Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Devolution (from The Fall) and "No New Information"
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 31 of 52 (518585)
08-06-2009 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Smooth Operator
08-06-2009 3:00 PM


Re: Back to the topic
Or it could mean that Mars is simply orbiting around the Sun.
Ok, so Mars orbits the sun. How do you know? Maybe Mars is the center of the universe and we orbit the sun which orbits Mars. How would you differentiate between these two options?
Some scientific articles or a book, or something.
Do you think it would be hard to find any article which says the Earth orbits the sun? We could go all the way back to Copernicus and find references to that phenomenon. However, curiously, whenever people post those things, you refuse the acknowledge their relevance or strength. So, again, what would you like to see in those articles that would make you consider the possibility of your being wrong. What would those articles have to say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-06-2009 3:00 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-08-2009 4:48 PM Perdition has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 32 of 52 (518624)
08-06-2009 10:06 PM


Back to the topic (2)
I would like to keep the topic to how someone could accept the geocentric belief in spite of the immense scientific evidence to the contrary.
The details of geocentrism--pro and con--should be dealt with on other threads, of which there are several.
What I want to explore is what makes someone choose a belief system akin to flat earth and time cube in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
You don't come up with this belief by reading the scientific literature, or even the general pseudo-scientific popular literature. If you are not coming from a religious perspective, to arrive at a belief in geocentrism you have to go way out to the fringe, and then some.
I still want to know why and how this occurs.
What makes someone choose such a fringe position, and argue it all over the web? I can see where religious belief would foster this, but Smooth Operator denies this. So, where does this belief originate?
SO claims it is a search for the truth, but what makes him reject 99.999% of science and cling to such a fringe position as "the truth?"
Religious belief is well known for having "The TRVTH" (they all do, even when they contradict one another).
But if it is not from religion, where does SO really come by this belief?
And why?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-07-2009 9:15 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 33 of 52 (518629)
08-06-2009 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Coyote
08-06-2009 12:49 PM


Re: Back to the topic
You subtitled your message "Back to the topic", and then posted a message that was totally away from the topic.
Going to close this one down. Start a new appropriately themed and titled topic.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report discussion problems here: No.2
Thread Reopen Requests 2
Topic Proposal Issues
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Coyote, posted 08-06-2009 12:49 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 34 of 52 (518663)
08-07-2009 7:15 AM


Thread reopened.
Please see Message 43 for explanation.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 08-07-2009 10:34 AM Admin has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 52 (518690)
08-07-2009 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Coyote
08-06-2009 10:06 PM


Re: Back to the topic (2)
What makes someone choose such a fringe position, and argue it all over the web? I can see where religious belief would foster this, but Smooth Operator denies this. So, where does this belief originate?
I think there's something, for them, to having everyone be wrong and mis-lead and for them to have stumbled upon the actual truth.
Like all that stuff in that "reality reviewed" website I linked you to. Did you get a chance to look at it?
I think its that same mindframe that feed the conspiracy theorists.
I know people who like to believe in that whole Illuminati thing. They way they argue is a lot like the way SO does.
It requires that "everything you know is wrong" and that they have the one true truth. And they try to sound all scientific n'stuff.
Its just like in religion, where they tell you that your fucked unless you but the one thing they are selling.
I don't know why people like it so much. I can see why they fall for it as some of the arguments can be convincing at face value, and I guess it must be exciting to "realize" that everybody else has been fooled and you are now the enlightened one with the real TRVTH.
I guess thats the draw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 08-06-2009 10:06 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 36 of 52 (518701)
08-07-2009 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Admin
08-07-2009 7:15 AM


Re: Thread reopened.
Thank you for reopening the thread. I appreciate it very much.
In the opening post I specified The Fall and a belief in biological devolution as being religiously motivated. Since SO denied any religious connection, I wanted to explore the origin of this extreme fringe belief--how and why would someone come up with such a belief other than religion?
The topic drifted into geocentrism, as that is the subject of other threads. However, the two beliefs are analogous: if the belief in geocentrism is not religiously motivated, from whence did it come?
In both cases we have extreme fringe beliefs for which there really is no scientific evidence, yet a small number of folks are pushing these beliefs and claiming they have a scientific--but not religious--basis.
I find that unbelievable, and that is what I wanted to discuss--how and why such beliefs came about.
Again, thank you for reopening the thread.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Admin, posted 08-07-2009 7:15 AM Admin has not replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 37 of 52 (518823)
08-08-2009 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Perdition
08-06-2009 4:06 PM


