Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[Perpetual Student]

... 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.

Thousands of researchers throughout the world who have spent their professional lives working in this field know and understand quite well what "does the trick."
Who is "we"?

 

[Wowbagger]

see #778

See also Post #776.

 

[Patrick1000]

I never claimed to be able to present a mechanism......

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.

I never claimed to be able to present a mechanism......

I wrote before, if I am an attorney, and you have accused my client of murder, I hardly need to produce the culprit to exculpate my client. I will be viewed as successful, and fairly so, simply by demonstrating the inadequacies of the case against my charge.

Likewise, I hardly need to supply a mechanism for evolution. If it is not clear by now to you, I believe a valid mechanism may never be forthcoming. My aim, and obviously I have been quite successful here, is simply to show the mechanism of evolution as conventionally presented does not appear to be able to do in terms of its creative powers that which its advocates claim that it is capable of doing.

End of story, if I so chose. My working on my own explanation is my prerogative, and the validity of that explanation, if I ever develop one, is in no way dependent on my effective criticism of the conventional mechanism, the latter having been essentially demonstrated already.

 

[Krikkiter]

My claim is that 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.

This is my claim.

<snip> ... 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.

One of these things is not like the other. You're making progress. Good to see.

 

[Krikkiter]

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

He seems to do that a lot.

 

[Wowbagger]

My aim, and obviously I have been quite successful here, is simply to show the mechanism of evolution as conventionally presented does not appear to be able to do in terms of its creative powers that which its advocates claim that it is capable of doing.

You have not shown any such thing! We presented lots of links to articles, videos, etc. of people demonstrating HOW the conventional mechanism of evolution works, and HOW it can account for creative powers seen in life forms.

You just don't accept it, for some reason. Why not? What else is missing?!

You're making progress.

He IS making progress! I'm almost proud of him!

 

[Reality Check]

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.

You are wrong: You 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 agreement with a modern synthesis type mechanism without seeming to have much if any impact on phenotype/functionality.

The mutations in cytochrome c are neutral (have little effect on 'phenotype/functionality'). Thus evolutionary theory predicts that they will be conserved, i.e. natural selection will not select against them. Thus cytochrome c will have a fairly constant rate of mutations and is a good molecular clock.

 

[Patrick1000]

Selection pressure is a feature of mechanism.......

One of these things is not like the other. You're making progress. Good to see.

Selection pressure is a feature of mechanism.......and certainly one not ignored by me, indeed, and again, my posts referencing cytochrome c emphasized the LACK OF A ROLE THAT SELECTION PRESSURE PLAYS IN SOME IMPORTANT CIRCUMSTANCES CASES.

The posts without reference to selection pressures are posts which emphasized, and this was clear given the context of the posts as they were posts referencing the Star Textbook's presentation, THOSE TOOLS AVAILABLE TO A LIVING SYSTEM WHICH ARE CAPABLE OF CHANGING ITS COMPLEMENT OF BIOLOGIC INFORMATION. What equipment according to Star biologic systems have in their garage capable of materially changing themselves from hot air balloon into a rocket(if at all possible).

Selection pressure is of course relevant to evolution's conventionally presented mechanism, but it was not the subject matter of those posts.

I believe you guys call this a "strawman changing the goal posts, tearing down the goalposts" or something ridiculously unintelligible like that.

I'll just call it ridiculous.

 

[Dinwar]

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

Further lies. I provided evidence on PAGE ONE, and have continued to reference Jack Horner's work since.

I never claimed to be able to present a mechanism......

Nope. You've just done the typical Creationist tactic of trying to poke holes in things you don't fully understand. Along with lies, refusal to admit when someone presents evidence, and so forth further erodes your credibility.

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.

~sigh~

Look at Mount Everest. Highest point on earth. At its peak, the rock is composed of limestone containing shells indicative of a shallow sea. Obviously, those critters didn't live there. How did they get there? Well, we can measure very, very small increases in height of the mountain, but since we can't watch the mountain rise over a human lifetime, I guess the best we can say is that it happened somehow.

Look at the Pahrump Valley, west of Las Vegas. It has tens of thousands of feet of sediment in it. Now, geologists claim that this derives from the mountains around it. However, when we go there we can only see a few cubic feet of rock falling at most at a time. Over the lifespan of one researcher less than a foot of rock has been deposited on the desert floor! Obviously something is going on here--but it can't be erosion. I guess we can only speculate.

