|
Author
|
Topic: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
questions on mechanism and first life form
What WAS the mechanism of organic evolution? I hesitate to jump in here today because I don't have the time to completely do this topic justice, but wanted to say it is refreshing to hear someone point out some of the inadequacies of the dominant evo paradigm. I do think it is far more reasonable to see the cause of things like convergent evolution, which theoritically sometimes produced nearly identitical structures such as the mammalian ear, as more likely caused by a predetermined design embedded into the DNA, and as such think evolutionary theory should be more properly in the domain of Intelligent Design than the product of chance, mutation and natural selection alone (including the other aspects of dominant evo theories). However, there is an alternative. It could be that many of these creatures did not evolve and were simply created. My question to you, and forgive my ignorance here on some matters but I am not a scientist as you and WK are, is whether you still hold to universal common descent from a single ancestor, and so believe that this original ancestor was formed/evolved or otherwise came about with the latent potential for all the forms we see today. In other words, does your mechanism makes sense for a single common ancestor to have evolved into all of life today? Moreover, perhaps there were multiple instances of life forms that evolved as common ancestors (abiogenesis) or were created (special creation)? Edited by randman, : No reason given. Edited by randman, : To fix typos, grammar and add title.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: questions on mechanism and first life form
The question of common descent is a very important one and I have not made up my mind about it. A common genetic triplet code would certainly favor it but such a code is also the simplest way to specify 20 or so amino acids. This was proposed by the physicist George Gamov long before it was verified experimentally. If there were separate creations the simplest way would be still to be expected. I think then if we were to assume abiogenesis, that chemistry can evolve into biology as it were, unsubstantiated of course but assuming that possibility, then it is likely it would happen more than once and perhaps with some sort of regularity in geologic terms, or at least over the period of time conditions were favorable for it. I think the evo assumption that makes more sense is not the magical one-time event thing, but the idea a property in chemistry enables the evolution of biology. With that being said, the design for life would not be the product of chance but the product of the design of the physical world. I say, not to debate any specific point you have made obviously on this, but just to point out, imo, this once again points to ID as a more accurate framework or paradigm to think about the data than the "randomness" or all is chance paradigm.
"Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms.i.e, polyphyletically"
page 406. Well, that fits with your idea there were original forms that could evolve but have sort of spent their potential for the most part by now.
In other words we know virtually nothing with certainty. My personal bias is toward a half dozen or so separate creations but I am not prepared to defend that with much enthusiasm. When you say creations, do you mean special creations by God, or something else? One reason I ask is that your idea of original forms that could evolve a whole range based on the potential, sort of like they were programmed ahead of time to evolve specific new life forms, reminds me of baraminology, which is to seek to discover the original kinds. I know you are not a creationist per se, but your ideas do conform to some sort of outline of limited range original creatures that could evolve to a certain point and no further. Would you say that's a correct observation from your vantage point? I will be travelling some and may not get back to this until a few days, or maybe just one or 2 posts this evening, but when I have the time, I think it would be interesting on this thread or another to compare some creationist or even scriptures that creationists base their thoughts on with your ideas. Obviously, the young earth thing doesn't work with your theory, but some of what you propose seems more like Intelligent Design or progressive creation via ID, with evolution as the latter process of working out the design in real-time. Edited by randman, : add a phrase for clarity
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: Oh but it is about chance!
I challenge anyone to take any two species, living or extinct. and provide convincing evidence that one of them is ancestral to the other. What we see going on around us is not evolution in action as the Darwinians continue blindly to assume. We observe the terminal irreversible products of a long past evolution. Just as ontogeny terminates with death of the individual, so phylogeny is terminating with the extinction of its final products. I agan suggest that Homo sapiens is the last mammalian species to appear with a documentable age under 100,000 years. Also once again I am not alone. Even Julian Huxley, author of "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis" (he coined the term) stated in no uncertain terms that a new genus has not appeared in the last two million years. page 571. I still maintain that a documentable novel species has not been produced in historical times; that is in the last 4000 years. Even if I am wrong I remain certain that it could not have been done through the agency of bisexual (Mendelian) inheritance. It is much too conservative a mechanism to ever support what has been largely, if not exclusively, a saltatinal evolution without gradual intermediates. Bateson admitted the same near the end of his life as I have documented in my papers and in the Manifesto. Neither allelic mutation nor the sexual mode of their inheritance ever had anything to do with creative evolution. Furthermore, all that we see today is rampant extinction without a single verified replacement. Phylogeny, exactly like ontogeny does now, proceeded entirely on the basis of prescribed latent information by a means in which the only conceivable role for the environment was that as a releaser for that stored information. Such creatures apparently no longer exist
Well, I guess one creature exists that might introduce new species through "artificial" means such as genetic engineering or perhaps mechanical means (AI). I, of course, agree 100% with your basic criticisms of the dominant evo theories; and have no reason to doubt the personal impact on your career that you mention on one of the links an admin provided; and kind of wonder about the banter between you and Dave Scott, but at the same time, would like to hear more about your theory and less about fights on other boards and such. Specifically, how can we identify the mechanism that this prescribed latent information could have worked it's way out into the species to create new species? If this is a process that once worked, but doesn't occur naturally, can we manipulate the process somehow to recreate it, and so test your theory?
