Evolving the Musculoskeletal System

Precisely.It is eye-opening to see some of our own, such as RAZD in his discussions with Straggler, and now WK here, abandon approaches we know work for approaches that have no evidence they work when it is in their own self-interest, in this case reducing the effort required to achieve publication.This lessening of standards is inevitable in retrospect. The practical obstacles to starting a journal are much less in the Internet era, and with more and more "journals" competing for content it is only natural that the bar would be lowered for contributors. With so much of the scientific world in a "publish or perish" situation, scientists would naturally be conflicted between their inherent desire for quality and their natural instincts for survival and self-preservation.But just as with grade inflation where almost everyone getting an A removes grades as a measuring stick, in a world where anyone can publish it removes publication as a measuring stick.Just as RAZD's rationales had a strong creationist flavor, so do WK's. Creationists argue that we don't want to limit students to learning about just one model of creation while ignoring that one of those "models" hasn't proven itself in any way, while WK is arguing that we don't want to limit ourselves to just one review model while ignoring that the one we're talking about here has not proven itself in any way.--Percy

I focused on the peer review process. Naturally I didn't mention the whole rest of the scientific process. If you want to misrepresent my understanding of it then posture away, I'll ignore it from here on.I stand by what I said about the process you're defending devaluing publication. What you're really asking is why I'm pointing out the flaws in an inferior process. Koonin's paper would have been very unlikely to receive any serious consideration by a reputable journal, and that appendix in particular would likely have received considerable critical attention. You're advocating the weakening of the first line of defense against inferior science.--Percy

Hi WK,We could go back and forth on this forever. You think my opinion is unwarranted by the facts available to me, and I disagree. I already told you what aspects of the process led me to call it inferior, and nothing you've said changes my mind.There was one thing you said that I found surprising: It almost feels like we're not talking about the same thing. Peer review is when an editor sends out anonymous copies of papers to other researchers in the same field to assess quality, validity and suitability. The feedback is addressed to the authors of the paper, not to the future readers.Based upon the feedback editors will either accept the paper, or request changes/improvements, or reject the paper. In the old days I would get back marked up photocopies of our paper where our author information had been blacked out. Later we would receive sanitized email feedback of a few paragraphs. I haven't submitted a paper outside corporate in a while, but perhaps today the process is automated through websites.Peer review is provided for the benefit of editors to help them in the review process, and for the authors of the papers so they can make changes/improvements. They are short and pointed. They are private.You seem to be talking about something more like a book review or a movie review, which are after the fact and don't affect content or quality. In fact, those reviews of Koonin's paper (the first one was 3000 words) were longer and more detailed than most book and movie reviews (excluding magazines like the New Yorker). When you said that those reviews were not "substantially different from anonymous reivews for other journals," were you referring to the same type of peer review I am? Are you actually receiving 3000 word anonymous peer reviews?I'm not opposed to experimenting with the peer review process, but I think Koonin's paper is an excellent example of what can go wrong when it is weakened. The traditional peer review process has served us very well. We should obviously seek improvements, and the open journals represent experiments in this direction, but each thing we try must be assessed as to whether it is actually an improvement, and the evidence for open journals thus far seems to indicate an increase in quantity and a decrease in quality.But as you say, this is inevitable anyway given the nature of the Internet. Of course, the members of any field know which are the good and bad journals, but everyone else not so much, and creationists not at all. As far as they're concerned, if it was published in a "peer reviewed" journal then it must be science.--Percy

If by "say" you mean "conclude," then I agree. As I said earlier, Koonin's cockamamie paper combined with the odd peer review process and the fact that he's the co-editor has all my alarm bells going off. I don't claim to have made an in-depth analysis, but I did see enough to form an opinion.--Percy

Entropy in evolution works exactly the same way it does for all other matter and energy in the universe. The governing law of nature for entropy is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics (henceforth 2LOT), often summed up colloquially as "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch," or "You can't get something for nothing." 2LOT is why perpetual motion machines are impossible.No doubt the reason you're asking is that you've read or been told that the universe is running down and that it's impossible for things to improve or become more complex on their own. On the scale of the entire universe as a whole this is true, because there is nowhere for the universe to get additional energy since it already represents everything there is. But the Earth is not everything there is, and it gets huge amounts of energy daily from the sun that does all the work necessary to create increasing complexity.If the sun suddenly went out then life on Earth would soon become impossible. It takes energy for an acorn to become an oak, and without a constant input of new energy we would soon use up all natural resources on Earth. The entropy increases caused by our energy consumption, previously balanced by energy from the sun, would continue unchecked and that would be the end.--Percy

