and prosperous new year to go with it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Granny Magda, posted 12-24-2007 12:35 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Granny Magda, posted 12-26-2007 11:55 AM Elmer has not replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 21 of 49 (444233)
12-28-2007 6:12 PM


I'm finding it impossible to continue this thread, mostly because most responses show no understanding whatsoever of the concept of determinism, how it applies in biology [as genetic determinism/biological determinism] , or even the difference between determinism in evolution and determinism in inheritance. So, unless and until some member posts an informed, well-supported, well-reasoned, response to my opinions, I guess I'll just let this one slide.
In parting- [supposing that I never receive such a response]- I will leave with a few introductory remarks wrt "Determinism", "Genetic Determinism", "Biological Determinism"[sometimes considered synonymous with 'genetic' determinism, but often limited to determinism of behaviours, rather than morphology], " Determinist Evolution", "Determinist Heredity", and the specific senses of the word, 'to determine', that apply in the above cases.
To begin with the latter--
"to determine"-- from wordwebonline.com
"Verb: determine di'turmin
1/Establish after a calculation, investigation, experiment, survey, or study
- find, find out, ascertain
2/Shape or influence; give direction to
"experience often determines ability"
- shape, mold [N. Amer], influence, regulate, mould [Brit, Cdn]
3/Fix conclusively or authoritatively
- set
4/Decide upon or fix definitely
- specify, set, define, fix, limit
5/Reach, make, or come to a decision about something
- decide, make up one's mind
6/Fix in scope; fix the boundaries of
"the tree determines the border of the property"
7/Settle conclusively; come to terms
- settle, square off, square up
8/Find out, learn, or determine with certainty, usually by making an inquiry or other effort
- check, find out, see, ascertain, watch, learn
Derived forms: determined, determines, determining
Of the above, the senses that apply to 'genetic determinism' are numbers 3 [principally], with 4 and 6 as well. Numbers 8, 7, 5, and 1 have no application to genetic determinism, and number 2, which does apply to the role of genes, at least in heredity, does not apply to the notion of 'genetic determinism'. A source of terrible confusion for many.
Now let's look at the metaphysical concept, "Determinism". This concept is an inevitable conlusion proceeding from a belief in "Mechanism", which itself is inevitably entailed by a belief in the metaphysics of "Materialism". So let's start with Materialism.
In short, 'materialism is the metaphysical belief system that postulates, a priori, that "matter is the only reality". Matter originally meant, 'that which is corporeal, tangible, apprehensible by the senses'. At about Newton's time that definition was re-written to include 'forces', like 'gravity. These phenomena,although themselves intangible, can be indirectly apprehended, [that is, inferred], from the observable effects they have on matter itself. This revised metaphysic is sometimes called, 'physicalism', because it makes such a great big hole in traditional Materialism.
Now Mechanism is an corollary of Materialism that states that "all phenomena are 'natural',[by which is meant, 'physical', as above] and so everything can always be explained fully in terms of physical/material causes. In short, everything that exists is the product of 'bits of stuff' moving about, banging into one another, and clinging to one another, because of inexplicable- [in materialist terms]- 'forces'.
Now, this is the 'pool table' approach to causatiuon, i.e., that 'force', once unleashed upon a material object , and that 'energy', upon direct and immediate [mechanical] contact one such object, [say a cue stick], with another object-[say a cue ball]-is immediately and directly transferred to that object, and possibly from that 'cue' ball to another ball, and so on. Such that where on the table every ball involved in the shot ends up, is really a direct, immutable, inflexible linear [one to one] result of how much force was applied by the cue directly to the cue ball, and in what manner [angle, whatever] the cue made contact with the ball. And that is called material, mechanical, 'Determinism'. The idea that every outcome is the inevitable and inescapable product of set of intial physical conditions. [aside--see 'quantum indeterminacy' and 'chaos theory' for a contrasting view]
Works very well wrt to passive, inanimate bits of stuff, so long as you don't think about the actual nature and origins of 'force', etc. But biosystems, live organisms, contrary to materialist metaphysics, are not the passive, inanimate bits of stuff that billiard balls and planets and 'genes' are. Thinking that they are no more than that is called 'genetic and/or behavioural determinism'. It is that notion for which we have to thank for everything from social darwinism, through eugenics and 'ethnic cleansing', racism, and on through Behaviourism, Social Biology, and Evolutionary Psychology. The belief that every specified organismic trait may be directly, linearly, mechanically, and inevitably traced back to a particular dna macromolecule as its overriding and essential cause. Which, incidentally, is the reason why we are always hearing how scientists [meaning geneticists] have discovered, 'the gene for',-- whatever. Blue eyes, for instance.
I won't go into detail on the complexity of inheritance mechanisms involved in the production of the dozens of different eye shades and tones to be found on the human palette. Suffice it to say that, like so many other traits that do not require a paticular gene for a particular trait [see 'human genome project], I will simply point out that a/eye colour can change long after birth. Many blue-eyed babies become hazel, etc, at about aged three. Less regularly, other eye colours change as some people grow older, sometimes repeatedly. Some people are born with one brownish eye, and one bluish eye,-- all from the same 'gene'? Or do you think that each eye's distinct colour is 'determined' by a separate gene from that of the other eye?! I could go on, but the empiricism of eye colour is definitely no friend to 'genetic determinism'.
