26
   

Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2018 07:16 am
@farmerman,
I greatly appreciate your posts aimed at keeping honest science going here as in other such threads.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2018 10:19 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
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).


And there are not enough missing links in the fossil record. Hopeful monsters, God of the gaps, Punctuated Equilibrium, Front loading, etc. . . are all logical explanations we just need to decide which ones are logical and repeatable.

Quote:
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


Isn't that the same as admitting there was front loading of information that runs a system (a form of AI) to manage evolution?

And now, that we are just now starting to understand it, you are using linguistic tricks to say ID without using the words Intelligent Design?
Helloandgoodbye
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2018 10:57 am
@edgarblythe,
I recall why I ‘bowed out’ of engaging with this site, and the ppl on it.
The same reason as why there comes a point with any person, or group of individuals who are religious extremists which are ‘right’ no mattter what evidence is presented ya know?
I love to share truth, and engage for a better understanding of things. But as the saying goes ‘dont Throw your pearls to pigs, who will just trample them under their feet.’
Many ppl on here which embrace the religious belief that life was created by an unintelligent source, and can do more than simply adapt (but can evolve) to their designed limits do just that.
So, I share, I use ppl as leverage to test to see if my understanding of things is built on a solid foundation, and then move on.

Merry CHRISTmas everyone Smile
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2018 12:48 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
Quote:
And there are not enough missing links in the fossil record.
Hopeful monsters, God of the gaps, Punctuated Equilibrium, Front loading, etc. . . are all logical explanations we just need to decide which ones are logical and repeatable.
You wouldn't understand logic if it slapped you on the face.
Quote:
log·ic
/ˈläjik/Submit
noun
Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
"experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic"
synonyms: reasoning, line of reasoning, rationale, argument, argumentation
"the logic of their argument"
Also,
Quote:
sci·ence
/ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Quote:
And there are not enough missing links in the fossil record.
. There are enough to arrive at some, reasonable, conclusions from what is available and what becomes available in the future. DNA was discovered in the mid 1950's. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dna-at-60-still-much-to-learn/
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2019 04:21 pm
Goddamn this tablet and its moronic autocorrect.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2019 08:08 pm
@Setanta,
no putting curses on your appliances.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jul, 2019 09:41 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Quote:
And there are not enough missing links in the fossil record.

. There are enough to arrive at some, reasonable, conclusions from what is available and what becomes available in the future. DNA was discovered in the mid 1950's. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dna-at-60-still-much-to-learn/


The article's main point is,

"The complex results of evolution that have been achieved by DNA are understood, but the mechanisms involved in reaching these results are not understood, and people like you don't even know how little science actually does understand."

For that reason you base your conclusions based on scientific conclusions that were made using inductive reasoning describing mechanisms that are not even understood. Here is a quote from the article in Scientific America that you linked. (See bold type)

Quote:
problem shared
Barely a whisper of this vibrant debate reaches the public. Take evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins' description in Prospect magazine last year of the gene as a replicator with “its own unique status as a unit of Darwinian selection”. It conjures up the decades-old picture of a little, autonomous stretch of DNA intent on getting itself copied, with no hint that selection operates at all levels of the biological hierarchy, including at the supraorganismal level, or that the very idea of 'gene' has become problematic.

Why this apparent reluctance to acknowledge the complexity? One roadblock may be sentimentality. Biology is so complicated that it may be deeply painful for some to relinquish the promise of an elegant core mechanism. In cosmology, a single, shattering fact (the Universe's accelerating expansion) cleanly rewrote the narrative. But in molecular evolution, old arguments, for instance about the importance of natural selection and random drift in driving genetic change, are now colliding with questions about non-coding RNA, epigenetics and genomic network theory. It is not yet clear which new story to tell.

Then there is the discomfort of all this uncertainty following the rhetoric surrounding the Human Genome Project, which seemed to promise, among other things, 'the instructions to make a human'. It is one thing to revise our ideas about the cosmos, another to admit that we are not as close to understanding ourselves as we thought.

There may also be anxiety that admitting any uncertainty about the mechanisms of evolution will be exploited by those who seek to undermine it. Certainly, popular accounts of epigenetics and the ENCODE results have been much more coy about the evolutionary implications than the developmental ones. But we are grown-up enough to be told about the doubts, debates and discussions that are leaving the putative 'age of the genome' with more questions than answers. Tidying up the story bowdlerizes the science and creates straw men for its detractors. Simplistic portrayals of evolution encourage equally simplistic demolitions.


When the structure of DNA was first deduced, it seemed to supply the final part of a beautiful puzzle, the solution for which began with Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel. The simplicity of that picture has proved too alluring. For the jubilee, we should do DNA a favor and lift some of the awesome responsibility for life's complexity from its shoulders.


