|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 24, 2009 20:14:00 GMT
They haven't read Thomas Kuhn yet. I love their blinkers. I understand mine. And still stuck in Victorian Science! ;D (as the 6 day creationists are still stuck in pre-Copernican platonic cosmology)
No point in arguing with an interpretive paradigm and belief structure.
Simply to repeat that there is no such thing as "higher", "progress", "fittest" in a blind chance theory. To explain HOW something APPEARS to happen isn't a mechanism, but a myth or magic.
In the same way, throwing numbers around as the cause of climate patterns, such as PDO, SOI, is also invalid. Seeing relationships & patterns isn't understanding the cause. Empirical relationships, (i.e. those based purely on observation rather that based on theory+data) such as the CO2-temperature connection, may be useful but are often related to less well understood factors that are the true cause (warm oceans spewing out CO2 for example.)
Even the Force of Gravity isn't really understood. We understand the numbers & the patterns, but can't really grasp the reality of it. We mistake our interpretations for reality. At least with Gravity we have a predictive theory. With Climate we are not really close to long term prediction of climate change, not even weather. NIWA claim 50% accuracy is the world standard of accuracy. Excuse me, that looks like a 'why bother' to me! With evolution, there is no prediction of the rate of increase in number of species per year (in fact, species appear to be declining). It has no predictive power, only explanative.
In any case, I don't dispute the scientific data. I just don't think we have a valid explanation for the punctuated evolutionary bursts and rapid adaption of species to major "evolutionary" pressures. Hard to avoid using that word. Citing the fossil record doesn't amount to an argument.
I have my own "myth" as the driving force behind the data. I choose not to use the word "evolution" due to its connotations, but the effect is the same. We all have to choose our myth. Blind chance & chaos doesn't seem likely, and doesn't make much of a cultural imperative. It sure seems to be a pretty good explanation of the current state of the west though!
There is no "pure" "neutral" (I almost said blind) science. As scientists, we cannot separate our world view, politics, religion, and emotions from the argument. Some of us, with age & wisdom, have learnt by wide experience, to understand our own bias & also see it in others.
Those who deny they have bias, and only see it in their opponents are the most to be pitied.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 24, 2009 23:47:11 GMT
poitsplace, socold, I am not arguing against evolution per se, but against the mechanism of chance mutation as cause of species divergence. Again, chance mutation has a problem with the sudden spurts of grwoth after ELE's (& there may be other times) unless you can posit a reason for a sudden & massive change in mutation rates at those times & only those times. Given we only have slightly educated guesses for the causes of some of the ELE's that would seem an unlikely posit. kiwi & I have widely divergent views on some things & similar but not the same on others, but we're both seeing the same thing in regard to Evolution & cimate - in both cases the established consensus doesn't seem to give the answers they purport to give. Weather & climate are vastly complex systems, accurately described as chaotic - to pick out a single factor as causative for alterations in those systems would seem, particularly at the current state of knowledge, a little premature,. Just casting the eye of an open mind across these forums will show the climate science is definitely not settled. The deabtes rage & data is thrown back & forth, but ignoring the tactics & fortified positions, it is apparent there is still a lot to learn. Declaring under such conditions that it's all settled or even that we know the causes of things isn't science, it's politics. The growth of species & genera is also a complex system, which may or may not be chaotic (depending on the causes we find) & the state of knowledge has changed remarkably since Darwin. Before deciding we know all about Evolution, we need to inform ourselves of changes that may affect it & also re-examine the society that came up with the 'it's all random chance' explanation. As kiwi says, the environment around knowledge can affect that knowledge. Species are artificial creations; Mankind likes to classify things but Nature has no such system. Given most species were categorised centuries ago based on form, we should really revisit those categories in the light on new knowledge. DNA is no longer thought to be the prime determinant for heredity; too many issues with genes being present in a variety of life forms having different expression. If DNA is not the determinant for gene expression or possibly even causative in development, then random mutation of genetic structure takes on a different importance. Punctuated Equilibrium is still a sticking point for random mutation as a cause for Evolution. Without a cause known for the sudden changes in species, there would appear to be something else driving the changes & creating new species.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Jan 25, 2009 0:17:20 GMT
The problem I see with "beneficial mutation" is its simplicity.
The implication is that a gene mutates and you have something new.