Finally, if I haven't already said so, 'evolution' is a change in the set of traits that define and categorise a certain taxa, by either adding to or subtracting fom that established set of phenotypic traits'.
OTH, 'heredity' is the perpetuation of the 'status quo' wrt the set of traits that demarcate the possible variations that may be passed on over the course of generations by members of a specific taxon. IOW, evolution is about making changes, heredity is about preventing changes.
Which reminds me of a recent article, so let me digress for a second.
It seems that geneticists have invented something new. Something called, 'cryptic species'. A 'cryptic species'is defined as a species that is morphologically indistinguishable from another species, but which cannot reproduce viable off-spring thanks to supposed genetic factors. That is--several organisms that are morphologically identical with one another in terms of phenotypic traits, but are substantially different and decidedly distinct genetically. In this case geneticists have recently uncovered no less than six[6] 'cryptic species' [genetically speaking] of giraffes, all hiding behind a single phenotype [species, taxon]. Where's the genetic determinism in that, I wonder?
Sadly, I didn't bookmark the the article, but you can google, 'cryptic species', if you don't believe me.
Well, that's that. So long for now.
Edited by Elmer, : typoes, clean-up

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by MartinV, posted 12-29-2007 4:28 AM Elmer has replied
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-30-2007 11:03 AM Elmer has not replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 24 of 49 (444487)
12-29-2007 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by MartinV
12-29-2007 4:28 AM


Hi martin--
Elmer, you forgott quantum mechanics. The determinism is dead more then 100 years in physics. Oddly enough it survives still in neodarwinism, I agree.
Well, I sort of referred to it when I said, " And that is called material, mechanical, 'Determinism'. The idea that every outcome is the inevitable and inescapable product of initial physical conditions. [aside--see 'quantum indeterminacy' and 'chaos theory' for a contrasting view]".
Never mind, it bears repeating, and expanding. Thanks for the input.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by MartinV, posted 12-29-2007 4:28 AM MartinV has not replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 26 of 49 (444565)
12-29-2007 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Modulous
12-29-2007 5:36 PM


Hi modulous;
Welcome to the debate. I wrote a long response to Dawkins' sophistry, tore him a new one, as they say, then hit the wrong button, and lost it. So forget about him. His stuff adds up to an admission that 'genetic determinism' is false, and that is all that really matters.
I'm a tad frustrated right now, after losing all that work. I won't do it over, but I'll get back to your own contribution ASAP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2007 5:36 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Modulous, posted 12-30-2007 9:20 AM Elmer has replied
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-30-2007 9:36 AM Elmer has not replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 31 of 49 (444735)
12-30-2007 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Modulous
12-30-2007 9:20 AM


Modulous;
You say;
quote:
So forget about him. His stuff adds up to an admission that 'genetic determinism' is false, and that is all that really matters.
Actually, it seems to indicate that your concept of 'genetic determinism' is wrong.
Explain yourself.
I look forward to seeing what you have to say regarding my assertion on this matter and the explanation I gave in my post.
I'll get to what you said [not what dawkin's said], in my next. If you explain your interpretation of dawkins, I may respond to that at some point.
quote:
Welcome to the debate. I wrote a long response to Dawkins' sophistry, tore him a new one, as they say, then hit the wrong button, and lost it.
You'll excuse me if I don't take your word for the efficacy of your argument.
Never expected you to. Just needed to vent.
However, I sympathize with your frustration. Maybe you are interested in a post I wrote a while ago: Thread Save your posts, plugin in Forum Links and Information?
Thanks. I'll take a look at it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Modulous, posted 12-30-2007 9:20 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 12-30-2007 6:18 PM Elmer has replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 32 of 49 (444748)
12-30-2007 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Modulous
12-29-2007 5:36 PM


Hi again;
You say--
Phenotypical traits of a population can change through non-genetic factors...but this is not evolution.
Nobody I know of ever claimed that epigenetic alterations in phenotypes were necessarily evolutionary. But there can be no doubt that they sometimes are, in that epigenetic inheritance of altered traits, over generations, is a proven fact.
For example the height of mankind has varied through (recent) time - mostly due to health and dietary changes in the population over time rather than because of gene frequency changes.
That's your darwinist assumption, i.e., that evolution of the organism follows after and depends upon the evolution of the genome, [ accidental genetic system failure, genetic mutation]. Developmental
biology contradicts that assumption. There is every reason to believe that genomic evolution follows after, and depends upon, phenotypic evolution [responsive endogenous self-organization and re-structuring].
quote:
If 'genes' are only the 'dry timber' wrt evolution and development, then what is the 'flame'?
I'm a minor insurance geek - so your analogy appealed to me. When seeking proximate cause to decide if a party is liable there are some interesting things to keep in mind.
Let us say that there were two small flames and both fires would have caused the same amount of damage. In this case we'd probably hold both flame starters liable for the fire. These are sufficient combined causes.