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
Message 55 of 300 (317786)
06-05-2006 2:45 AM
|
|
|
question on reordering: how would it work?
From one of your papers....
Darwinism rests firmly on gradualism and therein resides another of its failures. The fossil record simply fails to support this notion. The semi-meiotic hypothesis, depending as it does on chromosome restructuring, represents the antithesis of gradualism and finds much in the fossil record in accord with its implications. The record often discloses the sudden appearance of new kinds of living things. For that reason I think it is more meaningful to emphasize the sudden appearance of a new kind (Genus or higher category) of organism than it is to engage in endless speculation about what constitutes a species. Virtually all the evidence supports Goldschmidt's view that subspecies are "blind alleys" which are in no way involved in the process of macroevolution, a conclusion reached by Burbank, Bateson and Petrunkevitch as well. The four higher primates, man (Homo), Chimpanzee (Pan), Gorilla (Gorilla), and Orangutan (Pongo) are all in separate genera. How can they be gradually transformed one into the other when the very differences which they so strikingly exhibit (chromosome reorganizations) by definition have no conceivably gradual or intermediate states? The restructuring of a chromosome, like pregnancy, is an all-or-none event! It is the discrete nature of species that allows an amateur bird-watcher like myself to identify every bird I see with a simple key or even a picture. It is obvious from the absence of intermediate forms that a primary role for natural selection is to prevent variation and accordingly to maintain the status quo, a conclusion reached by Punnett long ago as was indicated earlier. On the other hand, the semi-meiotic hypothesis remains in complete accord with evolutionary saltation (from the Latin saltus, to leap). Richard Goldschmidt, Leo Berg and Otto Schindewolf all favored saltation as an evolutionary device. This is highly significant because they approached evolution from completely separate directions: genetics, zoogeography and paleontology respectively. Of paramount importance is the agreement that has been reached by Schindewolf and Goldschmidt especially since each drew his conclusions independently. It is dramatically demonstrated in the following excerpt from Schindewolf's Basic Questions In Paleontology (German edition 1950, English translation 1993), page 352: ... "Indeed, Goldschmidt goes further than I and is in a position to support his phylogenetic conclusions genetically. Heholds that microevolution through the accumulation of micromutations is a process that, in adaptation to the environment, leads only to a diversification within the framework of species and does not exceed the boundaries of species. "Subspecies, therefore, are actually neither incipient species nor models for the origin of species. They are more or less diversified blind alleys within the species." Retired Service | The University of Vermont So what we would have is basically some event or force would trigger reordering of the chromosomes during the reproductive process in several new individual members of a species, or at least 2 for sexually reproducing species? And that would begin the new species or genus? I am sure you realize the creationists would just agree that your criticisms of ToE are entirely correct and prove that ToE is false based on empirical observations, and that we are left with a new hypothesis that cannot effectively be tested since this process seems to have died, having run it's course. I think the basic flaws you point out such as the fossil record not appearing to match Darwinian evolution and the dead-end nature of microevolution are fairly easy to grasp but the mechanism aspect is a little harder, at least for me. Nevertheless, I think there should be some ways to perhaps demonstrate this process or rule it out as unlikely. Do you think it could be possible to find a way to perhaps reverse the process? In other words, if there is chromosomal reordering, perhaps we can shut that off so that the older species is produced. Of course, that may come off as simply a dumb question as this particular area is one I readily admit ignorance in. Maybe WK can chime in? Edited by randman, : No reason given. Edited by randman, : for clarity
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: Testing the semi-meiotic hypothesis
It is perfectly obvious to any objective observer that the universe was designed from beginning to end. That is my perspective as it was that of my sources. You would think that the "IDists" were the first to recognize it. I was not aware many prominent IDers don't recognize this, but glad you point out the obvious here as far as design. The more I listen to you, it seems clear to me you are advancing a form of ID, and I think you are right. Darwianism has failed miserably despite the shouts to contrary. Maybe we could approach your idea from another angle. I am not sure I understand your perspective on DNA. Do you think, for example, finding ancient, preserved DNA could help in anyway or is it meaningless? In other words, does SMH have any predictions as far as ancient DNA?
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
maybe stick around?
We have all been ignored because if we are recognized the Darwinian paradigm would collapse in a millisecond. I agree, but maybe we can start some threads on some of the smaller pieces and get a good discussion, such as whether natural selection and mutations can explain similarities arising via convergent evolution, or if that's pie in the sky evo-thinking. I think it's clear that natural selection is NOT going to dictate the design of the mammalian ear (to have evolved twice), but mainstream evos think otherwise. That might be a good starting point....
