veracity of evolution

@Aedes,

Aedes;87587 wrote:

Right................ That's about as sound as saying in court "Michael Jackson is dead. Someone must have killed him. Richrf must be a murderer".

Exactly, and that is exactly what Darwin is all about.

1) All Species evolve because they are the fittest for the ecology.

2) Species x has evolved.

3) Species x has evolved because they must have been the fittest for the ecology millions of years ago.

It says nothing. There is no definition of the environment or what would be the fittest for the environment. It is really a silly statement when one thinks about it, and I would be embarrassed by it, if it came from my lips. It is a statement of conviction and faith similar to religion.

There are very few scientists who attempting to move knowledge forward:

Edward J. Steele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[INDENT]

Quote:

Steel's theory provided the first mechanism to explain Lamarckian evolution: when successful somatic (body) cell changes occur due to environmental changes, copies of the copious new messenger-RNA that have been produced by the successful cells are picked up by harmless retroviruses acting as gene shuttles and transported across the tissue barrier - the Weismann Barrier - to the germline.

[/INDENT]And this is how science deals with people who attempt to move knowledge forward past Darwin's speculations: (exactly as I had speculated in an earlier post):

Quote:

[INDENT]Steele was summarily dismissed by UoW's Vice-Chancellor Gerard Sutton, stating that the university's reputation was "placed at a serious and imminent risk as a result of Associate Professor Steele's claims. Finally, the new genetic information is integrated into the DNA by a process involving reverse transcription. This process of writing or translating new information into the DNA provides the essential precursor to acquired changes being passed on to progeny; to the next generation, thereby demonstrating Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characters.
[/INDENT]

Quote:

[INDENT]In August 2001, the Australian Federal Court found that the University of Wollongong had breached its staff enterprise agreement and did not following correct conduct and dismissal procedures in Steele's case. Following the verdict Steele expressed publicly that he wanted his job back.[6]
[/INDENT]

Rich

---------- Post added 09-02-2009 at 09:38 AM ----------

A link to epimutations and its possible effect on evolutionary theory:

Epigenetic inheritance - Lamarck's (partial) rehabilitation

[INDENT]

Quote:

"The broad public's belief in the fatefulness of genes has increased due to the availability of the entire human genome sequence and the constant search for disease-causing genes. Although it has been known for a long time that the inheritance of genetic traits does not always follow Darwin's laws of inheritance, the majority of molecular geneticists disregarded these findings. In the meantime, however, the research on inheritable changes in gene expression that cannot be attributed to DNA sequence changes, has led to the emergence of a new, exciting field of research - epigenetics."

[/INDENT]

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;87639 wrote:

Exactly, and that is exactly what Darwin is all about.

Rich, I've said it umpteen times in this thread, and it just doesn't seem to matter to you. If you are stuck on Darwin, and you think that he's somehow central to evolutionary biology in 2009, then you know nothing about evolutionary biology. To hell with Darwin, he hasn't truly mattered to evolutionary biology since Mendel, and he probably wouldn't even matter in the public discourse if not for the Scopes monkey trial.

Oh, by the way, your epigenetics anecdote is nonsense, it's the hottest thing since sliced bread in evolutionary biology. And furthermore, Darwin had only a nascent idea of inheritance, not even Mendel came close to it (though he was foundational).

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;87656 wrote:

To hell with Darwin, he hasn't truly mattered to evolutionary biology since Mendel, and he probably wouldn't even matter in the public discourse if not for the Scopes monkey trial.

Fine, then we are in agreement.

Aedes;87656Oh wrote:

, by the way, your epigenetics anecdote is nonsense, it's the hottest thing since sliced bread in evolutionary biology. And furthermore, Darwin had only a nascent idea of inheritance, not even Mendel came close to it (though he was foundational).

We shall see how things evolve. Everything changes. I am quite confident, that biology is no where even close to understanding how life changes. But we shall see.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;87670 wrote:

Fine, then we are in agreement.

Then stop basing ALL your conclusions about evolution on Darwin -- and start reading some modern science, because evolutionary biology research is ongoing. We learn more, we revise things, we debate about details -- but there isn't anything yet that makes one think that evolution is an unstable scientific paradigm -- it just all fits -- and that is falsifiable scientific epistemology, not metaphysics.

richrf;87670 wrote:

I am quite confident, that biology is no where even close to understanding how life changes.

