Evolution a hoax?

[Wowbagger]

We can learn what natural selection does and does not do

Evos are already on it!

We know that natural selection, alone, is not sufficient for explaining the earliest stages of life. For that, we must also invoke auto-catalytic systems and other natural chemical processes, some of which bare no resemblance to the natural selection process.

We know that natural selection, alone, is not sufficient for explaining certain aspects of behavior that are memetically driven. For that, we have to introduce a new replicator: The meme. How it "interacts" (to use the term loosely) with genes creates complications on both ends, that we are understanding in other models.

What am I missing, that Intelligent Design is uniquely qualified to add?

instead of being beholden to a lockbox on science at the hands of evos that naively presume natural selection and random mutation, etc,....are sufficient mechanisms for macroevolution.

The math works. Computer models based on the math works. Inferences found in the wild, discovered through those models also work.

If the math works, it is hardly a "lock box".

If you don't like lock boxes, how is ID opening its own? Do we have any properties of the Designer, itself, that we can isolate and measure?

Microevolution, particularly via loss of genes, works fine with natural selection but not the other way around so much.

We can also gain genes, through duplications. And those dupes can then diverge from their original states, over time. Invoking "gene loss" is not sufficient for debunking evolution.

 

[Wowbagger]

fact is you are just throwing stuff up against a wall hoping it will stick

What part of "He is not invoking Intelligent Design" is "throwing stuff against a wall"? If I am wrong, show me where I am wrong.

What part of "We already have theories about how that stuff evolved" is "throwing stuff against a wall"? If that is all speculation on my part, then point to which papers offer speculation in place of empirical results?

Etc.

Which of my arguments are not going to "stick" very well?

 

[randman]

Wowbagger, I will answer you like I did someone else. Most fields of science such as physics consider it an advance of science to show a proposed mechanism does not work. Evos are different because they are not concerned with real science but defending their turf, at least when it comes the overall framework of origins.

Sadly, you honestly believe Axe has made no contribution to science. You are wrong on that.

 

[Wowbagger]

Most fields of science such as physics consider it an advance of science to show a proposed mechanism does not work.

But, then a new mechanism has to be theorized and tested. Often clues about that new thing will be found in the results of testing the previous hypothesis.

I.D. does not provide an alternative hypothesis that can be tested.

Also, you have not really shown that Evolution does not work. Only a distorted version of it.

We know evolution works, in part, because you have not refuted my examples of natural selection working.

Sadly, you honestly believe Axe has made no contribution to science.

Perhaps Axe did make some contributions to science, in general. I am willing to say that.

But, NOT to Creation Science. And, NOT to Intelligent Design. None of his work invokes either of those. You even admitted it!

 

[randman]

Sure, others will likely propose various mechanisms including ID mechanisms. So what? Axe may even come up with something but to pretend the work is not good science is ridiculous.

My own take is there are several areas to look for ID mechanisms:

1. I think transgenerational epigenetics may be an aspect of an ID mechanism in it's relationship between cellular memory, a sort of primitive intelligence, and inherited traits. You may say there is no Designer but that's based on an outdated materialist perspective of the universe.

2. Along those same lines, I think the processes of entanglement and quantum mechanics should be viewed within an ID framework as part of and even a direct observation of an ID mechanism. It would take a lot to explain the above points to you if you still hold to the view of particles being fundamentally physical rather than fundamentally informational with the physical form (discrete expression in time and space) being secondary.

 

[Dinwar]

My own take is there are several areas to look for ID mechanisms:

1. I think transgenerational epigenetics may be an aspect of an ID mechanism in it's relationship between cellular memory, a sort of primitive intelligence, and inherited traits. You may say there is no Designer but that's based on an outdated materialist perspective of the universe.

2. Along those same lines, I think the processes of entanglement and quantum mechanics should be viewed within an ID framework as part of and even a direct observation of an ID mechanism. It would take a lot to explain the above points to you if you still hold to the view of particles being fundamentally physical rather than fundamentally informational with the physical form (discrete expression in time and space) being secondary.

There you have it--discarding materialism for no good reason (other than "outdated" ) and improper use of quantum mechanics: in other words, no different from homeopathy, chi, ghosts, or any of the other woo-babble we get at this site.

 

[Wowbagger]

Impress me. What would be the implications of your proposals?

My own take is there are several areas to look for ID mechanisms:

Can you show that "cellular memory" exists? If so, how is that an ID mechanism, if there is no ID involved?

Please explain further how quantum mechanics is suggestive of an ID mechanism, let alone a "direct observation" of one.

Now is your time to shine!

 

[A'isha]

Again, Creationists take truth and twist it. Neodarwinism IS a scientific paradigm--I forget the specific technical definition but the Modern Synthesis is part of it. randman is using the term as a perjorative, to indicate that we're a religion.

It generally refers to positive selectionism as a mechanism of evolution, in contrast to the mechanisms of mutationism and neutralism (ie, molecular evolution).

And I explained all this to randman not even six months ago, when he first started tossing around the "NeoDarwinism" perjorative. He refuses to acknowledge it because he's built so much of his creationist ideology on the idea that selectionism reduces genetic diversity, so he has to pretend that selectionism is the be-all and end-all of evolutionary theory in order to "prove" that evolutionary theory as a whole is wrong. Recall, for instance, this example of randman's interminable harping on the topic (and note that he started that thread a full week after the post linked just above).