How about the Atlantic Ocean? There sure seems to be a lot of evidence for its spreading! But then, over the course of human history it's spread less than a few feet. I'm not denying that the sea floor spreads, certainly not! I'm just saying that until someone can present EXACTLY how much it spread every year they propose it did so, the best we can do is speculate on the mechanism.

See the problem yet? The dead horse is beginning to smell funny.

End of story, if I so chose. My working on my own explanation is my prerogative, and the validity of that explanation, if I ever develop one, is in no way dependent on my effective criticism of the conventional mechanism, the latter having been essentially demonstrated already.

BZZT! Wrong! "Demonstration" implies that you've actually presented something. Thus far, that's limited to one gene, and a quote from a textbook. Thus, you've DEMONSTRATED nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. You've ASSERTED plenty, but assertion isn't proof.

 

[Dinwar]

I believe you guys call this a "strawman changing the goal posts, tearing down the goalposts" or something ridiculously unintelligible like that.

I suggest you read "Attacking Faulty Reasoning". It's a textbook, so you should accept everything it says as gospel. And it clearly defines these terms you claim to be completely ignorant of. I believe this is the second or third time I've recommended this book to you.

I find it very, very difficult to believe that someone with any interest of science that's past high school doesn't know the common fallacies, however. They aren't uncommon accusations in science.

 

[Patrick1000]

Neutral Selection was Motoo Kimura's ad hoc explanation.....

You are wrong: You 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 agreement with a modern synthesis type mechanism without seeming to have much if any impact on phenotype/functionality.

The mutations in cytochrome c are neutral (have little effect on 'phenotype/functionality'). Thus evolutionary theory predicts that they will be conserved, i.e. natural selection will not select against them. Thus cytochrome c will have a fairly constant rate of mutations and is a good molecular clock.

Neutral Selection was Motoo Kimura's ad hoc explanation.....for the then very very very surprising phenomenon of regular genotypic change without phenotypic impact or environmental pressure responsiveness.

Your point WAS MY POINT EXACTLY. This was an unexpected result. It is not evolution as had been theretofore understood and most would say was not evolution all, if by evolution one references substantive phenotypic change as a feature.

 

[Robrob]

I never claimed to be able to present a mechanism......

I wrote before, if I am an attorney, and you have accused my client of murder, I hardly need to produce the culprit to exculpate my client. I will be viewed as successful, and fairly so, simply by demonstrating the inadequacies of the case against my charge.

That's the problem with mixed metaphors, they often times don't make sense.

Science isn't like a court of law. Simply throwing rocks at one theory doesn't make a second theory (your theory) more valid.

You have claimed the theory most accepted by every scientific field on the planet is false at its core. You, not everyone else, need to provide evidence to back up your claim. Your argument is the same as CT loons the world over, "I'm just asking questions." Your assumption being, if you can imply enough doubt (about an undoubted theory) then your completely unprovable theory must obviously be true in its place.

 

[Lowpro]

Neutral Selection was Motoo Kimura's ad hoc explanation.....for the then very very very surprising phenomenon of regular genotypic change without phenotypic impact or environmental pressure responsiveness.

Your point WAS MY POINT EXACTLY. This was an unexpected result. It is not evolution as had been theretofore understood and most would say was not evolution all, if by evolution one references substantive phenotypic change as a feature.

...It was unexpected in the 60's when gene mapping hadn't even started...

We've come a long way... and by the way, unexpected =! unpredicted and the ToE doesn't actually lose out on anything from it. Mutations aren't different because they're neutral...

BY THE WAY!

Are you going to ignore the evidence against your stance on micro/macro evolution? I mean you can pussy out all night, but I just want you to go on record at least.

 

[Patrick1000]

Relax Dinwar, it was a joke.....

I suggest you read "Attacking Faulty Reasoning". It's a textbook, so you should accept everything it says as gospel. And it clearly defines these terms you claim to be completely ignorant of. I believe this is the second or third time I've recommended this book to you.

I find it very, very difficult to believe that someone with any interest of science that's past high school doesn't know the common fallacies, however. They aren't uncommon accusations in science.

Relax Dinwar, it was a joke.....don't take this stuff too seriously or we'll BOTH blow up. Then who would entertain the others??????