If that were the case, we should have hundreds if not thousands of useless parts of systems within our bodies. But we don't. They all have a purpose, even if we don't completey understand something like the appendix, until recently.
The eye would not have formed from a single mutation. You need the optic nerve, the membranes, the lens, the occular fluid, rods, cones, and so on. Not just a simple alteration to one gene.
Now add symmetry to the mix.
Now take it to sexual reproduction. Not only are numerous systems involved, but you need two creatures with compatible equipment, and the knowledge or instict to put tab "A" into slot "B". And once this first creature is born, they know what to do with it.
Sorry, but this isn't just a simple hurdle to dismiss.
As for donkeys and horses, aren't mules sterile? They may have made a mutant, but he isn't reproducing.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 25, 2009 2:07:24 GMT
jimg, it's even more difficult than the gene mutation issue. On the first page of this thread I talk about the grandmother research - it alone has blown standard genetics wide open.
Lamarck claimed that the expriences of a life would affect the development of the next generation - turns out we can & are documenting this.
And Lamarck, AFAIK, didn't go far enough - the effect is being documented in succeeding generations as well. Also there's evidence that a mother in a stressful environment will produce an athlete, not a genius - a seperate issue to the grandmother process.
Even in standard genetics the epigenetic process has been altering the view of how cells work, & with recent work by a numbwer of researchers there are questions about what we actually are being raised within straight biology.
And it appears the question of what causes Evolution is not being addressed by those in the mainstream camp - I read back over some of the posts & it's clear that what is being questioned is the whole random mutation idea yet the replies from those who believe in Evolution as it is written in the texts keep trying to imply some kind of denial of Evolution at all.
To make it clear once more, as in agw where the basic question isn't whether or not the temperature is changing but whether the prime cause is CO2, in Evolution, it isn't the process itself we are talking about, it is what is causing or triggering it.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Jan 25, 2009 2:47:43 GMT
See, I disagree.
I have come to the conclusion that belief in evolution, ie, people developing from a protoplasm, requires just as much faith as does believing a creator made it happen, regardless of the mechanism used.
Hybridizing is not the same as the quantum leaps required to make people from goo.
Though it appears from our average high school scores in the USA that we may be devolving.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 25, 2009 3:05:21 GMT
See, I disagree. I have come to the conclusion that belief in evolution, ie, people developing from a protoplasm, requires just as much faith as does believing a creator made it happen, regardless of the mechanism used. Hybridizing is not the same as the quantum leaps required to make people from goo. Though it appears from our average high school scores in the USA that we may be devolving. Um... with which part do you disagree? There's a number of things raised there. Or is it all of Evolution that is the problem for you? ;D EDIT: Do you have a view on where we all came from? For how so many types came to be?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jan 25, 2009 3:10:14 GMT
The problem I see with "beneficial mutation" is its simplicity. The implication is that a gene mutates and you have something new. If that were the case, we should have hundreds if not thousands of useless parts of systems within our bodies. But we don't. They all have a purpose, even if we don't completey understand something like the appendix, until recently. You've entirely misunderstood the changes such mutation usually cause. You might as well be arguing with a programmer that his program cannot POSSIBLY work the way he thinks it does when you have no idea what the program is supposed to do in the first place, no knowledge of the programming language and no knowledge of the system it's running on. There are so many intricacies to deal with...like the fact that most of your body's systems have redundant or semi-redundant backups. Take a failure like diabetes...your kidneys also serve a secondary function and automatically lower your blood sugar by removing the excess should your body's normal sugar regulation fail. This of course doesn't answer your "thousands of organs" question...and quite frankly it is probably beyond the scope of this medium for me to get that information across to you. There is no "trunk" gene in an elephant or "eye" gene for your eyes. We each carry a sort of basic genetic toolkit usually with multiple factors governing each of thousands of subsystems in an incredibly complex dance of equilibrium shifts that results in...you, ginko trees, mice, sea slugs, whatever. Indeed and eyes started out before there were even multicellular organisms. Eventually eye spots developed in organisms along with simple nerves connections. As complexity increased it would have formed eye pits...slightly recessed at first with multiple sensors (eye spots on stalks are not as directional and would therefore have been less useful). Eventually the pit would have gotten deeper and the density of spots would have increased and obviously at some point it actually forms a sort of pinhole camera. No lenses necessary, just some mucous to keep it from filling up. Over time a membrane would have formed and that would have eventually turned into a lense. Each