First you say "both fires", meaning 2 of them, and then you say "the fire", meaning just 1 of them. As for 'would have', did each of the two flames generate an equal amount of damage, or didn't they? In any case, how is one flame any different from any other flame?
I do not see the point of this, since in my question, the gene is the 'dry timber', not the 'flame',-- but you seem to be implying that, to the contrary, the 'flame' is 'a gene'.
Also there could be a situation where two acts of negligence were needed to happen for the injury to result. Courtesy of wiki, imagine a situation where a workman leaves a manhole cover off and a driver then bumps into a pedestrian who then falls down the manhole. Both situations were required to cause the accident. These are concurrent causes.
Without environmental influence, genes could not be expressed.
True, especially when you consider that _the organism is the 'environment'_ ,[wrt 'genes'], that causes 'genes' to be expressed. Sometimes as a direct response to external environmental factors, sometimes as an oblique, indirect response to external environmental factors, but most often as an endogenous systematic response to internal needs.
Without genes, there would be nothing to express.
So you are saying that the first 'genes' existed _before_ the first organisms? That's a metaphysical assumption I'm not willing to accept.
It comes out of your metaphysical assumption that genes _cause_ novel traits [in evolutionary terms], and so 'gene' precedes the 'trait', and 'genes' precede 'organisms'. I doubt that 'genes' preceded the origin of life forms on earth. I believe that after organisms originated, organisms developed 'genes' as a way to avoid the effort of constantly re-inventing the wheel, so to speak, by recording within themselves instructions for their own self-replication, that is, bioform stasis and stability from one generation to the next. In which case, it makes more sense that an organism generates the trait first, the gene that records it for posterity, second. The trait precedes the gene that codes for it. That'evolution. That's 'origins'. If and when the gene precedes the organism it helps enable to develop, that's heredity. And that is why, contra darwinism, evolution and heredity are not the same things at all.
They are both needed and are both important - they are concurrent causes.
As above, only with respect to the inheritance of old traits; specific 'genes' are not necessary to the origins of original traits.
IAC, if 2 causes are concurrent, then neither of them 'determines' the outcome, in and of itself; not in the sense of 'metaphysical determinism', and its off-shoot, 'genetic determinism', where 'to contribute to, facilitate, enable, etc.', do not mean 'to determine'.
Different environmental factors will have influence that varies with magnitude, as will different genes. Some scientists have offered the view that the other genes that any given gene interacts with to create bodies are also part of its environment.
That would be true, IMO, but the organism itself is the immediate and proximate environment to which the genome responds.
Interesting stuff.
Very. Hope to hear more from you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2007 5:36 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Modulous, posted 12-30-2007 6:49 PM Elmer has not replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 35 of 49 (444810)
12-30-2007 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Modulous
12-30-2007 6:18 PM


Hi again--
quote:
I'll get to what you said [not what dawkin's said], in my next. If you explain your interpretation of dawkins, I may respond to that at some point.
Dawkins was basically saying that determinism is a philosophical position. If you are a determinist you're a determinist, genetic determinism isn't some special case of determinism in this regard.
True. And if that is all dawkins is saying we could finish discussing dawkins. But it isn't.
When biologists say they have discovered a gene for this or that, it doesn't necessarily follow that having said gene will definitely give a person a certain trait.
Factually true, and contrafactual to 'genetic determinism'.
Genetic determinism is looked on poorly because of the implications that behaviour is decided by genes, but biologists don't argue that it is as simple as possessing gene x will lead to behaviour y.
They used to do. It was called 'genetic determinsm'. They do not use that argument anymore, because empirical science has shown that it is a false notion. Even so, they still talk as if it had not been invalidated. That's being disingenuous, to say the least.
A lot of the time, what determines the behaviour of a person is a complex web of causality...many strands having different influence on the final outcome.
This is the fact of the matter, and is contra genetic determinism.
This is analogous to the idea that eating red meat increases your chances of certain cancers. Eating red meat doesn't exclusively determine that you will get cancer, but it is one of the causal strands - and it is advised to not strengthen it.
No argument there, but it's nothing to do with either heredity or evolution, and certainly nothing to do with genetic determinsm.
quote:
Explain yourself.
You seem to be of the opinion that genetic determinism is required for evolution,
Actually, you seem to be of the opinion that that is my opinion. It is not. Not unless you define 'evolution' as being synonymous with RM+NS darwinism. Most darwinists do exactly that, as a matter of fact, but their constant repetition of this equivocation will never make it true. Evolution is a natural fact. RMNS darwinism is a hypothetical explanation for that fact. Conflating the two is, once again, worse than disingenuous.
However, it is true that I believe that the notion, 'RM+NS' darwinism, does require that 'genetic determinism' be true, real, and valid--which even dawkins admits, it is not. Which puts RMNS in an untenable position.
and that genetic determinism must imply that the gene alone determines phenotypic traits.
That is exactly what 'genetic determinism' does entail, and it is not true. The 'gene' alone does NOT determine phenotypic traits, not even for heredity. But the notion that 'genes' are totally responsible for traits, inherited or mutated,[the gene-centric view] collapses unless the relation 'gene'/'trait' is a deterministic, linear, mechanical one. Since it isn't, something else is required to explain the origin of the trait.
