38
   

Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2018 06:02 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
The Hopeful Monster belongs to your story, not mine. You believe/hope that an enzyme figured out a way to evolve and become a farmer one day. Along the way you believe this little monster had a few lucky 'profound "saltational" 'changes occur, you sometimes call it P.E. - punctuated equilibrium.
.
Try not to be an idiot. I dont confess to that post. I popped it in as a condescending way to explain how your "frontloading" concept is the hopeful monster of Golding rewritten for the internet .

ITS THE BASIS OF YOUR BELIEF, not related to my profession.
As I said many times, the rates of evolution are basically dictated by ability to adapt and breed to match the changes in environment. No Gods need apply nor "frontloaded algorithms" Im sure, as you pick up more technical terms, youll xpand your phrases into longer streams of nonsense
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2018 06:06 am
@Leadfoot,
As I said , your IDer appears either to be lazy or incompetent. (Now Im sure you will replay that ID was made to "LOOK LIKE mindless evolution"). Remember when you said that??
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2018 09:05 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Has the rate of evolution ever been established?
Good point, but it's limits have been explored pretty extensively. As we have discussed before, we've never actually seen any evolution directly. It's just a theoretical scenario which fits the evidence as long as you assume Neo Darwinian Evolution to be true as well as assuming the speed of evolution is fast enough to explain what we see today. It has never demonstrated that speed experimentally.

The closest we've come is doing forced 'evolution' on bacteria. The mutations observed were destruction of an existing function which caused a change in its choice of sugars to eat. That simply does not support the speed of changes that actually happened.

We don't know how fast evolution can go, but it's a damn site slower than anything we can see or measure so far, unless you want to count trivial changes in hair length, beak sizes, dog breeding, etc. Those are too weak to be evidence of macro evolution.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2018 09:10 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
ITS THE BASIS OF YOUR BELIEF, not related to my profession.
No one interested in another's POV tells them what they think, believe, etc.

I got no patience for that ****.

farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2018 11:53 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
No one interested in another's POV tells them (the "other"?) what they think, believe, etc.


You do it all the time, if I unerstand even what it was you were trying to say. You told me that the concept of a "hopedul monster" was my iea, when actually I was trying to draw you a simplistic model of how analagous it was that your "front loading" was nothing more than the "Hopeful monster" concept. I think most people here are wise to your attempts at quickly hanging your opinions in a clandestine fashion.



I dont believe you wish to debate, you wish only to proselytize.
Im not certain , despite your protestations to the contrary, that you even understand genetic variability and how its expressed within a population.

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2018 07:35 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
You told me that the concept of a "hopedul monster" was my iea,

And I showed the reasons why that was true, to anyone who was really paying attention.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2018 09:24 am
@Leadfoot,
you must have your age creeping up the spinal column. I used the hopeful monster as a negative analogy proposed in the 30's , .YOU, I argued , were using the same logic with your Frontloading stuff. Tell me why Im wrong??
SOmeone here once said that you like to misinterpret and mischaracterize what others say .
Ive since seen that this is quite true.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2018 09:28 am
@Leadfoot,
ALSO, stop your goddam cherry pickin quote mining. What I actually said had Nothing to do with your bumper sticker quote

Quote:

You do it all the time, if I understand even what it was you were trying to say. You told me that the concept of a "hofedul monster" was my iea, when actually I was trying to draw you a simplistic model of how analogous it was that your "front loading" was nothing more than the "Hopeful monster" concept
At least be honest and complete.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2018 08:00 pm
@farmerman,
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hopeful_monster
Quote:
Modern science
Some modern scientists have written that hopeful monsters are neither impossible nor should be seen as anti-Darwinian because even if proven to exist would not replace the evidence for gradual evolution by mutation but supplement it. The early neo-Darwinian synthesis theorists had rejected hopeful monsters due to lack of evidence; however there is now evidence that Goldschmidt was not entirely wrong.