Re: Back to the topic
quote:
Ok, so Mars orbits the sun. How do you know? Maybe Mars is the center of the universe and we orbit the sun which orbits Mars. How would you differentiate between these two options?
If there is such a thing as absolute space, I would use the Michelson-Morley type experiment to test if we are moving. And when it was done, the experiment said that we are not moving. So now what?
quote:
Do you think it would be hard to find any article which says the Earth orbits the sun? We could go all the way back to Copernicus and find references to that phenomenon. However, curiously, whenever people post those things, you refuse the acknowledge their relevance or strength. So, again, what would you like to see in those articles that would make you consider the possibility of your being wrong. What would those articles have to say?
I refuse to accept their asertations. The starting assumption they all make is that the Earth is moving, and all the evidence is derived from the assumption itself. What I actually want to see is evidence that the Earth is moving.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Perdition, posted 08-06-2009 4:06 PM Perdition has not replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 38 of 52 (518828)
08-08-2009 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by New Cat's Eye
08-06-2009 3:33 PM


quote:
Nope, not my problem. They're your sources not mine.
You have to show me where they say that genes cannot product new information.
I never said, that those papers say that. I said that those papers say that the genomes are deteriorating.
quote:
Since all you can do is gainsaying and handwaving, I'm not going to waste my time finding a bunch of papers for you so and since you're such a fan of bear links, I'll just provide you with that:
CB102: Mutations adding information
If you're truely following the evidence and not just trying to support you preconceived notion, then you can find the information you need there.
Your sources are wrong because they use Shnnon model of information. Shannon information can not be used to represent biological functions. Gene duplication also does not increase biological functions, it only increases the number fo already existing genes with same functions.
quote:
Or you can watch this youtube video:
How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part I
Painfully wrong. Resistance is gained by loss of information.
quote:
Oh, so you're already convinces of the contrary and nothing can convince you otherwise. Your whole argument relies on an unaccepted definition of the word "information". Total apologetics to maintain a preconceived belief in the face of contadictory evidence.
What evidence?
quote:
That's the thing, though... they aren't scientific. They are scientific-looking and you've been tricked into believing they are legitimate. they do that to hide the religious aspects.
How do you know your sources aren't doing just that?
quote:
Here we go with the "everything you know is wrong" approach. I'm not paranoid enough to believe in conspiracies.
Yes you are. You told me that I have been lied to, and everything I know is just a big con game. How do you know you are the one that's not been lied to?
quote:
But they do not scientifically and logically support the position that genes cannot produce new information. That belief comes from the idea that mankind must be degenerating, which comes from The Fall, which comes from the Bible.
Neither did I say they do. I specifically said that they only show the degeneration of the genome. The inability of matter alone to create information comes from observations that it can't.
quote:
I'm not taking a stance here. I'm waiting for you to show that your belief that genes cannot product new infomration is based on science and not religion... and I'm still waiting.
It's simple. We have see intelligence produce inforamtion, but not matter by itself. So what's so hard to understand here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-06-2009 3:33 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 39 of 52 (518871)
08-09-2009 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Theodoric
08-06-2009 8:40 AM


This is fallacious on the face of it. Are you saying that a 3 year old has gone downhill form a newborn? How do you define downhill?
I was answering Coyote opriginal question as I understood it: How could the concept that nature is on a downhill path have arisen in a hypothetical world that did not have christianism. In other words, could you have this impression by looking at nature ?
Evidence please and again define downhill.
I hope my next reply will clarify this a bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Theodoric, posted 08-06-2009 8:40 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2009 1:53 AM slevesque has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 40 of 52 (518872)
08-09-2009 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by slevesque
08-09-2009 1:44 AM


I was answering Coyote opriginal question as I understood it: How could the concept that nature is on a downhill path have arisen in a hypothetical world that did not have christianism. In other words, could you have this impression by looking at nature ?
You don't have any response to my post. And I have no idea what you are trying to say or ask.
Again my question to you.
Are you saying that a 3 year old has gone downhill form a newborn? How do you define downhill?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by slevesque, posted 08-09-2009 1:44 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by slevesque, posted 08-09-2009 2:43 AM Theodoric has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 41 of 52 (518875)
08-09-2009 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by New Cat's Eye
08-06-2009 9:23 AM