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: Lack of response to the PEH/unanswered question
I am convinced that the most intensive artificial selection is incapable of crossing the species barrier. This seems a little off. There are different "genera" that can breed fertile offspring in the wild, but maybe they should not be thought of as separate species, much less separate genera or even in the case of pseudorcas and bottlenosed dolphins, sometimes as different subfamilies. Nevertheless, the notion of a distinct line that cannot be crossed is interesting. It fits with what some biblical creationists maintain, but perhaps not IDers. For me though, I would think and do think it is highly likely we can genetically manipulate a blend of different species given enough technological advancement. Do you really think this is ultimately impossible?
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: Lack of response to the PEH/unanswered question
WK, I really don't know what experiments have been done, but apparently there are no experiments demonstrating macroevolution, only experiments or observations demonstrating microevolution that evos call macroevolution. As you know, that is one reason people like me don't consider ToE real science. The dogmatism they assert unobserved claims they freely admit cannot be demonstrated via experiments is very telling. It seems to me that absent demonstration via experiments, that the dogmatism is grealy misplaced and indications of a lack of scientific understanding of what real science is, even though they always accuse their critics of that. Certainly, even if Herepton is wrong on the 200 years of experimentation, should there not have been at least 100 years of such experiments with at least some demonstrable and unequivocal successful results to warrant the insistence by evos that "evolution (meaning the Theory of Evolution, common descent for all species from a single source) is a fact"?
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Lack of response to the PEH/unanswered question
I don't mean from a single source, but a true macro-evolutionary leap so to speak, or another way to describe it would be a sufficient series of small changes to produce a creature or species that is indeed qualitatively different enough to be a macroevolutionary change.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 96 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2006 6:45 PM | | Wounded King has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: maybe stick around?
Well it certainly makes more sense that natural selection. I really don't see how random mutations and natural selection could select for the 3 inner ear bones twice. It's not as if there are no other designs that would work, and as many evos like to point out, many of these designs aren't even optimal from a practical standpoint.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: maybe stick around?
The mammalian ear, like the eye or more accurately eyes, could only have been produced in one step since functional intermediates are impossible to imagine, let alone find I agree and a common creationist argument. Is there no evo here that wants to challenge this?
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: maybe stick around?
WK, don't you think it's more likely that whatever mechanism is involved, DNA or maybe John's chromosomal rearrangement thing, that the driving force for things like the inner ear was a predisposition of that mechanism, such as DNA, to change in a prescribed direction? Let's assume it's DNA. The evidence would suggest that specific sequences of DNA were predisposed to mutate into a certain direction or pattern, and this is not just a random process per se. If there was no predisposition in the design, then we really should have seen a random process produce far more different designs for the inner ear in mammals. I think John's point, and a point I have made, is entirely correct. The dominant evo paradigm here is practically magical thinking. Whatever it is, if it's DNA, it contains a predisposition towards specific design features. It is prescribed. Or, it could just be God created them that way.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: Presisposed?
Certainly there are going to be some mutations which are more likely than others for a given sequence, but being predisposed is not the same as being prescribed. So is it a matter of degree? As far as analysis, the fact of the matter is such analysis, as usual, are absent from the evos who merely assert random mutations (an unproven assumption) and natural selection must as an article of faith be the only way it could happen. If a process is random, there really shouldn't be any duplication of design via convergent or parallel evolution. Evos have never been able to show that. They used to insist such convergencies were the result of "surface traits" only and that the design in th environment dictated a similar design appearing, but that's shot all to pieces with things like the mammalian ear. A random process should not produce identical designs, not even if guided by natural selection, because there are more effective designs that could have emerged. Heck, you guys are always blasting inefficiencies on design without realizing such inefficiencies largely disprove the evo hypothesis that natural selection selects the best design among random mutations. It is willful ignorance on the part of evos to continually assert this myth and ignore the fact the process they espouse has no reason to produce identical designs.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: Presisposed?
suggesting that natural selection would favour a more efficent extant allele over a less efficient extant one is not equivalent to saying that it will consequently lead to the most efficient possible design being the end result. No, but that's not what I said either. I question the reproduction of the same design since natural selection would always favor an improved design and selecting among random mutations should yield different designs not identical ones. In other words, if the same design emerges, it is apparent that the process has a predisposed bent towards that design, especially if the design is not optimal It if were optimal, one might could argue it was the result of the environment perfecting the design, but that's not the case.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: Presisposed?
I am open to the idea that mutations cannot work to produce macroevolution, but discussed mutations and genes for sake of argument to make the point that it is not reasonable to think a random process would evolve the same designs. But from what I have read, you are probably right. The observed mutations do not appear to be anywhere near sufficient, but this is an area I don't know as much about. I would like to see some evo challenge you on the whole genes and mutation thing here, but looks like that won't happen. Wonder why?
|
™ Version 4.2