To understand a mechanism you must be able to picture in your mind how the mechanism works. You cannot understand how an automatic transmission works by driving a car and watching it shift, you must understand by picturing what the mechanisms inside the transmission are doing.

An interesting bias is revealed in the final bold faced line.

Quote:

There may also be anxiety that admitting any uncertainty about the mechanisms of evolution will be exploited by those who seek to undermine it.Certainly, popular accounts of epigenetics and the ENCODE results have been much more coy about the evolutionary implications than the developmental ones. But we are grown-up enough to be told about the doubts, debates and discussions that are leaving the putative 'age of the genome' with more questions than answers. Tidying up the story bowdlerizes the science and creates straw men for its detractors. Simplistic portrayals of evolution encourage equally simplistic demolitions.


The author eliminates opposing views by labeling them as straw men arguments without discussing them. The problem is, he is eliminating arguments strictly on the type of philosophy being used to interpret the data by the opposition. (naive realism and objective idealism rather than materialism and subjective idealism) instead of the nature of the data. It is legitimate to use inductive reasoning to assume intelligence is possibly behind complex structures when we observe that pattern everyday in human intelligence. Human intelligence reveals everyday that intelligence in nature is a vital ingredient to complexity in nature. It is a legitimate use of inductive reasoning to objectively conclude that the pattern established by humans on a small scale could follow through on a grander scale in nature as a whole.

wiki
Quote:
Naturalism is a philosophical belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world according to the laws of physics. According to the following quote from Wikipedia:

Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists, and the following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method:
1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers. "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality." "Objective reality is clearly an essential thing if we are to develop a meaningful perspective of the world. Nevertheless, its very existence is assumed." Our belief that objective reality exist is an assumption that it arises from a real world outside of ourselves. As infants we made this assumption unconsciously. People are happy to make this assumption that adds meaning to our sensations and feelings, than live with solipsism." Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else.”
2. that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; "Science, at least today, assumes that the universe obeys to knowable principles that don't depend on time or place, nor on subjective parameters such as what we think, know or how we behave." Hugh Gauch argues that science presupposes that "the physical world is orderly and comprehensible."
3. that reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation. Stanley Sobottka said, "The assumption of external reality is necessary for science to function and to flourish. For the most part, science is the discovering and explaining of the external world." "Science attempts to produce knowledge that is as universal and objective as possible within the realm of human understanding."
4. that Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould referred to these two closely related propositions as the constancy of nature's laws and the operation of known processes. Simpson agrees that the axiom of uniformity of law, an unprovable postulate, is necessary for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the unobservable past in order to meaningfully study it.
5. that experimental procedures will be done satisfactorily without any deliberate or unintentional mistakes that will influence the results.
6. that experimenters won't be significantly biased by their presumptions.
7. that random sampling is representative of the entire population. A simple random sample (SRS) is the most basic probabilistic option used for creating a sample from a population. The benefit of SRS is that the investigator is guaranteed to choose a sample that represents the population that ensures statistically valid conclusions.


The first assumption is ignored because an objective reality must be viewed from a point of view that is on the scales of time and the physical size (universal and microscopic ) that outside the natural capabilities of a man. (One must use inductive reasoning to obtain a God's eye view of the processes even if you don't believe in God. as described in number 4 above.)

And 5, 6 and 7 are ignored by assuming the complexity can be explained away without intelligence and intentionally eliminating it from the discussion because it "might" provide a straw man argument for the opposing view.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jul, 2019 12:25 pm
@brianjakub,
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170818102320.htm
Quote:
Science Newsfrom research organizations
Mechanisms explaining positional diversity of the hindlimb in tetrapod evolution
brianjakub
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2019 07:56 am
@cicerone imposter,
Here are a couple of quotes from your link supporting ID as a likely initiator to information system we view as reproduction in biological organisms.

Quote:
Although researchers have long studied tetrapod anatomy, how the species-specific position of the body parts of these species -- for example, the hindlimb position along the body -- are formed in early development remains unclear. Elucidating this mystery will be a major step in evolution biology.

This crucial piece of the puzzle has finally been found by a team of researchers from Nagoya University in Japan. The researchers demonstrated that a protein called GDF11, which is involved in embryonic development, plays a vital role in the eventual position of the sacral vertebrae and the hindlimb. The study results were published in July 2017 in Nature Ecology & Evolution.


Quote:
Based on the present observations, the researchers will propose a model to explain the coupling of sacral-hindlimb positioning in tetrapod evolution. This will lead to a deeper understanding of the diversification of lineage-specific tetrapod hindlimb positions, a valuable piece of information in the field of evolution.