of these steps is immediately beneficial and even though "incomplete" by our perception...still an improvement. This is perhaps the single simplest aspect of our genetic toolkit. Actually sexual reproduction started with single celled organisms...and may have been an offshoot of the original proto-life that involved more lateral transfers of genetic information. I'd say it's more like a mountain that's too high to jump over. Life however didn't ever 'jump' the mountain. Life simply went up one step at a time. Heh, they do sometimes have the ability to reproduce. That's not the real issue though. Many species can interbreed. The definition of a species isn't actually that they are so different that they CAN'T interbreed (although that is often the case and always the case with very distantly related species)...it's that they're quantifiably different and they only rarely interbreed. Lions and tigers can interbreed. Heck, it may be quite possible for housecats and lions to interbreed...heh, but they have different behaviors and sizes that prevent it. Even something as simple as a mutation that makes a fish tend to like (perhaps because of a smell receptor being formed differently) muddy spawning grounds v/s sandy. Should a significant population of those fish get the muddy gene they'll mate almost exclusively with others with the same trait. From that point they'll diverge genetically (A) simply because they spread different mutations in the two different populations and (B) because their choice of environment has been affected by a mutation that affects their senses and that new environment will likely favor a slightly different subset of their accumulated (possibly, previously neutral) traits. I don't expect you to take all this in but these are just a few of the things you're apparently not getting. There's a LOT of information and it would probably take a significant amount of study to pick it all up. There's absolutely nothing wrong with you not knowing or not wanting to learn this information...but it would be silly to dismiss something as unreasonable if you don't actually have a full understanding (or even a good, general overview) of the material in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Jan 25, 2009 7:11:35 GMT
Like I said Poits...
You have great faith in your ideology. You have absolutely no scientific evidence to back up your claims. It is all conjecture and hypothesis. That cannot be verified.
Thus, faith is required to accept it. Which then makes it a religeon when that faith is forced upon the populace as the only solution.
With a creator, it's all quite simple. We were designed as such. 7 days, a billion years, makes no difference to me.
Your explanation of the incredible leap to sexual reproduction is exceptionally simplistic for such a complex change.
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Jan 25, 2009 11:04:20 GMT
With a creator, it's all quite simple. We were designed as such. 7 days, a billion years, makes no difference to me. Your explanation of the incredible leap to sexual reproduction is exceptionally simplistic for such a complex change. But doesn't the question of how the Creator came to be bother you?
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 25, 2009 12:05:54 GMT
Personally I don't have much problem with the sexual reproduction issue - it is simple enough to see it as a failed or rather, partially successful invasion.
When cell division is all you have, all copies are identical - come a predator with a way through the defences & the identical copies ALL fail. But if an organism can pick up some traits from the almost successful invader, it can use those to help repel the next attack. There are still some issues I don't get immediate answers for but it's possible to see a path.
What still isn't so sensible is the diea that the same genes, over & over again are responsible for a multitude of different results. As pointed out, there's no trunk gene but somehow the same gene brings about snouts, muzzles, noses & even I think cilia.
So genes are not the answer, or at least not the complete answer. As I said earlier, genes are the pile of bricks out on the front lawn, waiting to make a house. But something has to make that pile into a building & the type of building will depend on purpose & environment.
Genes simply cannot do this. Cells use genes to produce proteins, that's it, Nothing else. There has to be some other mechanism for telling the cells which to produce & when.
Epigenetics appears to be a control mechanism, but it's in the wrong place. Cells trigger by signal from outside the cell. Since I heard this I've been looking for evidence that there can be internal cell triggers & I haven't yet found such.
Genes, even modified ones, do NOT cause behaviour or deviation from the blueprint - they can cause the blueprint to fail or they can alter a result but they do not cause anything. They are bricks, building blocks for making proteins.
On the other hand we aren't quite sure what the so-called 'junk DNA does, but we are very sure it gets copied for reproduction. Epigenetics seems to be able to turn gene expression on or off & it may be responsive to environment, but even that mechanism is unknown as yet. The process may be responsible for altering mutation rates or changing genetic inheritance but we simply don't know.
One thing is pretty certain though - genes as they are cannot be the cause of Evolution. To think this is so shows a lack of understanding of how cells work. The public perception out there is that DNA is like the brain of a cell, that it is the controller of all the cell does & this is simply not true in any way. A blueprint does not build a building nor do bricks. They are tools used along the way.
