Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-24-2019 9:29 PM
30 online now:
dwise1, Hyroglyphx, jar (3 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,377 Year: 15,413/19,786 Month: 2,136/3,058 Week: 510/404 Day: 25/89 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 423 of 752 (598475)
12-31-2010 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 422 by shadow71
12-31-2010 10:01 AM


shadow71 writes:
I understand this to mean that the TRANSITION TO COMPLEX LIFE was a unique event that did not rely on natural selection.

I don't like the expression "rely on natural selection." However, natural selection would be as much involved here as with anything else.

I don't have a time machine to go back and see what happened. And I'm not even a biologist. However, assuming that symbiosis was involved, it is most likely that there were casual symbiotic unions that formed. At some stage a change occurred which might have been a relatively small DNA change, such as allowed the two components of such a symbiotic union to synchronize their reproductive activity, so that the next generation inherited a similar symbiotic structure.

We see a big change, in terms of the effect on the biosphere. But we cannot rule out that it might well have occurred in small genetic steps.

You can't even conclude that it was a unique event. Something similar might have happened on many occasion, with only one line surviving through the background of natural selection.


Jesus was a liberal hippie
This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by shadow71, posted 12-31-2010 10:01 AM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by shadow71, posted 01-01-2011 3:34 PM nwr has responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 478 of 752 (598634)
01-01-2011 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by mike the wiz
01-01-2011 12:28 PM


Re: Another test
mike the wiz writes:
There are over 200 geochronometers that suggest a young earth.

Some of them are;

The amount of mud at the mouth of major rivers
Light not being a constant
The amount of dust on the moon
Satelites that should have expired
Polystrate fossils
Examples of rapid layers being created in days (Mt St Helens)

I won't go into it all, but it's nothing to do with scientific prowess. Also, potassium argon dating gave rocks found at new volcanoes dates of millions of years.


I'm sorry to see it, mike, but you seem to have lost your wizness.


Jesus was a liberal hippie
This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by mike the wiz, posted 01-01-2011 12:28 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 479 by mike the wiz, posted 01-01-2011 3:20 PM nwr has responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 484 of 752 (598648)
01-01-2011 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by mike the wiz
01-01-2011 3:20 PM


Re: Another test
mike the wiz writes:
Would it mean I was any less mike if I believed in a young earth rather than an old one?

I'm not concerned with what you believe. That's for you to decide. It's the quality of your arguments that I find troubling.


Jesus was a liberal hippie
This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by mike the wiz, posted 01-01-2011 3:20 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 486 of 752 (598654)
01-01-2011 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by shadow71
01-01-2011 3:34 PM


nwr writes:
I don't like the expression "rely on natural selection." However, natural selection would be as much involved here as with anything else.
shadow71 writes:
Nick Lane says in his paper "The transition to COMPLEX LIFE(My emphasis) on Earth was a UNIQUE event that hinged on a bioenergetic jump afforded by spatially combinatorial relations between two cells and two genomes (endosymbiosis) rather than natural slection actilng on mutations..."

I think he is pretty clear that natural selection was not involved in the transition to complex life. That this was jump and not a gradual transition.


Personally, I am not a pan-selectionist. I tend to think that there is too much emphasis placed on selection. However, even those who do emphasize selection usually avoid talking in terms of "rely on natural selection."

shadow71 writes:
I think he is pretty clear that natural selection was not involved in the transition to complex life. That this was jump and not a gradual transition.

I haven't read Lane's paper, so I'm going by your quotes from it.

The idea that one organism jumped inside another, leading to a sudden transition, is surely mistaken. There had to be a lot of mutual adaptation before that was possible, and natural selection would have been involved in that mutual adaptation.

If the point you are making is that endosymbiosis doesn't quite fit in the typical neo-Darwinist picture, then I agree with that. And most neo-Darwinists would probably also agree. I don't see that as a problem with evolution.


Jesus was a liberal hippie
This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by shadow71, posted 01-01-2011 3:34 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 487 by Percy, posted 01-01-2011 4:59 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 495 of 752 (598714)
01-01-2011 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 493 by ICdesign
01-01-2011 7:59 PM


Re: The Mutation Problem
You also posted that in another thread. I responded there (Message 235).


Jesus was a liberal hippie
This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by ICdesign, posted 01-01-2011 7:59 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 548 of 752 (599383)
01-06-2011 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 545 by shadow71
01-06-2011 7:56 PM


shadow71 writes:
"Feeling the Future: Experimential evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect."
Daryl J. Bem
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journal/psp/index.aspx

Is this one of science's great explanations for things that used to be credited to the supernatural?


I'm getting a "page not found" error on that link.

A google search did turn up http://dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf which I presume is the same paper (perhaps an early draft).

Count me as skeptical. I've seen these kinds of reports before, but attempts to replicate them usually fail.


Jesus was a liberal hippie
This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by shadow71, posted 01-06-2011 7:56 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 558 of 752 (599449)
01-07-2011 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 550 by shadow71
01-07-2011 11:45 AM


shadow71 writes:
What concerns me are several quotes about the paper.

This from the NY times on 1-6-2011 In response to the publisher stating we decided to publish the paper "...even though there was no mechanism by which we could understand the results."


I agree that's a bad criticism. Science doesn't have to wait for mechanism.

Bem's results show an effect only a little better than chance. If he had shown a far stronger effect, and if others could reproduce it, then this would be good science.

As it is, however, the effects reported are marginal though they test as significant. My concern would be on whether there were methodological errors that allowed a bias to creep in.

As for whether the journal should have accepted the paper - I leave that to the editors. It's not entirely unreasonable to publish uncertain results, and then expect other scientists to attempt to replicate the work. The journal cannot be expected to run its own lab and attempt to replicate before accepting. On the other hand, there's a long history of such psychic claims, with marginally positive results. And there's an equally long history of failure to replicate such claims. I'll admit to being surprised that the paper was accepted.

Incidentally, Jerry Coyne has posted about this on his blog: “Psychic” paper provokes backlash


Jesus was a liberal hippie
This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by shadow71, posted 01-07-2011 11:45 AM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 559 by shadow71, posted 01-07-2011 4:57 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019