 

[Dinwar]

I THOUGHT randman was the guy who was going on and on about front-loading, and insisted that the original organism had all the genes necessary to make all subsiquent organisms! So this is all just a demonstration of randman's inability to learn--the data has been presented to him ad nausium, he simply refuses to acknowledge it. As I recall, he refused quite agressively last time...

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I am getting impatient...

Can you please refute my explanation regarding ring species?

If not, then I'll see that as an agreement, and therefore also an agreement with evolution (on all scales, micro and macro).

Cheers

 

[Olowkow]

There you have it--discarding materialism for no good reason (other than "outdated" ) and improper use of quantum mechanics: in other words, no different from homeopathy, chi, ghosts, or any of the other woo-babble we get at this site.

That's why it is not worth debating ID'ers, though Wowbagger is laying down some very interesting information, thanks.

Oh yes, there is always the pervasive subconscious slip

You may say there is no Designer but that's based on an outdated materialist perspective of the universe.

that cannot be avoided. Upper case reserved for the religious entity that the intelligent designer/proponents consistently deny. Believing in ID makes some people feel good, or gets them right with God. Let's just hope they don't get themselves into very many positions of authority.

Bottom line is that evolution vs. ID always boils down to a religious argument.

 

[A'isha]

I THOUGHT randman was the guy who was going on and on about front-loading, and insisted that the original organism had all the genes necessary to make all subsiquent organisms! So this is all just a demonstration of randman's inability to learn--the data has been presented to him ad nausium, he simply refuses to acknowledge it. As I recall, he refused quite agressively last time...

Right, that's why he's so hung up on his particular conception of selectionism. If genomes can only lose information and never gain information, then randman thinks that front-loading must then be true, since organisms today would then only have the genes they do because they lost various bits of the ancestor genome and have never developed novel genes.

Unfortunately for him, the only way he can make that thesis work is by ignoring entire swathes of modern evolutionary theory (he's gone to great pains to refuse to even acknowledge, for example, the work of Kimura, Ohta, Ohno and Rodin - ideas going back almost fifty years).

 

[randman]

Impress me. What would be the implications of your proposals?



Can you show that "cellular memory" exists? If so, how is that an ID mechanism, if there is no ID involved?

Please explain further how quantum mechanics is suggestive of an ID mechanism, let alone a "direct observation" of one.

Now is your time to shine!

Already explained it in some depth on this forum. Not too many were interested in anything but creating a straw man. So no thank you. Will just let real science march on while you guys are stuck in outdated paradigms.

 

[randman]

I am getting impatient...

Can you please refute my explanation regarding ring species?

If not, then I'll see that as an agreement, and therefore also an agreement with evolution (on all scales, micro and macro).

Cheers

Already answered you. Please respond to my response.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Already explained it in some depth on this forum. Not too many were interested in anything but creating a straw man. So no thank you. Will just let real science march on while you guys are stuck in outdated paradigms.

Outdated paradigms? You mean like the idea that the universe was created with us in mind, but also by someone who secretly hates our guts?

Or don't you subscribe to the specific creation myth of the bible?

And if not, then which one do you believe?

 

[randman]

Outdated paradigms? You mean like the idea that the universe was created with us in mind, but also by someone who secretly hates our guts?

Or don't you subscribe to the specific creation myth of the bible?

And if not, then which one do you believe?

Outdated paradigms refers to viewing the universe, specifically elemental particles, as fundamentally physical in nature.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Already answered you. Please respond to my response.

I am talking about post 118 in this thread, which you haven't addressed at all, or at least not directly, because I have not seen a response to it.

 

[bikerdruid]

Outdated paradigms? You mean like the idea that the universe was created with us in mind, but also by someone who secretly hates our guts?

Or don't you subscribe to the specific creation myth of the bible?

And if not, then which one do you believe?

he doesn't hate everyone...mainly just queers, witches, disobedient children, people who wear mixed fabrics and a few other abominations.

 

[Dinwar]

So no thank you. Will just let real science march on while you guys are stuck in outdated paradigms.

Funny--all the paleontologists I've ever spoken to (two so far today) seem to think that evolution works just fine. Seems you're in the minority, randman.

 

[randman]

You seem to be under the misapprehension that:

Ring species CAN reproduce, but they don't because they don't meet.

In fact that is exactly what ring species aren't.

***

Explanation

It begins with one species of which two populations are separated. They get subjected to a different environment (or not even that in some cases), and they respond to the differently on several levels (behaviour and genetics among them). After some time has passed (and several generations), the populations meet up, and we find out that they can not interbreed.

Since they can't produce fertile offspring, they are different species. (Even the bible says that animals who can produce offspring are of the same species, but it doesn't mention the "fertile bit, as far as I know).

End explanation.

***

According to ID and YEC species can't change into different species.

However, ring species show us that it does happen, proving ID and YEC wrong.

It is nice talking to you, Randman. I hope you will respond to my explanation (which I have marked for your convenience).

I see what the issue is now. You are misinformed in claiming according to creationists and IDers that speciation does not occur or cannot occur. Ring species is not a problem for either camp.

Both acknowledge and incorporate speciation of the type of ring species forming. I digressed a bit on the definition of species because it means different things in different contexts.

Hope that helps.