I note there's been no attempt to show a changing mutation rate or to explain how a steady tick of mutation can suddenly explode the number & variety of life forms.
It does not reflect well to simply act as if those who disagree don't know anything about the subject if you don't then explain how they might be in error. Stating they are ignorant without providing refutation of what they say is simply poor debating tactics.
There appear to be growing numbers of 'religious' subjects in science these days. Redshift is one, agw is another & it is apparent that Evolution is also one.
Pointing out that lions & tigers can breed has already been mentioned - strangely there are no families of tigrons & ligers around - but given Humans invented species as a classification, trying to call them different species simply points out the paucity of knowledge when the classifications were made.
We still don't really have enough information to classify species properly - under the normal rules we'd be hard pressed to separate out man & chimp as being different species.
Evolution cannot be simply described as being all about genes, when so much of what we thought we knew about genes is showing to be incorrect & we are finding things that simply cannot be explained by genes.
Deciding that natural mutation is causative ignores the punctuated equilibrium idea as well as the plethora of life immediately after ELE's. Availability of ecosphere isn't a good enough explanation if mutation proceeeds at the same pace it always has.
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Jan 25, 2009 12:24:23 GMT
Evolution in action? "ScienceDaily (Jan. 24, 2009) — Penn State Assistant Professor of Biology Tracy Langkilde has shown that native fence lizards in the southeastern United States are adapting to potentially fatal invasive fire-ant attacks by developing behaviors that enable them to escape from the ants, as well as by developing longer hind legs, which can increase the effectiveness of this behavior." www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121123041.htm
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 25, 2009 17:47:43 GMT
The evolution of the reptile/mammal jaw is one example where the fossil record is coincidentally in favor of common descent.
Reptiles have a different joint in their jaw than mammals, reptilian lower jaw is also made of several bones wheras the mammal lower jaw is made of one. In the right time periods in the fossil record are found fossils which have both joints, with later fossils showing use of the mammal one primarily with the reptilian one becoming vestigal or used for another purpose. The number of bones in the lower jaw is also transitional, as are the teeth, etc. It all points to a certain line of reptiles slowing becoming the first mammals, which necessitates a biological mechanism to explain how such changes can occur over time.
We can see today how species can change over time, how selection can alter the genome and form of creatures. It's not really much of a stretch to see that over millions of years the transition from some reptiles into the first mammals could take place, especially when some of the staging posts are found in the fossil record. Even if the details are not all known (which specific genes were involved, etc), the evidence is overwhelming that this is how it happened.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Jan 25, 2009 20:49:17 GMT
But once again socold, you are juxtaposing causation with correlation. A common theme in AGW theory.
You are seeing something in nature and attributing a conclusion to that correlation.
Although both critters have similar jaws, that is not a post-facto conclusion that one is an ancestor of the other.
As such it is a hypothesis. That hypothesis makes sense to you. Therefore, your world is in order.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Jan 25, 2009 21:01:51 GMT
Do I have trouble with not being able to explain where the creator came from. Not at all. Am I curious? Absolutely! ex: A scientist sequences DNA to replicate the virus that was the source of the flu epidemic in the early 1900's because that virus no longer exists. (really, not made up. He wanted to see how it worked to find a vaccine for existing flus. www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol12no01/05-0979.htm) (amazing stuff) Now, the new virus had a creator. He took the building blocks, sequenced them together and made this virulent critter. Being a virus, it did not consider where it came from. It didn't have the capability. Man does. Some find comfort in the belief in a creator. It orders their world. It provides an explanation for the way things are. They look at the complexity of life and ask "how can anyone believe that this is all by random chance." Others look at the world and all of its violence and ask "how can there be a God who is compassionate?" As such, they are content(?) with the belief that there is none, and all that is or was came about by random chance. When we are gone, all is done. No consequence, no accountability. Just nothingness. If a being that would be considered multi dimensional, did in fact create us, would we understand their essence with current technology?
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Jan 25, 2009 21:05:40 GMT
tobyglyn wrote about "evolution in action".
Interacial marriage has bestowed upon the children traits that are common to both parents. How does this differ from what you are discussing regarding the lizards?
Does this prove that we came from goo?
Granted, goo is the non-scientific term.
|
|