This is another article explaining how limited our understanding of this very complex information management system is. They are limiting the scope to limb positioning on the body which is important in determining how mobile the organism is going to be. This article does not go into how the decision to locate the limb was made. How did evolution know to put the limbs in the perfect location for evolutionary advancement to a more successful prodigy. That is the main problem with evolutionary biology. They credit random sources of new information as the decision maker which is statistically impossible which has been proven by irreducible complexity. Now some have said irreducible complexity has been debunked which is not true because if it hasn't we should be able to run a computer simulation of this complex information management program using a system of random number generators. The problem is you still need to explain how the system of random number generators came into existence. Your arguments always provide evidence that the system works at improving itself but never explains how the system came into existence in the first place nor how it made the big leaps in advancement like from asexual to sexual reproduction.

You appear to have a lot of faith that random introductions of new information achieved that though because you offer no scientific evidence showing random introduction of information can accomplish this beyond speculation by people that agree with you for philosophical reasons. And since there are other legitimate philosophies your conclusions have a built in bias.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jul, 2019 05:27 am
@brianjakub,
Isnt it amazing about how much we are required to know to better understand how little we really know??

what if you did a lookup of how far down the phyletic scale you can see the GDF11 gene ?
It appears that theres lots of data on that.


brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jul, 2019 05:02 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
what if you did a lookup of how far down the phyletic scale you can see the GDF11 gene ?
It appears that theres lots of data on that.


Would it be safe to assume that it goes a long way back? What does that tell you about how the artificial intelligence built into the system view as natural selection caused macro evolution?

It does tell me that the system is very accurate at replicating information from generation to generation and seems to be programmed to make adjustments to that information as the environment changes.

When I look at the first simple asexually reproducing life forms life and then look at our abilities as humans and all the diversity in between it appears:
1. there are a lot of power-ball winners or
2. someone rigged the system because a lot of fortuitous things happened consecutively for such diversity in biology to exist. Or
3. someone was gaming the system as it ran.

Which do you choose? 1, 2, or 3?

which one are you choosing?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jul, 2019 05:27 pm
@brianjakub,
When I look at the first simple asexually reproducing life forms life and then look at our abilities as humans and all the diversity in between it appears:
Quote:
1. there are a lot of power-ball winners
It's the result of nature.
2.
Quote:
someone rigged the system because a lot of fortuitous things happened consecutively for such diversity in biology to exist.
Nobody "rigged" the system. It's all nature. Or
3.
Quote:
someone was gaming the system as it ran.
. Again, nobody gamed the system; it was all nature. 3 out of 3: All the result of nature.
Quote:
na·ture
/ˈnāCHər/
noun
1.
the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations:
"the breathtaking beauty of nature"
synonyms:
the natural world, the living world, Mother Nature, creation, the world, ... more
2.
the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it:
"helping them to realize the nature of their problems"
synonyms:
essence, inherent/basic/essential characteristics, inherent/basic/essential qualities, inherent/basic/essential attributes, inherent/basic/essential features, ... more

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jul, 2019 07:09 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Therefore, of course science does not concern itself with the supernatural.
Your posts are getting stupider by the minute. Never heard of scientific attempts to disprove the supernatural ? Quite an education you have there, BUCKO.

Quote:
because they have deluded themselves into believing that science is "atheistic," and that it purports to "disprove" God.
Then you agree with me that science is agnostic ? Good.


https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

You cannot prove a negative however most scientists are not believers in religion nonsense.

Quote:
A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Jul, 2019 08:24 pm
@BillRM,
I don't know how any god can exist, when most religions are based on the country and culture of origin. The christian god is a late-comer; only 2,000 years old, and humans have been around for around 200,000 years.
Quote:
How Long Have Humans Been On Earth? - Universe Today
www.universetoday.com/38125/how-long-have-humans...
While our ancestors have been around for about six million years, the modern form of humans only evolved about 200,000 years ago. Civilization as we know it is only about 6,000 years old
A good lesson on genetics. https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-is-the-genetic-evidence-for-human-evolution/
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2019 02:48 am
@brianjakub,
There are variants of the GDF11 protein as utilized in skeletal and other systemic structures. However, it doesn't stop there, as a series of forms of GDF11 are further traceable back into arthropods . So far , the concept of "sudden appearance" of chemical structures has not been borne out as Dr Behe wishes. The concept pf common ancestry can be traced via molecular biology
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2019 08:35 am
@cicerone imposter,
And farmerman

Quote:
It's the result of nature.

Quote:
Nobody "rigged" the system. It's all nature. Or

Quote:
. Again, nobody gamed the system; it was all nature. 3 out of 3: All the result of nature.

Which seems in contradiction to this definition of nature that you posted
Quote:
na·ture
/ˈnāCHər/
noun
1.
the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations:


1. Are you implying that your intelligence is not natural because it is not part of nature?
2. Are you implying that your intelligence is supernatural?