Most importantly for this thread and our understanding of evolution itself, without genetic determinism the notion that novel, adaptive, productive traits arise out of genetic accidents simply doesn't make sense. Something else has to be in play.
I would suggest that you are both wrong about the necessity of what you call genetic determinism in the role of evolution, and what genetic determinism has to mean.
Please explain how "RM", all by itself, can account for novel, adaptive, productive phenotypic traits, if 'genes' only 'influence' the development of such positive outcomes. Again, without 'genetic determinism', "RM" requires something epigenetic to accomplish such a thing. "RM" no longer can.
As to "what genetic determinism has to mean.", dawkins has already told you that it means just what I have been saying that it means. If you don't get that, then it it is because you, not I, do not understand what 'determinism' means. You should read up on it.
I do this because determinism doesn't have to mean that anything that could be considered a cause must have been the result of something that can be considered an effect.
No, it does not, and nobody, least of all myself, ever said that that is what it means. It is, however, a basic tenet of causality itself.
IOW, there is a logical axiom to the effect that nothing can bring itself into existence, unaided, out of nothing. In latin it goes, 'ex nihilo, ab nihilo, nihil fit'. Out of nothing, by means of nothing, nothing is made or done. So of course, regressing back beyond the "Big Bang", every cause is the effect of a previous cause--if that is what you are trying to say.
"Determinism", oversimplified, says that the first material, physical effect, [the BB], causally determined that certain effects, and only those effects, could, and must, result from it. And in turn, only certain effects could, and necessarily would, flow from them, and on and on and on. That is because, as per materialism, nothing but the physical material that came [inexplicably and irrationally], out of the BB are the sole and only causal elements in existence, because, according to materialism, nothing but this stuff exists, so no other, non-mechanical, form of causation exists.
And this metaphysical assumption is carried right down to the corollary that macromolecules of DNAcid must inexorably generate particular organic forms by way of an inflexible chain of chemical cause/effect events.
In the case of genes, they interact with the environment to express themselves, their expression leads to an effect, another cause creates another effect and these two (or more) effects lead to an observed trait. Not the result of one cause and one effect, but many causes and effects. Sometimes, a single gene has a very significant role in the determination. Sometimes, it only plays a small role - a role that can be filled in with one of its alleles.
True. Do you not see that that is not at all what 'genetic determinism' asserts?
Unfortunately, this fact does not invalidate 'determinism' in general sense, since it only says that that organismic traits are not determined genetically--they could still be determined chemically, if you claim that all other contributing factors are so determined. And so even if 'genes' only 'contribute', every other factor is as 'deterimined' as every other, and so the resulting trait is still mechanically, i.e., chemically, pre-determined by initial chemical conditions within and without of the organism and the mechanical determinism of their interactions. Fortunately, the general notion of determinism has been put to death by quantum indeterminacy, which calls for a non-mechanical element of causation in the universe.
Second - natural selection does not require to work on absolute determinism.
This thread is not concerned with the notion labelled, "Natural Selection". There are other threads for that. So let's not get de-railed, and stick to geneticism and its "random genetic mutation" as the causal mechanism that produces novel, original, adaptive, productive organismic traits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 12-30-2007 6:18 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Modulous, posted 12-31-2007 7:46 AM Elmer has replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 37 of 49 (444898)
12-31-2007 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Modulous
12-31-2007 7:46 AM


Hi;
You say;
You seem to be under the impression that "RMNS Darwinism" is the currently accepted theory of evolution.
"RMNS darwinism" is still the backbone, the fundamental essence, the 'sine qua non' of evolutionary biology, even though the actual science of the past 40 years, and particularly the last 10 years, has shown that evolution is not a passive, mechanical, externally determined, reflexive, stochastic, genetic selectionist process,[RMNS] but rather a dynamic, psychologically motivated, responsive, organismically self-serving and self-directed heuristic process[autopoiesis]. You can choose one or the other, but not both, and most people have been carefully taught to assume the former,-- the darwinist RMNS position. And that has not changed.
If that is the case, that could explain the problems in communication we're having.
Any failure in communication would have to be from the side of those who want 'to have their cake and eat it too'; that is, those who insist that the old, scientifically disproven, gene-centric selectionist notion, "RMNS", remain a fundamental part of evolution's theoretical mechanism, despite the ever-increasing empirical evidence that 'chance plus necessity', i.e., 'chance plus determinism', [or, in the case of "RM+NS", 'chance plus chance'],is a failed paradigm.
quote:
Please explain how "RM", all by itself, can account for novel, adaptive, productive phenotypic traits, if 'genes' only 'influence' the development of such positive outcomes.
Random mutations only account for part of the development of novel traits.
That is the darwinist metyaphysical assumption. Not only does it violate the 'ex nihilo', but there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support the notion that novel, adaptive, productive, organismic expressions- ['traits']-are at all, not even only partially, the outcome of genetic accidents.
Random mutations and their influence on the environment are required to create new traits.
No, they are not. That is merely the darwinist [really, 'fisherian'], metaphysical assumption. Same criticism as above.
