Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[Krikkiter]

Ah, but a feedback mechanism won't converge without it being an iterative process, either.


If you were a "alternative form of Patrick", you would rant and rave that a single feedback isn't enough to turn a reptile into an Internet poster. You would neglect to think about the fact that many iterations are part of the deal.

The real Patrick1000 is ranting and raving that changes to entities, over time, in the system aren't enough to turn a reptile into an Internet poster. He is neglecting the feedback of the selection process, and possibly the extent of the iterative nature of it.
(ETA: And, the expansion of niche opportunities that go along with it.)

I also wonder if he has a handle on the timescales involved.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

All this science is entirely wasted on Patrick, as what he demands is impossible.

He does not merely want evidence of the journey from dinosaur to bird, he wants a description of each individual step on the path. And even then, that is not enough because he further demands proof that each step on the path was actually taken, and that, say, Archeopteryx didn't cheat and take the bus part of the way.

He imagines there might be an alternative process of evolution (Patrick's bus, if you will) and although he doesn't know what that process actually is, he demands proof that this half-formed notion is not what actually happened.

 

[Wowbagger]

Here is another way to put it: If Patrick1000 was actually well informed about the process of Natural Selection, and still did not accept it, his argument would look something like this:

We have no empirical evidence that the mainstream, conventionally presented, iterative process of genetic changes occurring through random/chance mutation, crossing over, reshuffling of chromosomes during meiosis, new diploid combinations from haploid pairs, chromosomal material loss/duplication/transposition, etc; which are then selected for against a fitness landscape, which includes competition from other species, members of their own species (mating, food, etc.), avoidance of predators, and changing environmental conditions, etc.; which also happens to open up new opportunities for those entities to fill new niches, and improve their specializations along the way; over the course of millions of years; could possibly result in a hypothetical reptilian common ancestor becoming both a bird and a JREF forum poster.​

But, that is not his argument. His argument is:

...we have no empiric evidence at all supporting the mainstream, conventionally presented evolutionary mechanism hypothesis; random/chance mutation, crossing over, reshuffling of chromosomes during meiosis, fertilizations resulting in new diploid combinations from haploid pairs, chromosomal material loss/duplication/transposition, resulted in a hypothetical reptile eventually becoming a bird, and at the same time, that very hypothetical reptilian common ancestor becoming as well the JRandi posters now contributing to these forum threads.

And, that seems to be missing... something.

 

[steenkh]

The other reason this is a farce. Evolution simply doesn't happen on human timescales--it happens on GEOLOGIC timescales. Thus, demanding we show "real time" evidence of evolution betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject matter.

I think he knows this well enough. He just tries to set the goal high enough that he thinks it is impossible to achieve, and then he can claim his god designer did it!

 

[Dinwar]

Probably true. But I'll still call out such statements.

 

[Mojo]

All this science is entirely wasted on Patrick, as what he demands is impossible.

He does not merely want evidence of the journey from dinosaur to bird, he wants a description of each individual step on the path. And even then, that is not enough because he further demands proof that each step on the path was actually taken, and that, say, Archeopteryx didn't cheat and take the bus part of the way.

And even then, he wants it to be compatible with a literal reading of the Bible.

Because otherwise, "God would POOF!", and we can't have that, can we?

 

[Patrick1000]

Because evolution occurs over such a vast sea of time......

I think he knows this well enough. He just tries to set the goal high enough that he thinks it is impossible to achieve, and then he can claim his god designer did it!

Because evolution occurs over such a vast sea of time......doesn't relax the requirement that yours or anyone's explanation be convincing AND meet the criteria of good science.

If one's proffered explanation; mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition cannot be demonstrated because the time scale is so vast, then the scientist proposing this solution must say, "I believe evolution may occur by way of a mechanism whereby numerous iterations and reiterations and rereinterations of mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition take place. However, I cannot show this to be the case in any meaningful or definite sense because of the time scale problem, so my hypothesis will forever remain unsubstantiated and beyond the realm of verification/falsifiablity".

Such is the type of "truth" for evolution that you now propose steenkh, which is "no truth" at all, and as a matter of fact, yours would be a version of my main/most favored "solution", that being the "explanation" that the elucidation of mechanism is beyond the ken of human understanding.

In your view, as you presented it here steenkh, the human timescale is a limiting factor, and very much not commensurate with any approach to evolution's solution given its own timescale of mind boggling dimension, incommensurate in the sense that evolution's mechanism is in no way authenticatable given the nature of the problems as regards the temporal logistics.

Yours is the claim, "people have to accept speculation as truth in the case of evolution, as genuine truth in this case lies forever beyond our reach, the time issue being a nut we simply cannot crack".

But this is absurd of course. Because the temporal logistic is such in your mind that your proposed solution can never be confirmed or disconfirmed, this hardly means that as a responsible critical thinker/scientist I am obliged to take your speculation ON FAITH!!!! as truth. Sounds like a bogus RELIGION to me, and as I am an atheist, I refuse to buy in.