Like how?
I'd determine the neutrality of a mutation by whether or not the environment selectively pressures it and since, when you get down to the gnat's ass, its going to be so blurry that you can't really tell if there's pressure on every particular mutation or not then I'd claim that you are unable to tell if mutations really are neutral or not in every case. Maybe in some specific cases, but I don't see where you're going to define this very important difference between neutral and non-neutral. And I don't see how its important at all unless you want to disbelieve in evolution.
Of course, I do not want to 'believe' or 'disbelieve' anything, but I do want to test such an important scientific theory as Neo-Darwinism, and I'm pretty sure you don't have anything against that.
Now, on the neutrality of a mutation. This is the definition from wikipedia:
quote:
In genetics, a neutral mutation is a mutation that occurs in an amino acid codon (presumably within an mRNA molecule) which results in the use of a different (but often chemically similar) amino acid that has a negligible effect on fitness
The important word is 'negligible'; it means that the mutation does have an effect, but it is so small that it cannot be detected by natural selection. An analogy could be if an atom on my car 'rusts', it will not have any impact on the performance of my car, but that will not mean that it is 'neutral'. An atom rusting will be deletirious even if it as no effect on the overall performance.
In genetics, a neutral mutation does not exist, but the majority of mutations are nearly-neutral.
Now this difference between a totally-neutral mutation and a nearly-neutral mutation has always been assumed as not important in population genetics, and so they have been redefined as effectively neutral. In other words they are considered as neutral when doing the calculations and the simulations. (This is in fact what Kimura proposed in his neutral theory of molecular evolution)
But as the car-rusting analogy shows more clearly, the accumulation of rusted-atoms on the car will eventually lead it to break down. Nearly-neutral mutation accumulation will eventually lead the genome to genetic meltdown.
quote:
And there are things in nature that prove that not everything is going downhill.
For the first 18 or so years of our lives we are going uphill. When a snowflake forms or when salt crystals grow. When populations evolve.
Of course, I agree (accept for, of course, that last example ). See my previous post for clarification of what I was trying to say.
I don't believe you.
Well the DNA code without natural selection filtering deletirious mutations will eventually become meaningless because of mutation.
Introducing random variations in a Code will always make it lose its meaning. Sure you might get a new 'word' here and there, but overall and on the long term, the message will be lost. Same with DNA without natural selection.
We can easily see that this is a big YES by taking a trip to the zoo and seeing the variety in the species that has evolved.
This is only true if you presuppose that these species have evolved. Only then can you see it as proof that Neo-Darwinian evolution can create the diversity you see.
Also, you're answer was very superficial in its nature. An answer to the question I asked woiuld recquire an in-depth look at the selection capcity of a population, the selection cost of mutations, etc.
So yeah, genes can add new information.
I do think that you meant 'mutations' here instead of 'genes'. Anyhow, saying that beneficial mutations can happen will not answer the question I asked (Which was about the capacity of natural selection to reverse the natural tedency of the DNA code which is to go downhill)
--
Yheodoric asked me to define what I meant by downhill. To make it simple, a downhill trend in a biological population would be to gradually lose fitness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-06-2009 9:23 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 42 of 52 (518877)
08-09-2009 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Theodoric
08-09-2009 1:53 AM


I don't know how I can be clearer on what was my intentions in my first post ...
But I will answer your question:
Are you saying that a 3 year old has gone downhill form a newborn? How do you define downhill?
As soon as the very first cell starts to replicate, mutations start to accumulate. And since it is an asexual reproduction, Muller's ratchet applies and so these mutations acumulate. So genetically speaking, a 3 year old DNA has gone downhill since it was born.
The definition of dowhill is in my previous post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2009 1:53 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2009 9:23 AM slevesque has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 43 of 52 (518890)
08-09-2009 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by slevesque
08-09-2009 2:43 AM


As soon as the very first cell starts to replicate, mutations start to accumulate. And since it is an asexual reproduction, Muller's ratchet applies and so these mutations acumulate. So genetically speaking, a 3 year old DNA has gone downhill since it was born.
This is a belief? Not evidenced by any proof?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by slevesque, posted 08-09-2009 2:43 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by slevesque, posted 08-10-2009 1:32 AM Theodoric has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 44 of 52 (518948)
08-10-2009 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Theodoric
08-09-2009 9:23 AM


No this is genetics. Cellular reproduction is asexual, and so Muller's ratchet applies.
The accumulation of mutations in our cells as they replicate and we grow up is what ultimately causes us to die, the software of our cells becoems so corrupted by mutations that systems and organs start to fail, etc. etc. This process starts from the very first replication of the very first cell, not just from after 3 or 18 years of age.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2009 9:23 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Meddle, posted 08-10-2009 3:23 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 47 by Theodoric, posted 08-10-2009 7:58 AM slevesque has replied

  
Meddle
Member (Idle past 1271 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


Message 45 of 52 (518954)
08-10-2009 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by slevesque
08-10-2009 1:32 AM


Well our chromosomes have two copies, which means mutations can be eliminated during mitosis as the chromosomes cross over, negating the effects of Muller's ratchet. Unlike bacteria for example, where only one copy of the genome exists. Of course if individual cells in our body do develop significant mutations, they usually experience a controlled death or are removed my the immune system.
And of course ageing is not simply a result of a build up of mutations. Other factors have a role, and probably more significant than mutations, such as the effects of immune cell responses or general wear and tear on the tissues, especially those that can actively regenerate, such as the nervous system. Even the oxygen we breath is damaging.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by slevesque, posted 08-10-2009 1:32 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by slevesque, posted 08-10-2009 3:40 AM Meddle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024