New traits can arise without random mutations - but these new traits are not hereditary and are as such not evolutionary changes.
Same rebuttal as above. The fact of the matter is that epigenetic inheritance and developmental evolution are direct, immediate, dynamic organismic responses to random external [environmental] stimuli that have all sorts of empirical support, whereas random, accidental genetic change [mutation] linked solely by fortuitous coincidence to random environmental events,
quote:
And this metaphysical assumption is carried right down to the corollary that macromolecules of DNAcid must inexorably generate particular organic forms by way of an inflexible chain of chemical cause/effect events.
There is no need for it just to be DNA that inexorably generates particular forms.[/qs]
That was the fundamental assumption that created the "RMNS" hypothesis. Now that it has been shown to be empirically untrue, darwinists now say that it isn't 'necessary', meaning, so long as all 'causes' are materialistically, mechanically determinist, ther can now be several determinist causes for novel 'traits', not just the 'statistically random' [but still mechanically determined] genetic mutations, but also other environmental and organic factors that are equally, 'statistically random' but still mechanically determined. In the end, all productive traits, and all destructive corruptions, are still mechanically determined, in the materialist, mechanist, determinist, darwinian metaphysic that your passage from dawkins promoted.
That doesn't follow from determinism one iota.
Actually, as above, having 2 or more supposedly 'determined' causes involved in generating a 'determined' trait, does follow, altogether, from 'determinism'. Saying that 'determinism' is unaffected wrt evolution, just because determinist 'genes' only partially contribute, along with other determinist causes, to a finally 'determined' trait, is what dawkins was spinning in your citation. And he might have a point, if quantum physics hadn't proven that that there is another element involved in creation, in origins, than just simply mechanical complications that allow only 'statistically predictable' [random] outcomes. But it has done, and so, to rephrase dawkins, if you are a determinist, you are wrong, and you are just as wrong about genetic determinism as you are wrong about causality in general,-- neither more, nor less.
The only thing that follows is that traits are determined. It doesn't matter what the causal reasons are, just so long as there are causal reasons. It could be a combination of things - that is still determinism.
Took the words right out of my mouth--and dawkins'. And since determinism is wrong, genetic determinism is wrong, and so is 'genetic' determinism plus 'other' determinism, even when you change 'random' to 'statistically determined', which is dawkins' little ploy.
quote:
True. Do you not see that that is not at all what 'genetic determinism' asserts?
Your expression of genetic determinism asserts that the only causal factor whatsoever is genetic.
Yes, that is 'genetic' determinism. Dawkins 'pooh-poohs' the fact that 'genetic' determinisn, the essential assumption of 'evolution of productive traits linearly, mechanically, deterministically, from genetic accident to expressed novel, productive organismic 'trait'has been proven untrue by the admission that other causal factore are in play. But he insists that these factors are all just as mechanically determined as are the 'genes', and so while 'genetic' determinism doesn't hold up under empirical scrutiny, 'determinism' escapes unscathed when we arrive at the final result, because all of the contributing factors involved in generating that final effect are, as materialism/mechanism assumes, equally determined.
But, as I keep repeating, quantum mechanics shows that materialist/mechanism's metaphysical assumption that all outcomes are pre-determined by the BB, is false. At the very heart of creation/evolution lies uncertainty, and that means that some non-mechanical factor, some cause that materialism cannot account for, is at play throughout the universe; including the causation, the mechanism, of evolution,-- [that is, the origins of novel, productive, organismic traits]. No cause, be it genetic or anything else, no matter how important or trivial, can any longer be assumed to be 'determined', and so no effect can be said to be 'determined', which is what dawkins wants you to believe. The truth is, materialist/mechanist physical causes alone can no longer be said to determine anything. From the pattern of a butterfly's wing to serial murder. Nothing. RMNS, therefore, is dead. Altogether dead, that is. Not just wounded and on darwinist ["dawkinsian"] life-support.
I do not think this is the only way to express genetic determinism: it can also be used to describe the position that genes are a strong and vital causal factor in determining traits.
What you are saying is that 'genes' are 'essentially', and inescapably, linked to 'traits'. As far as heredity is concerned, this is true, but it is not 'genetic determinism'. As far as evolution is concerned, it is only an assumption, and is not nececesarily true at all. Novel traits arise epigenetically, and are inherited epigenetically, and that is evolution in phenotypic terms, without any change [mutation] required in the genome whatsoever.
...it only says that that organismic traits are not determined genetically
But still remain 'determined', anyway. Yes, I know that that is what dawkins, and all materialist determinists are now saying. And they are wrong to do that.
It does not say that organismic traits are not determined genetically. Genes can be one causal factor among many. It is perfectly straight forward, agreed?
How in the world can "it", [ie., 'genetic determinism'], "say that organismic traits are not determined genetically"?!? That is what it is, so of course it cannot and does not say otherwise. But yes, that is perfectly straightforward, albeit perfectly obvious, and perfectly pointless, so far as I can tell.
quote:
This thread is not concerned with the notion labelled, "Natural Selection". There are other threads for that. So let's not get de-railed,
We are talking about how genetic determinism affects a theory of evolution that includes natural selection.