You cannot prove, you cannot demonstrate, that which you cannot prove or demonstrate, and so those of us that do real science will say to you most appropriately steenkh, "TOUGH!!!! Your "solution" is speculative, thank you very much". If you cannot, if any person cannot produce another solution that is in fact verifiable/falsifiable, then the problem must remain unsolved for ever more.

Because you cannot solve a problem fairly steenkh hardly means we need to buy into your lame explanation. Lame in the sense that it can never be shown to be the case, or equally as importantly, can never be shown to not be the case. Such a solution is no solution, for we would forever be unable to make any kind of determination with regard to its legitimacy.

 

[Krikkiter]

Because evolution occurs over such a vast sea of time......doesn't relax the requirement that yours or anyone's explanation be convincing AND meet the criteria of good science.

If one's proffered explanation; mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition cannot be demonstrated because the time scale is so vast, then the scientist proposing this solution must say, "I believe evolution may occur by way of a mechanism whereby numerous iterations and reiterations and rereinterations of mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition take place. However, I cannot show this to be the case in any meaningful or definite sense because of the time scale problem, so my hypothesis will forever remain unsubstantiated and beyond the realm of verification/falsifiablity".

Did you read this?

 

[Reality Check]

Because evolution occurs over such a vast sea of time......doesn't relax the requirement that yours or anyone's explanation be convincing AND meet the criteria of good science.
....

That is a quite dumb argument.
Firstly there is no such relaxation for evolution. It is subject to the same rigorous process of examination and explanation that all science undergoes.

Secondly you are repeating you straw man by missing out natural selection as a part of evolution. The inability to learn this simple fact (basically evolution = change + natural selection) reflects badly on you.

Thirdly the "vast sea of time" (as in millions of years) also happens elsewhere, e.g. Geology and cosmology.

Fourthly a term like "vast sea of time" is too vague. To bacteria a year is a vast sea of time (many, many generations).

 

[Dinwar]

If one's proffered explanation; mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition cannot be demonstrated because the time scale is so vast, then the scientist proposing this solution must say, "I believe evolution may occur by way of a mechanism whereby numerous iterations and reiterations and rereinterations of mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition take place. However, I cannot show this to be the case in any meaningful or definite sense because of the time scale problem, so my hypothesis will forever remain unsubstantiated and beyond the realm of verification/falsifiablity".

Why? Because YOU say so?

You've yet to propose any serious objection to evolution, other than "But I don't like it" and "Other people don't like it". You've offered precisely 0 reasons why small-scale changes, which we can observe, can't add up to large-scale changes over the course of more than half a billion years. You've yet to even, as far as I can tell, understand the argument.

Your argument is nothing but mere assertion, and wrong.

We have a mechanism. We understand that mechanism. Everything in multiple fields of science points to that mechanism being right. To withhold one's acceptance of that mechanism, particularly in the complete absence of any proof of any other mechanisms of any level of viability, is absurd and makes a mockery of scientific conservatism in speech.

Yours is the claim, "people have to accept speculation as truth in the case of evolution, as genuine truth in this case lies forever beyond our reach, the time issue being a nut we simply cannot crack".

Lies.

The argument, essentially, boils down to this: "Look at all this evidence. [insert years worth of listing data that supports the conclusion] Obviously there's something to this. What's the alternative? [insert crickets and insane babbling about gods and Intelligent Designers who for some reason are always left vague enough to mean anything] Okay. This mechanism demonstrably does work, there's no alternative of any merit; it's almost certainly what happened."

Think of it this way: You're arguing that just because a single person can't be on every battlefield, wars can't happen.

Oh, and did I mention that Jack Horner is testing EXACTLY THIS IDEA in the past few posts? I forget....

Because you cannot solve a problem fairly steenkh hardly means we need to buy into your lame explanation.

And you're free to accept any wild fantasy you choose. Just don't pretend you represent the views of science in this, because you don't. You don't understand the issues involved, you're still ignoring the blatant evidence, and the evidence you demand is always the direct evidence (no indirect evidence is good enough for you--come to think of it, neither is the direct stuff). You're being "skeptical" just for the sake of disagreeing with the mainstream science, at the cost of your credibility.

 

[Patrick1000]

Actually I did present empiric evidence, and as a matter of fact.....

Here is another way to put it: If Patrick1000 was actually well informed about the process of Natural Selection, and still did not accept it, his argument would look something like this:

We have no empirical evidence that the mainstream, conventionally presented, iterative process of genetic changes occurring through random/chance mutation, crossing over, reshuffling of chromosomes during meiosis, new diploid combinations from haploid pairs, chromosomal material loss/duplication/transposition, etc; which are then selected for against a fitness landscape, which includes competition from other species, members of their own species (mating, food, etc.), avoidance of predators, and changing environmental conditions, etc.; which also happens to open up new opportunities for those entities to fill new niches, and improve their specializations along the way; over the course of millions of years; could possibly result in a hypothetical reptilian common ancestor becoming both a bird and a JREF forum poster.​

But, that is not his argument. His argument is:


And, that seems to be missing... something.