Richard Dawkins wrote in his book Climbing Mount Improbable (1996):

“”My suggestion is that Scyllarus may actually present an example in the wild of a homeotic mutation, analogous to antennapedia in Drosophila in the laboratory. Unlike antennapedia, this mutation has been incorporated into an actual evolutionary change in nature. My tentative conjecture is that an ancestral Scyllarid mutated homeotically, slipping the developmental subroutine appropriate to a uropod into a segment where an antenna ought to be, and that the change conferred some benefit. If I am right, it would constitute a rare example of a macro-mutation’s being favoured by natural selection: a rare vindication of the so-called ‘hopeful monster’ theory that we met in Chapter 3.[17]
Donald R. Prothero in his book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters (2007) has written:

“”The past twenty years have vindicated Goldschmidt to some degree. With the discovery of the importance of regulatory genes, we realize that he was ahead of his time in focusing on the importance of a few genes controlling big changes in the organisms, not small-scales changes in the entire genome as neo-Darwinians thought. In addition, the hopeful monster problem is not so insurmountable after all. Embryology has shown that if you affect an entire population of developing embryos with a stress (such as a heat shock) it can cause many embryos to go through the same new pathway of embryonic development, and then they all become hopeful monsters when they reach reproductive age.[18]
In 2008 evolutionary biologist Olivia Judson in her article The Monster Is Back, and It’s Hopeful listed some examples which may support the hopeful monster hypothesis[19] and an article published in the nature journal in 2010 titled Evolution: Revenge of the Hopeful Monster reported that studies in stickleback populations in a British Columbia lake and bacteria populations in a Michigan lab have shown that large individual genetic changes can have vast effects on organisms "without dooming it to the evolutionary rubbish heap". According to the article "Single-gene changes that confer a large adaptive value do happen: they are not rare, they are not doomed and, when competing with small-effect mutations, they tend to win. But small-effect mutations still matter — a lot. They provide essential fine-tuning and sometimes pave the way for explosive evolution to follow."[20]

A paper by (Page et al. 2010) have written that the Mexican axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum) could be classified as a hopeful monster as it exhibits an adaptive and derived mode of development that has evolved rapidly and independently among tiger salamanders. According to the paper there has been a recent interest in aspects of the hopeful monster hypothesis in recent years:

“”Goldschmidt proposed that mutations occasionally yield individuals within populations that deviate radically from the norm and referred to such individuals as "hopeful monsters". If the novel phenotypes of hopeful monsters arise under the right environmental circumstances, they may become fixed, and the population will found a new species. While this idea was discounted during the Modern synthesis, aspects of the hopeful monster hypothesis have been substantiated in recent years. For example, it is clear that dramatic changes in phenotype can occur from few mutations of key developmental genes and phenotypic differences among species often map to relatively few genetic factors. These findings are motivating renewed interest in the study of hopeful monsters and the perspectives they can provide about the evolution of development. In contrast to mutants that are created in the lab, hopeful monsters have been shaped by natural selection and are therefore more likely to reveal mechanisms of adaptive evolution.[21]
Evolutionary developmental biology
Goldschmidt presented two mechanisms for how hopeful monsters might work. One mechanism, involved “systemic mutations”, rejected the classical gene concept and is no longer considered by most modern scientists however, his second mechanism involved “developmental macromutations” in “rate genes” or “controlling genes” that change early development and thus cause large effects in the adult phenotype. These kind of mutations are similar to the ones considered in contemporary evolutionary developmental biology.[22]

Guenter Theissen
Guenter Theissen a professor of genetics has classified homeotic mutants as hopeful monsters and documented many examples for animal and plant lineages that may have originated as hopeful monsters in his scientific publications (Theissen, 2005 and Theissen et al. 2006).[23][24]

Creationist quote mining
Creationists are known for notoriously quote mining Goldschmidt, misrepresenting his views on purpose and for setting up a straw man definition of the hopeful monster. Thousands of creationist books since the 1960's have described the hopeful monster hypothesis as a bird hatching from a dinosaur egg or a reptile laying an egg with a bird popping out. The creationist Duane Gish was known for promoting this misrepresentation thoughout his books which he described as believing in a miracle.

In Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (1983) Philip Kitcher has discussed this issue, and wrote:

“”So far as I know, nobody is currently defending the idea that the birds evolved through the emergence of a single individual bird from a reptilian egg. The principal suggestion has been that some mutations - perhaps mutations in regulatory genes - might produce large effects by altering the timing of developmental events. By modifying the pattern of development, they could produce organisms with a different form from that of the parents.[25]
Unfortunately creationists out of dishonesty never choose to really study what Goldschmidt actually said and continue to peddle the lie that he promoted the view that birds popped out of reptile eggs. According to Stephen Jay Gould the scientist who speculated that the first bird may have hatched from a reptile's egg was Otto Schindewolf who linked cosmic radiation to mutational rates from supernova explosions.[26] Creationists have obviously confused the ideas of Goldschmidt with Schindewolf.

See also


Unfortunately The statement quoted from the above article:

" The principal suggestion has been that some mutations - perhaps mutations in regulatory genes - might produce large effects by altering the timing of developmental events. By modifying the pattern of development, they could produce organisms with a different form from that of the parents."