Exactly. We are NOT talking about a different notion, 'natural selection', and its supposed contribution to a hypothetical combination of two mechanisms, i.e., the one we are discussing, "RM", and itself. Bringing in "NS" to prop up "RM" is just muddying the waters.
You have spoken of natural selection yourself (including in the OP).
There are 2 parts to this thread--first, the validity of 'genetic determinism', and by extension, 'biological determinism' in general, [mainly as they apply to evolution, but also wrt to heredity], and second, how the invalidation of genetic/biological determinism invalidate the evolutionary hypothesis, "RMNS", aka, 'The Modern Synthesis", "Fisherism", "Modern Evolutionary Biology", "Darwinism", and even, [falsely], just plain, "Evolution".
'
If you are willing to concede the first part, that biological evolution, whether considered simply as 'genetic determinism', or as overall, many-faceted, 'biological determinism', is untrue, then we can move on to the second part. The part about evolution, but not about heredity.
If not, then let me point out that there is no way that a belief in 'natural selection' justifies, let alone promotes, a belief that 'random genetic mutation' is an essential component of the mechanism responsible for the origins of adaptive, productive phenotypic traits. In fact, neo-darwinians fought long and hard against "RM" until Fisher, et al, managed to reconcile "RM" with "NS" in the 30's and 40's. But if you want to try that on, I guess I'll have to let you prove that, in fact, it does that very thing. If you can.
I have shown you how even a basic theory of evolution of just natural selection acting on existing alleles can still function in a scenario where exclusive genetic determinism isn't in play.
Well, I have no recollection of you ever doing any such thing, and certainly not in this thread. But even if you had done, you would only have been discussing statistical allele population fluctuations,[differential reduction/elimination rates for inherited alleles in local organismic populations] and not evolution, [ origins of novel organismic traits].
This falsifies your notion that genetic determinism is required in a RMNS scenario.
No, it does not. I cannot even see where or how you could think that it might, so you are going to have to spell out your reasoning for this assertion. But, before you do that, you had best start by proving that "NS" is any kind of 'cause/mechanism' at all, instead of just being a post hoc observation of the ecological effects of an unobservable, non-specific, random assemblage of local causes.
I can complicate it more by adding random mutations - but doing so seems unnecessary when I am simply talking about the affect of genes on the expression of traits and how genetic determinism isn't required for gene frequency change to take place in a population.
And I can simplify it entirel by pointing out that "gene frequency change... in a population" is not the mechanism driving the origin of adaptive trait changes [i.e., evolution] in a taxon, [i.e., a trait-defined set of organisms]. That's only a silly definition of evolution that population geneticists use to inflate their own importance in biology.
Talk to ya later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Modulous, posted 12-31-2007 7:46 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Modulous, posted 12-31-2007 1:23 PM Elmer has replied
 Message 41 by MartinV, posted 01-01-2008 1:13 PM Elmer has not replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 39 of 49 (445144)
01-01-2008 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Modulous
12-31-2007 1:23 PM


Hi;
You say;
If you can show that evolutionary biologists have a picture of evolution that is contrary to the discoveries of science (most importantly the evolutionary biological sciences), then we'd have something to talk about. You haven't shown this though.
Another thing I don't have is the time to go back over every scientific discovery in evolutionary biology of the past 50 years; nor do I have the patience needed to explain their implications, one by one. Besides, I am not saying that "evolutionary biologists have a picture of evolution that is contrary to the discoveries of science (most importantly the evolutionary biological sciences)". They most certainly do. And that is why I am here, and that is what I am talking about. What I am saying is that _darwinists_, i.e., "RMNS" congregation, "have a picture of evolution that is contrary to the [post 1960, and especially post 1990] discoveries of science (most importantly the evolutionary biological sciences)".
That is the darwinist metyaphysical assumption. Not only does it violate the 'ex nihilo',
How can a mutating entity be considered the creation of something out of nothing. There is definitely a something involved here. Nobody assumes that nothing mutates to create a something![/qs]
You are wrong. Darwinists do precisely that. All the time. Every time
they claim that a novel, original, productive trait arose in a biosystem [organism]out of the chemical accident, RM, plus the statistical fall-out, "NS".
It's quite obvious if you think about it. The ex nihilo requires only that something that was not, becomes some thing that is, unaided by anything that was, to begin with. Let us say you put 2 pebbles into a paper bag. You close the bag set it down, and wait for as long as it pleases you to do so. If, when you finally re-open the bag, you find any more, or even fewer than the original two pebbles in the bag, then either the ex nihilo has been violated, and something 'magical' has happened, or somebody else snuck up while you weren't lookiing and added to or subtracted from the bag's contents. To violate the 'ex nihilo, ab nihilo, nihil fit', there is no necessity that the bag be empty to begin with. All that is required is that the contents alter themselves, without any added input from an external source.