Actually I did present empiric evidence, and as a matter of fact....I am the only one that has offered such evidence.

I presented the example of cytochrome c where selection pressure was not a factor whatsoever as mutations occurred with the regularity of a "molecular clock", and occurred in contradistinction to a Darwinian type mechanism without seeming to have much if any impact on phenotype/functionality.

 

[Wowbagger]

the scientist proposing this solution must say, "[snip] I cannot show this to be the case in any meaningful or definite sense because of the time scale problem, so my hypothesis will forever remain unsubstantiated and beyond the realm of verification/falsifiablity".

Evolution is predominantely a historic science.

BUT, we DO have have lots of evidence substantiating the claim:

* Typical stuff: Fossil records, genes, morphology, immunology, etc.
(Did you know that immunology was studied to find relationships between species, before genetics was sufficiently developed?)

* Cladistics and statistical analysis of how they most probably branch up

* Computer simulations demonstrating the plausability of the mechanism

* Observed instances of speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

* Usefulness of the theory in developing innovative solutions to problems in the field of biology, etc. (No "theory" of ID has ever been useful.)

And yet you will not accept them, for some reason. You think they all lack some essential ingredient: "Genes prove evolution but not the mechanism", or "simulations cheat", etc.

But, I still suspect it is you who is missing an ingredient. I urge you to re-learn evolution, in light of its entire process, including the selection process. And, I still urge you to consider reading up on how computer simulations work. You will find they (perhaps rather hauntingly) do all the actual design work themselves, without "cheating" on the part of the programmer.
Come back here once you've studied the ENTIRE process of natural selection!

 

[Patrick1000]

My criticism/analysis of steenkh stands and stands well....

Did you read this?

My criticism/analysis of steenkh stands and stands well....His/her position is because the time scale may be prohibitive in terms of our determining what may or may not be the case, we can hold something speculative as true. This is so because we simply can do no better.

 

[Wowbagger]

Actually I did present empiric evidence, and as a matter of fact....I am the only one that has offered such evidence.

I presented the example of cytochrome c where selection pressure was not a factor whatsoever as mutations occurred with the regularity of a "molecular clock", and occurred in contradistinction to a Darwinian type mechanism without seeming to have much if any impact on phenotype/functionality.

Not ALL changes are adaptive. There is also genetic drift. BUT, as you say: That has little or no impact on phenotype and functionality. Big whoop.

You were asking how a common ancenstor of reptiles could become both a bird and a human. To do that, you have to consider those changes that were adaptive.

Your example is like trying to prove that teapots could not possibly be used to actually make tea, because you found one of them was being used as a planter. If you want to know what tea pots are most often used for, you have to put aside the exceptions, even if they are interesting ones.

 

[Krikkiter]

My criticism/analysis of steenkh stands and stands well....His/her position is because the time scale may be prohibitive in terms of our determining what may or may not be the case, we can hold something speculative as true. This is so because we simply can do no better.

Missed the point again I see.

 

[Patrick1000]

I did read that.......

Did you read this?

I did read that.......which mischaracterizes my position. I am not arguing the empirics are not known. The evidence is limited but the empirical is known to us to some albeit limited degree.

I have presented evidence referable to mechanism, the cytochrome c example, and I will present more. The available evidence presented and to be presented in subsequent posts actually undermines the validity of the conventional mechanism.

So my argument is NOT that we don't know so we cannot say, my argument is that we DO!!!! know some important things, and as best we can tell, something other than mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling /transpposition occurring in the context of changing environmental/selection pressures does the trick.

 

[not_so_new]

Missed the point again I see.

Easy to miss a target when you intentionally look the other way.

 

[Wowbagger]

My criticism/analysis of steenkh stands and stands well....His/her position is because the time scale may be prohibitive in terms of our determining what may or may not be the case, we can hold something speculative as true. This is so because we simply can do no better.

Lets see what happens when I take out the time scale element, from my "alternative Patrick" argument:

We have no empirical evidence that the mainstream, conventionally presented, iterative process of genetic changes occurring through random/chance mutation, crossing over, reshuffling of chromosomes during meiosis, new diploid combinations from haploid pairs, chromosomal material loss/duplication/transposition, etc; which are then selected for against a fitness landscape, which includes competition from other species, members of their own species (mating, food, etc.), avoidance of predators, and changing environmental conditions, etc.; which also happens to open up new opportunities for those entities to fill new niches, and improve their specializations along the way; could possibly result in a hypothetical reptilian common ancestor becoming both a bird and a JREF forum poster.​

You're still missing a lot of pieces in your own claim.

 

[Patrick1000]

see #778

Missed the point again I see.

see #778

 

[not_so_new]

see #778

See #779