The problem is that without actually being literate with biology, your instinct can't tell you where the problematic areas in biology lie, where are answers are unsatisfactory and where they're strong, etc. Every field of science will change as we learn more, including physics, including biology, etc.

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

physics and engineering only started to take fuller account of chaotic dynamics in the past 50 or so years and there's a long way to go. should we throw them out too?

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;87674 wrote:

Then stop basing ALL your conclusions about evolution on Darwin -- and start reading some modern science, because evolutionary biology research is ongoing. We learn more, we revise things, we debate about details -- but there isn't anything yet that makes one think that evolution is an unstable scientific paradigm -- it just all fits -- and that is falsifiable scientific epistemology, not metaphysics.

I said we are in agreement. I am not in agreement with others on this forum. So, we can be satisfied that we agree that Darwin is irrelevant.

As for other parts of evolution, I will let things evolve as they may. I am more than satisfied from my own observations that something is rotten in Denmark.

Aedes;87674 wrote:

The problem is that without actually being literate with biology, your instinct can't tell you where the problematic areas in biology lie, where are answers are unsatisfactory and where they're strong, etc. Every field of science will change as we learn more, including physics, including biology, etc.

I have observed what manifests out of these theories, and to me, they are amazingly way off target. That is why I stay away from all that the scientists are proposing. An multi-decade experiment gone really bad. But I think it will change over time. I am only tangentially affected by it, I just hope I am not dragged into it.

As you know, I live a relatively simple life with simple core ideas.

Rich

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;87675 wrote:

physics and engineering only started to take fuller account of chaotic dynamics in the past 50 or so years and there's a long way to go. should we throw them out too?

Ask rich's gut first.

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

btw rich also believes that classical physics is absolutely worthless in light of quantum mechanics and relativity

the electrician is not going to be happy when he finds this out

0 Replies

@Berner,

Berner;87680 wrote:

Ask rich's gut first.

My gut feel is that physics (Relativity and Quantum) are much closer to understanding the core principles of life which is why I follow their progression much closer. This is because what they are discovering in their very imaginative experiments is forcing them to reconsider their whole perspective of what is the essence of the universe and consciousness.

I think physics draws to it a more inquisitive crowd of people that ask the tough questions that is revealed in the mathematics. That is probably the basis for their progress.

Rich

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;87678 wrote:

I said we are in agreement. I am not in agreement with others on this forum. So, we can be satisfied that we agree that Darwin is irrelevant.

I can be satisfied with this statement, yet going back through your posts your arguments are inconsistent with this stated opinion. And I think part of the problem, to be fair, is that this simply has not been a strong interest of yours, and Darwin's own hypothesis about natural selection is not even remotely the core feature of evolutionary biology -- but if you haven't done a lot of reading on molecular biology, then you're simply not going to really appreciate even what evolutionary biology is. I have a degree in molecular biology and biochemistry, so the reason I think Darwin is not relevant to modern discussions is quite differently derived than your shared opinion on the matter.

richrf;87678 wrote:

As for other parts of evolution, I will let things evolve as they may. I am more than satisfied from my own observations that something is rotten in Denmark.

You may be better read than I give you credit for, but you haven't shown it in this thread. Science lives and dies by its evidence and its studies. If you want to take down the theory, then you need to be getting down and dirty with the actual science -- and I'd be happy to post primary literature on any topic to see how you'd critique its methods and conclusions.

richrf;87678 wrote:

As you know, I live a relatively simple life with simple core ideas.

You've got strong, even dogmatic opinions, though, and you might put your core ideas to the test a little more -- a discussion forum with participants from different backgrounds is a good place to do it.