This axiom applies not only to 'bits of stuff', such as the number of pebbles in a bag, or 'alleles/genes' in a 'population' of genomes, it also applies to information. For instance, if a book has only 2 chapters in it when you put it down, then when you pick it, it has 3 , then you can either claim that the first two chapters magically wrote a third, or that the 3rd chapter wrote itself, [both of which violate 'ex nihilo']or you can admit that appeals to magick are wrong, irrational, and superstitious, and admit that the only way another chapter could have been added to what the book already contained is if something outside the book, took the book and added a new chapter to it. Moreover, that external something had to be capable of adding information, not just more ink-stained pages. The passive, helpless bits of stuff that make up books are not the meaning they are used to codify and signify. The _medium_, [contra McLuhan, at least in biosystems], is NOT the _message_. Randomly destroying a meaning by randomly damaging the medium can never create, randomly [ab nihilo], a new meaning where that meaning did not exist before [ex nihilo]. Can you follow that? If you can, then you will see that the novel meaning found in an original and productive trait cannot be generated, 'ex nihilo, ab nihilo' by random genetic mutations. And since that information needs to pre-exist any influence that the supposed darwinist mechanism, "NS", can possibly have upon it, then "NS" has no role to play in its origin, either. "RM+NS" is an hypothetical humbug.
That sounds like a bold claim. Do you care to support it?
Just did. Can you refute my logic?
The fact of the matter is that epigenetic inheritance and developmental evolution are direct, immediate, dynamic organismic responses to random external [environmental] stimuli that have all sorts of empirical support
I don't see anything to strongly disagree with here. However, your denial that mutation events can produce novel traits seems contrary to the literature.[/qs]
The "literature" you refer to is really just the darwinist [RMNS]portion of the material published wrt evolutionary biolgy. The rest of that literature shows a different, dynamic, non-selectionist mechanism for evolution, and simply ignores "RMNS" or pays the obligatory [if you want to get and/or keep a job] lip-service to it.
Do you have any support that would suggest that mutations are not at all involved in the origins of new traits?
See above. Do you have any support [from logic and/or observation of fact] that would suggest that [random, undirected, genetic] mutations are at all involved in the origins of new traits? And before you run to to those hackneyed, shop-worn excuses for scientific evidence, Luria and Delbruck [1943] and Lederberg and Lederberg [1951], you should know that to me they are just fish in a barrel. Nothing but empirically unsupported assumptions made up out of arithmetic resemblance. Microbiology, wrt our understanding of eubacteria dynamics, has advanced quite a bit in the past 50+ years.
[qs] That was the fundamental assumption that created the "RMNS" hypothesis. Now that it has been shown to be empirically untrue, darwinists now say that it isn't 'necessary', meaning, so long as all 'causes' are materialistically, mechanically determinist, ther can now be several determinist causes for novel 'traits', not just the 'statistically random' [but still mechanically determined] genetic mutations, but also other environmental and organic factors that are equally, 'statistically random' but still mechanically determined. In the end, all productive traits, and all destructive corruptions, are still mechanically determined, in the materialist, mechanist, determinist, darwinian metaphysic that your passage from dawkins promoted.
So we agree that one can be a determinist and accept that genes play a vital but not exclusive role in the expression of traits?
Insofar as heredity is concerned, if you are a determinist then that is exactly what you _must_ accept. I am not a determinist, and even I can say that much. After all, it neither adds nor subtracts from the argument, since, a/ "vital", is entirely irrelevent to 'determined', and second, "the expression of traits" is not 'the creation of traits', i.e., evolution.
So we agree that the idea of DNA being the exclusive source of traits is not necessary in determinism?
Yes, but so what? Look back at what you quoted Dawkins as saying. He said that 'genetic determinism' adds nothing to 'determinism'. Which is true. What he did not say, but which is equally true, is that 'determinsm' subtracts nothing from 'genetic determinism'. That is, that genetic determinism is rendered non-existent or merely diminished simply because everything else is also determined. That would be like claiming that peas are not vegetables because carrots and cauliflower are also vegetables.
So long as 'determinism' stands, 'genetic determinism' stands, and 'biological determinism' stands, and "RMNS" stands, and all lifeforms can be seen as passive, hapless, robotic zombies that scuttle, gibber, and squeak because that is what they are pre-destined to do, that is all they can do, and that is what they must do. Forced to be nothing better than complicated billiard balls. They themselves having no power to alter themselves and their own chemical and/or organismic behaviour. Able only to await new orders from determinist mechanics. Fortunately, determinist mechanics is falsified by quantum mechanics, and so we can now forget all that and get caught up with the new reality, if only the darwinists will let us.
Since I suspect neither of us really understands quantum physics to an appropriate level to really discuss this meaningfully - I suggest we simply defer to the experts on this one.
Yes, let's do that. The experts say that at its most fundamental level, the quantum level, reality is indeterminate; i.e., non-determined.
The answer is: maybe it does affect determinism, maybe it doesn't.
Gee, first you say that you are going to accept the expert opinions of sub-atomic physicists, and then you turn right around and refuse to do any such thing!! See below--
"Notes on Quantum Indeterminacy
It is important that we understand what modern physicists say about quantum indeterminacy. It is a very unintuitive notion, and I sympathize completely with people who distrust it. My own reaction to it was this: "This can't be right. They must be confusing not knowing the event's cause with the event not having a cause."