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT) states that the entropy in a closed system can never decrease. A closed system is like a box into which no energy or matter can enter, and no energy or matter can leave.2LOT means that if we had a closed system that contained nothing but a single DNA sample, its entropy could never decrease (decreasing entropy means increasing order, but in a chemical or physics sense, not in "clean up the room" sense). Certainly the entropy could increase, and if you want to interpret that as "degrade" then that's fine because giving you a more accurate interpretation would take some serious time.But 2LOT is the wrong way to approach biology. 2LOT is a fundamental law of nature. All matter and energy in the universe follow 2LOT, including the processes of evolution. That means that both random mutation and natural selection follow 2LOT, and all the other laws of nature. Evolution does not postulate any process that violates any law of nature.--Percy

I was expecting that you would make an eventual tie-in to evolving the musculoskeletal system when you asked about entropy, but then you asked about the decay of DNA, and now about photosynthesis. Do your questions relate to the topic somehow?--Percy

Whether or not any particular mutation increased or decreased entropy would be difficult to say. Probably any string of N random nucleotides has about the same entropy. In other words, a single nucleotide substitution wouldn't be expected to have much effect on entropy. On the other hand, additions and deletions probably do result in meaningful entropy changes.But the bottom line for Barbara is that entropy is a very poor and incredibly difficult way to make any judgments about what is possible in biology. Plus I'm not sure it ties into the topic.--Percy

If you're counting states at the atomic and molecular level, which is 2LOT, then entropy is inappropriate for reaching an understanding of random mutation and selection.If you're counting states at the nucleotide level, which is Shannon information, then Shannon entropy is applicable and very appropriate. See, for example, Message 152 for a post that approaches this in a similar way as you did, but using bits instead of entropy.--Percy

Really. And as you aged from 0 to 20, were you also degrading over time? As a baby grows in the womb, is it degrading over time? As sperm and egg combine to form an embryo, are they degrading over time?Also, unless you can somehow tie entropy in with evolution of the musculoskeletal system, you're off-topic.--Percy

What has this to do with evolution of the musculoskeletal system?Could you please stop posting if you have nothing to say about the topic?--Percy

Hi ICdesign,When last you were here we were talking about new functions/features that are possessed by apes but not by fish. My Message 286 is the last message in that discussion.--Percy

When Crash said "edit," that was an analogy. The "editing" happens when an organism fails to produce any descendants or produces fewer descendants than others of its species. The environment imposes competitive pressures upon organisms, and those sufficiently capable produce offspring, or produce more offspring than others. By this means the proportion of favorable alleles and genes increases in a population over time. As environments change the combinations of genes and alleles that is favorable will also change. This is one of the common definitions of evolution, changing allele frequencies in a population over time. If you think you have a provable truth then you're not doing science, but if you think what these things have in common represents helpful evidence about the nature of the real world then please describe what it is.A side comment: Being child-like may have its advantages in some contexts, but until you understand how evolution actually works your criticisms, like this one, will considerably miss the mark. Your understanding is so confoundedly confused that your criticisms don't even make sense. It would be as I were terribly confused about the Biblical story and said, "Jesus couldn't be risen because the groundhog saw his shadow." Such criticisms made as persistently as you're being here, but on a Christian board, would draw the same kind of responses you're getting here.Evolution is being explained to you over and over again, but you're not paying much attention. Your marine instincts may be getting in the way of discussion. Ignore any perceived attack, address the content. Click on the Percy Posts Only link and beginning with Message 3 you'll see that I've explained key aspects of evolution relevant to this thread over and over again. Forget about how you're being treated and talk about those messages instead.--Percy

Here's what just happened. You misunderstood Crashfrog's use of the word "edited" in describing natural selection. I explained that it was an analogy, and then I explained what really happens in detail. You didn't address any of that explanation in your response, you just said you know the ToE's claims are impossible without giving any reasons. This discussion is ready to move forward as soon as you articulate your reasons. The rocks under Manhattan are there for the purpose of supporting tall skyscrapers. Does that mean they were designed and placed there with intentional purpose? How would you design a test to determine this?The eyes in our heads are there for the purpose of allowing us to see. Does that mean they were designed and placed there with intentional purpose? How would you design a test to determine this?In other words, where does this human tendency to assign purpose and intent to things stop. "Intent" is a human construct that we overlay onto reality. It is incredibly common for people to ascribe most things that happen to some purposeful intent, often God or fate or destiny. But if you want to put purpose and intent on a scientific footing, how are you going to do that?The reason we teach evolution in science class is because it has been put on so solid a scientific footing that it has become almost universally accepted within the relevant scientific community. The reason we don't teach purpose and intent in science class is because it has almost no scientific foundation whatsoever, except as objects of study as human qualities in the field of psychology. You're not going to change anyone's mind by declaring you know the answers while giving no reasons, then taking a general shot at everyone about how unfair they are.--Percy

I don't understand your attitude. You complain about the nature of the debate, you resume the discussion, Taq asks precisely the right questions, and you blow him off.If you want an improved tenor for the debate then it will take effort from both sides.I'm going to compose a response now to your Message 382, the same one Taq responded to.--Percy