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

So let's change the title of this thread to "Rich's Beliefs and Gut Feelings" and leave science for those who actually care to read the literature. This thread is an exercise in futility and probably should have been closed about 40 pages ago...just look up "evolution" on wikipedia for the evidence, and have a nice day. :sarcastic:

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;87688 wrote:

So let's change the title of this thread to "Rich's Beliefs and Gut Feelings" and leave science for those who actually care to read the literature. This thread is an exercise in futility and probably should have been closed about 40 pages ago...just look up "evolution" on wikipedia for the evidence, and have a nice day. :sarcastic:

I tried looking up evolution in Wikipedia and this is what I found:
[INDENT]Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis,[12] which connected the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research and providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

[/INDENT]However, as you can see from this thread, Darwin's natural selection is irrelevant. We learn something new every day. I have a great gut feel that has worked splendidly for me in my life. And much of my philosophy is about gut feel. For me it has to feel right. This keeps me inquiring.

I guess we can kick Darwin's natural selection speculation off the Fact column and into the metaphysical column where it justly belongs.

Rich

3 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;87693 wrote:

However, as you can see from this thread, Darwin's natural selection is irrelevant.

That's not what I said or meant. My point has been that it is meaningless to use critiques of Darwin himself as a legitimate critique of evolutionary biology. Part of the reason for this is that modern evolutionary biology has confirmed Darwin's work so many times over that he's just a drop in the bucket. The glutamate-valine (codon) substitution at position 6 of the human beta-globin gene, which results in the sickle cell allele, has arisen at least 5 times independently in the last 10,000 years, and this is based on linkage analysis. It's been conclusively shown that heterozygotes for this gene are clinically less susceptible to severe malaria, and the geographic distribution of this genotype in Africa perfectly corresponds to the distribution of P. falciparum malaria. I mean this is an observation from which one could easily and independently derive a hypothesis of genetic differentiation by natural selection, because the sickle gene is SO advantageous in malarious areas and SO disadvantageous in non-malarious areas. And lo and behold, if you go back and read some Darwin, you'll find that it perfectly fits.

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

Relevant:

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | We are all mutants say scientists

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;87693 wrote:

And much of my philosophy is about gut feel. For me it has to feel right.

Philosophizing about science isn't science. Your gut feel may be in conflict with science -- but that doesn't matter, the science is what it is no matter what anyone's gut feels like.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;87696 wrote:

That's not what I said or meant.

Sorry for misinterpreting you. But here is what you said in Post 473.
[INDENT]

Quote:

Rich, I've said it umpteen times in this thread, and it just doesn't seem to matter to you. If you are stuck on Darwin, and you think that he's somehow central to evolutionary biology in 2009, then you know nothing about evolutionary biology. To hell with Darwin, he hasn't truly mattered to evolutionary biology since Mendel, and he probably wouldn't even matter in the public discourse if not for the Scopes monkey trial.

[/INDENT]So, to hell with Darwin. OK?
Rich

---------- Post added 09-02-2009 at 12:14 PM ----------

Aedes;87700 wrote:

Philosophizing about science isn't science. Your gut feel may be in conflict with science -- but that doesn't matter, the science is what it is no matter what anyone's gut feels like.

Right I am philosophizing. You can call Darwin's speculations whatever you want. I think it is metaphysical and has no where near the standing of a science such as physics which is predictive and replicable. and has its mathematics to keep it in check. You can't hide from the math.

With Darwin, it is just one speculation after another of what may or may not have happened millions of years ago. I enjoy the metaphysical aspects of Darwin's speculation and how people have used it (e.g. eugenics). It does raise some interesting questions about humans and how we think.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;87701 wrote:

Sorry for misinterpreting you. But here is what you said in Post 473.

[INDENT]

[/INDENT]So, to hell with Darwin. OK?
Rich

Stop playing dumb. Everyone else here knows what I meant. Here you are again, for the billionth time in this thread:

1) Evolutionary theory has so much supportive evidence that it stands on its own without even invoking Darwin at all

2) Innumerable studies in the last 150 years have independently confirmed Darwin's research

3) Conflating evolutionary biology with Darwin is ignorant

4) Attacking evolution based on a problem you have with Darwin is ignorant

5) Gut feel ain't how science works, which makes me wonder why we're paying any attention to your gut.

richrf;87701 wrote:

You can call Darwin's speculations whatever you want. I think it is metaphysical

Metaphysical propositions, by definition, cannot have a physical demonstration -- otherwise they are physical and NOT metaphysical. A tiny gander at Darwin's writings would show that his ideas were based on systematic observations. He may be right or wrong, by by definition it is not metaphysical. :brickwall:

richrf;87701 wrote:

and has no where near the standing of a science such as physics which is predictive and replicable.