If physicists were confused about this, then we wouldn't need to take them seriously. But they are not confused about this. They know the distinction, and they continue to believe in quantum indeterminacy (QI).
In the early days of QI, the physicists seemed to be making that mistake. Some of them claimed that QI was an implication of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Heisenberg pointed out that we can measure an electron's position, but in doing so we destroy any possibility of measuring it's momentum, and vice versa. So the combination of position and momentum of an electron is uncertain.
Notice that "uncertainty" is a characteristic that is an epistemological concept -- it is defined in terms of knowability. The argument seemed to be Uncertainty, therefore Quantum Indeterminacy:
We can't know both an electron's position and momentum, therefore an electron does not have a determinate position and momentum. (If we can't know it, it doesn't exist.)
But that was a mistake, and physicists now think more like this:
We can't know both an electron's position and momentum because electrons do not have simultaneous determinate positions and momentums.
In other words, QI, therefore Uncertainty. (You can't know something that doesn't have a determinate truth.)
All modern science is falliblist in epistemology. That means that any scientific theory might be wrong. We all acknowledge this. But scientific theories vary a lot in how likely they are to turn out to be wrong. The present state of physics makes quantum indeterminism a very well-established theory. It may still turn out to be wrong, in the sense that any theory may turn out to be wrong. Just like the "fact" that the earth orbits the sun might turn out to be wrong.
But QI is very well established. Very few scientific theories are as well verified by experience. And remember, the evidence is not just that we don't know what the quantum causes are -- the evidence is that there are no quantum causes. Again, it might turn out to be wrong, but we still ought to take quantum indeterminacy seriously.
Quantum indeterminism asserts that certain kinds of events, call them "Q events" are indeterministic. Really really really indeterministic, not just "as far as we know" indeterministic. Q events are (approximately) events that take place at a sub-atomic level. An example is the radioactive decay of a radioactive element. (There are lots of other examples, but this is an easy one to think of.)
Radioactive elements have half-lives. The half-life of an element is the length of time during which one atom of the element has a 50% chance of undergoing radioactive decay. That probabability is a real, objective probability, even though there is no real, objective cause for an individual case of radioactive decay.
The half-life of Uranium-238 is 4.5 million years. It decays into thorium-234, which has a half-life of 24.5 days. There are tons of radioactive elements with various half-lives, some very short and some very long. And it's ALL probability (objective probability) when each event will occur. According to QI, of course.
(I don't really care whether you believe in QI. But I do really want you to understand it.)
Let's call non-Q events "M events" for "macroscopic events". Now, you might think that QI is not a problem for Causal Determinism, as long as we restrict CD to non-Q events. Is that possible? We live in the M-world after all -- the world of macroscopic events, larger than atoms. Maybe CD is true of all M events even though it is false of all Q events.
Nope. First of all, physicists will claim that all M events are merely the additive effects of a lot of little Q events. But even if that's false, there's a bigger problem. There are certain Q events that have a huge influence on events in the M world. One example is sunshine. According to the best physics of today, sunshine comes from nuclear fusion, which is a Q phenomenon. Secondly, nuclear explosions. Thirdly, the clicking of a Geiger counter. We'll discuss in class this penetration of Q events into the M world that we live in (or like to think we live in).
Just to give you an example of how seriously this is taken by physicists, the following is quoted from Abner Shimony, "The Reality of the Quantum World", Scientific American, January 1988.
Shimony describes "indefiniteness" and the "superposition principle" (you don?t really need to know what they mean) then continues:
"From these two basic ideas alone -- indefiniteness and the superposition principle -- it should be clear already that quantum mechanics conflicts sharply with common sense. If the quantum state of a system is a complete description of the system, then a quantity that has an indefinite value in that quantum state is objectively indefinite; its value is not merely unknown by the scientist who seeks to describe the system. Furthermore, since the outcome of a measurement of an objectively indefinite quantity is not determined by the quantum state, and yet the quantum state is the complete bearer of information about the system, the outcome is strictly a matter of objective chance -- not just a matter of chance in the sense of unpredictability by the scientist. Finally, the probability of each possible outcome of the measurement is an objective probability. Classical physics did not conflict with common sense in these fundamental ways."
"A number of theorists have maintained however, that [quantum-theory-described physical systems] ... differ from one another in ways not mentioned by the quantum state, and this is the reason the outcomes of the individual experiments are different. The properties of individual systems that are not specified by the quantum state are known as hidden variables. If hidden variables theorists are correct, there is no objective indefiniteness. There is only ignorance on the part of the scientist about the values of the hidden variables that characterize an individual system of interest. Moreover, there is no objective chance and there are no objective probabilities."
Shimony then goes on to report on recent experiments which very strongly indicate that hidden-variables theories are wrong. Indeterminacy is an objective fact and not just a matter of scientists' lack of knowledge."
Found at-- http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~ronald/310/Quanta.htm
However, this issue is not relevant here.
The devil you say!! It isn't simply "relevent", it is the very essence of the matter!!!!
This calls for a break. Later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Modulous, posted 12-31-2007 1:23 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 01-01-2008 12:08 PM Elmer has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024