Quote:
su·per·nat·u·ral
/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

According to the definition of supernatural I am assuming you are implying your intelligence is supernatural.

4. Do you believe it is possible that there is intelligent life somewhere in this universe or outside this universe that could have greater capabilities than ours?



brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2019 09:27 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
There are variants of the GDF11 protein as utilized in skeletal and other systemic structures. However, it doesn't stop there, as a series of forms of GDF11 are further traceable back into arthropods . So far , the concept of "sudden appearance" of chemical structures has not been borne out as Dr Behe wishes. The concept pf common ancestry can be traced via molecular biology


So why did Stephen Jay Gould feel the need to invent "Punctuated Equilibrium"?

Quote:
Punctuated equilibrium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search

The punctuated equilibrium model (top) consists of morphological stability followed by rare bursts of evolutionary change via rapid cladogenesis.
Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that once a species appears in the fossil record the population will become stable, showing little evolutionary change for most of its geological history.[1] This state of little or no morphological change is called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.[2]

Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against phyletic gradualism, the idea that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous.[3]


Quote:
Evolutionary developmental biology
Work in developmental biology has identified dynamical and physical mechanisms of tissue morphogenesis that may underlie such abrupt morphological transitions. Consequently, consideration of mechanisms of phylogenetic change that are actually (not just apparently) non-gradual is increasingly common in the field of evolutionary developmental biology, particularly in studies of the origin of morphological novelty. A description of such mechanisms can be found in the multi-authored volume Origination of Organismal Form.


Which of the following two definitions best describes the process of punctuated equilibrium or any other process that postulates there is a mechanism that appears to use artificial intelligence to explain the sudden jumps in the fossil record?

Quote:
su·per·nat·u·ral
/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

or
Quote:
na·ture
/ˈnāCHər/
noun
1.
the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2019 09:41 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
1. Are you implying that your intelligence is not natural because it is not part of nature?
2. Are you implying that your intelligence is supernatural?
A: You have a habit of making statements not even suggested by any of my posts, and often times contradict yourself like you did here. Where did you go to college? Your grammar lacks higher education and concepts. A simple internet research will provide many answers, and here's one of them:
Quote:
Human intelligence - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_intelligence
Human intelligence is the intellectual prowess of humans, which is marked by complex cognitive feats and high levels of motivation and self-awareness. Through their intelligence, humans possess the cognitive abilities to learn, form concepts, understand, apply logic, and reason, including the capacities to recognize patterns, comprehend ideas, plan, solve problems, make decisions, retain information, and use language to communicate.
Also, https://www.livescience.com/29365-human-brain.html.
Quote:
Facts about the human brain

The human brain is the largest brain of all vertebrates relative to body size.
It weighs about 3.3 lbs. (1.5 kilograms).
The average male has a brain volume of 1,274 cubic centimeters.
The average female brain has a volume of 1,131 cm3.
The brain makes up about 2 percent of a human's body weight.
The cerebrum makes up 85 percent of the brain's weight.
It contains about 86 billion nerve cells (neurons) — the "gray matter."
It contains billions of nerve fibers (axons and dendrites) — the "white matter."
These neurons are connected by trillions of connections, or synapses.
It all has to do with biology, genetics and evolution, all under the auspices of nature.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2019 02:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Cicerone
Quote:
Quote:brianjakub
Quote:
1. Are you implying that your intelligence is not natural because it is not part of nature?
2. Are you implying that your intelligence is supernatural?

A: You have a habit of making statements not even suggested by any of my posts, and often times contradict yourself like you did here. Where did you go to college? Your grammar lacks higher education and concepts.


I was replying to your definition of natural that you posted
Quote:
na·ture
/ˈnāCHər/
noun
1.
the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations:
"the breathtaking beauty of nature"
synonyms:
the natural world, the living world, Mother Nature, creation, the world, ... more


I said your definition of natural excludes things that are products of humans. I was assuming that human intelligence was the reason human products aren't considered natural because our intelligence manipulates nature in unnatural ways. Was I wrong in assuming that is what you meant?
Quote:
It all has to do with biology, genetics and evolution, all under the auspices of nature.


If that is true why are things that are the product of human intelligence not considered natural when a bird's nest is considered natural when both bird brains and human brains are (according to your definition):
Quote:
. . .billion nerve cells (neurons) — the "gray matter.". . .
. . .It contains billions of nerve fibers (axons and dendrites) — the "white matter."
These neurons are connected by trillions of connections, or synapses.


Could you explain why a bird's nest is natural but a human's house is not natural?

Aren't we both just products of natural processes of evolution?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2019 10:27 am
@brianjakub,
It's too bad you're unable to know the difference between nature and man-made. Nature = natural. Man-made = artificial/invention.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/16/2019 at 04:29:35