"standing"? didn't realize there was a top 10 list. Explain, dear Richard, why people would bother continuing to do quantum physics research after Herr Heisenberg finished his work, then, I mean isn't it all a fait acompli?

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;87705 wrote:

Stop playing dumb. Everyone else here knows what I meant. Here you are again, for the billionth time in this thread:

1) Evolutionary theory has so much supportive evidence that it stands on its own without even invoking Darwin at all

Fine, so let's not invoke it, whatever evolutionary theory might be. I was told to read Wikipedia and Wikipedia invokes Darwin.

This is what I mean by gut feel. If something feels kind of messy and disorganized it might very well be.

Aedes;87705 wrote:

"standing"? didn't realize there was a top 10 list. Explain, dear Richard, why people would bother continuing to do quantum physics research after Herr Heisenberg finished his work, then, I mean isn't it all a fait acompli?

Nope. There are are lots of inquisitive souls (I mean that literally) like John Stewart Bell and David Bohm who just keeping exploring and finding new things. That is what makes living exciting for me.

Aedes;87705 wrote:

Metaphysical propositions, by definition, cannot have a physical demonstration -- otherwise they are physical and NOT metaphysical. A tiny gander at Darwin's writings would show that his ideas were based on systematic observations. He may be right or wrong, by by definition it is not metaphysical. :brickwall:

OK. Show me a monkey turning into a human. Let's call a duck a duck. Darwin's speculations are imagination running wild at the highest order. BTW, I personally love it, but I do recognize it as metaphysics.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;87693 wrote:

I have a great gut feel that has worked splendidly for me in my life. And much of my philosophy is about gut feel. For me it has to feel right.

Well, you're not really doing "philosophy" then, are you? At some point, that big, incredibly evolved mass of grey stuff between your ears needs to come into play and allow you to reason as to what the best answer is...if it disagrees with your "gut feeling", then you'd be wise to stick with what is logical. Otherwise, you are just like a philosophical zombie.

If we trust "feelings" over our unique human ability to think rationally, then we aren't much more directed or purposeful in our thoughts and behaviors than a household pet. A dog can probably "feel" like we do, but he does not have rational thought; ability to reason has allowed us to use the scientific principles, which led to our great ability to harness the resources of our environment and come up with convenient tools and technology to use in our every day lives. But you'd like to reject all of this, and reject logic for "gut feelings". Brilliant. :nonooo:

/done with this thread

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;87710 wrote:

Fine, so let's not invoke it, whatever evolutionary theory might be. I was told to read Wikipedia and Wikipedia invokes Darwin.

First, let me warn you that you are being an absolute troll in this thread and I'm about 2 seconds from killing it once and for all. Consider this a final warning that you can debate the topic all you want, but if you're going to waste everyone's time taking picayune potshots at people and playing people against one another on matters of trivia, then that is not how this forum runs.

Regarding Wikipedia, that divine arbiter and oracle of all knowlege: Darwin was foundational to evolutionary biology. His initial demonstration of natural selection was instrumental to the development of this science. And now, a century and a half after the voyage of the Beagle, natural selection is such a well-established part of biology independent of Darwin's own works that it doesn't really matter what Wikipedia or your gut says, it's an easily demonstrable feature of population biology that has nothing to do with metaphysics.

It makes sense to bring up Darwin when talking about evolution, just as it makes sense to bring up the Beatles when talking about Rock and Roll -- but you can define and analyze and understand Rock and Roll without ever talking about the Beatles.

richrf;87710 wrote:

Nope. There are are lots of inquisitive souls (I mean that literally) like John Stewart Bell and David Bohm who just keeping exploring and finding new things. That is what makes living exciting for me.

Oh, so you mean that physics is revising itself too, then.

richrf;87710 wrote:

OK. Show me a monkey turning into a human.

I refer you back to my example of sickle cell. This is an active, real time example of a malaria-susceptible human turning into a malaria-resistant human.

0 Replies

veracity of evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know