Has never been proven, is not able to be replicated and, is a dishonest statement if it is suggested that as a principle suggestion it has a scientific basis. Especially, since the mechanism that could produce a different form is even close to being understood or explained and it appears if it is to be replicated the scientists intelligence is more than likely going to have to be a major factor in the success of them process getting a replicating a mechanism that logically works.

Beyond, most scientists being hopeful (without any scientific data to support it) that it can replicated without intelligence as an essential part of the mechanism, what other reason should the statement be called scientific?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2018 08:08 pm
Your constant bullshit statements about "intelligence" is the unscientific thing here, and of course, has absolutely no evidential basis.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2018 08:23 pm
@Setanta,
Why can't recognizing the pattern that obviously emerges when comparing the format of the periodic table containing information and being created by intelligence to assuming the format of matter (which contains the same information as the periodic table) was also created by intelligence?

Isn't recognizing patterns scientific?

Isn't intelligently creating the periodic table a form of replicating the intelligent creation of matter?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2018 08:36 pm
@Setanta,
You're trying to discuss a subject with someone who never provides any evidence for his claims. Arguing with a cement wall will get you nowhere.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2018 09:11 pm
I no longer recall why I bowed out of this thread. I just read most of the first ten pages and am amazed at the erudite responses and how restrained, comparatively, most posters were. I find that I was in some instances disrupting the flow and for that I am truly sorry. I plan to read on, next week. Thank you all who have so far participated.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2018 09:46 pm
@edgarblythe,
When I saw this thread had been revived, EB, I did the same thing. So many good responses by people we see little of these days. The actual topic of the thread, has, I am sad to say, been forgotten. That was not such a problem when the thread was new, because the discussion was lively and interesting. Now, we've just got the god squad trying to shove there IDiocy down everyone's throats.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2018 09:53 pm
@brianjakub,
Nothing is scientific about assuming a condition exists (your bullsh*t intelligence line) and then attempting to shoe-horn the data into the mold you have created. You have never provided the least shred of evidence for the intelligence about which you constantly bleat. That is not in the least scientific.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2018 09:54 pm
@Setanta,
For those who do not understand evolution, and don't plan to delve into the literature on the subject, the first pages make an excellent introduction. I hope others will take a look.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2018 06:04 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

I no longer recall why I bowed out of this thread. I just read most of the first ten pages and am amazed at the erudite responses and how restrained, comparatively, most posters were. I find that I was in some instances disrupting the flow and for that I am truly sorry. I plan to read on, next week. Thank you all who have so far participated.

My thanks does not include the obsessive compulsives who exist only to crash and trash threads,
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2018 06:38 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
As we have discussed before, we've never actually seen any evolution directly
We have? Ive been fairly consistent that actual evolution has been studied in real time, although I know the Creationist Grumpy's and the theistic IDers argue otherwise. Cichlid fish hve changed genera in less than 200 years, the Grants study of finches occupying new islands of the Galapagos , and several insect genera adapting to climate change in less than 10 generations. HUGE piles of microvolution data are being compiled by several centers as animals occupy urban areas and adapt by phenotypic modifications
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2018 06:56 am
@brianjakub,
Assuming "rationale Wicki's" politico=religious leanings, I dont deny their oown quote mining of Dr Dawkins. To his credit though, he never closes the door on any hypothesis he later in his same book, discusses the "slam dunk" evidence that Creationists seem to pick and use to "make a case with minimal evidence"

The evidence for evolution isnt that way, Its more like a civil case where the preponderance of evidence supports the proposal and that theres nothing to refute it. Its not a criminal case .
Theres no evidence for hopeful monsters, none. What there is, is a series of assertions that are quite casuistic (its marketing of religious based science in most cases).

I dont buy hopeful monsters and frontloading (borrowing LF's term with my understanding). Now tht we are more able to decode the chemistry of genes and epigenes, we see these vast sludge pools of"acquired" variation many of which are inheritable . I know, Im starting to rethink Lmarck after reading Ward's review and Hazens "evolution" of minerals

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2018 07:11 am
@Setanta,
I think the topic of the thread has gone in a logical footpath. When we ask"Is something dangerous as a concept"? The automatic response is
"WELL, to whom is it actually dangerous"?
This thred has "matured in that direction" Even the pro science guys like us, are guilty of proselytizing from our understandings.
I personal dont mind specially when we get some good arguments.
Not the kind that spend half their posts with "ha ha ha ha" (thats lame), but even evidence-free proposals can rise to hypotheses and make one think a bit more about the "canons of science"

gott go for a day and a half a mile
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 07:41:08