 

[Dinwar]

Your point WAS MY POINT EXACTLY. This was an unexpected result. It is not evolution as had been theretofore understood and most would say was not evolution all,

It's a somewhat novel application of a well-understood theory. Instead of being positive or negative, it's sometimes neither. Interesting, and certainly worth a closer look, but not, and I cannot emphasize this enough, game-changing.

Nor does it prevent small-scale changes from accumulating into larger-scale changes, which is what you've been arguing the flaw in evolutionary theory is for two or three pages.

Nor does it negate the idea of directional, stabilizing, or divergent evolution. All it does is add one more word to the list.

 

[Dinwar]

Relax Dinwar, it was a joke.....don't take this stuff too seriously

You'll have to forgive me if I don't have much of a sense of humor dealing with you. After someone suckerpunches me, my friends, and some of my family (ie, those who practice paleontology, a field of study you're saying basically just makes crap up, and those who study biology, who you are calling frauds and liars, in fact if not in those words), I'm not the happiest person on Earth.

ETA: Also, got anything to say about the REST of my post? Or are you going to laugh and pretend we're bestest friends and ignore all objections to your statements yet again?

I wrote before, if I am an attorney, and you have accused my client of murder, I hardly need to produce the culprit to exculpate my client.

This is science, not a court of law. If you're going to rip down one of the foundational theories of a discipline, you'd best be able to put something in its place. I'm not saying it's impossible--it's been done before. Evolution did it, in fact. I'm just saying that poking holes in a foundational theory of multiple fields of study isn't good enough. Particularly not when you're as ill-versed in the literature and evidence as you are.

 

[Patrick1000]

Not at all Dinwar.......

It's a somewhat novel application of a well-understood theory. Instead of being positive or negative, it's sometimes neither. Interesting, and certainly worth a closer look, but not, and I cannot emphasize this enough, game-changing.

Nor does it prevent small-scale changes from accumulating into larger-scale changes, which is what you've been arguing the flaw in evolutionary theory is for two or three pages.

Nor does it negate the idea of directional, stabilizing, or divergent evolution. All it does is add one more word to the list.

Not at all Dinwar.......you too missed a point about which I was exceedingly clear. I accept the changes, the small ones, every single one, and the big ones, every single one, and the FACT that they account for biologic informational change accounting for evolution.

I question the MECHANISM whereby those changes, many many many small cumulative changes adding up to big ones occurs.

Remember, for me, the changes, small accreting and so adding up to big, all of the changes are accepted by as a given, accepted by me as FACT, not in dispute. Evolution by way of many changes small to big is a FACT and not a problem for me.

The mechanism is what I dispute.

 

[Lowpro]

Not at all Dinwar.......you too missed a point about which I was exceedingly clear. I accept the changes, the small ones, every single one, and the big ones, every single one, and the FACT that they account for biologic informational change accounting for evolution.

I question the MECHANISM whereby those changes, many many many small cumulative changes adding up to big ones occurs.

Remember, for me, the changes, small accreting and so adding up to big, all of the changes are accepted by as a given, accepted by me as FACT, not in dispute. Evolution by way of many changes small to big is a FACT and not a problem for me.

The mechanism is what I dispute.

How is it in dispute? No really, aside from your argument from ignorance (the hot air balloon analogy that DOESN'T WORK) You've provided no reasoning, no evidence, not even an INFERENCE that the mechanism of evolution doesn't work.

Remember how I asked if you were going to puss out on answering this question?! Will you now go on record that you cannot provide any information against it, you just don't like it and you want to make an ass out of yourself to prove it?

* Wait hell, I read it again because something's nagging me. You DON'T question that small changes build up to big ones..you acknowledge it as fact. It's like you're saying " I cannot provide evidence against your arguments, none but I don't like it enough. It needs some pizazz...

 

[Patrick1000]

Who did I call a fraud Dinwar?????.......

You'll have to forgive me if I don't have much of a sense of humor dealing with you. After someone suckerpunches me, my friends, and some of my family (ie, those who practice paleontology, a field of study you're saying basically just makes crap up, and those who study biology, who you are calling frauds and liars, in fact if not in those words), I'm not the happiest person on Earth.

ETA: Also, got anything to say about the REST of my post? Or are you going to laugh and pretend we're bestest friends and ignore all objections to your statements yet again?

This is science, not a court of law. If you're going to rip down one of the foundational theories of a discipline, you'd best be able to put something in its place. I'm not saying it's impossible--it's been done before. Evolution did it, in fact. I'm just saying that poking holes in a foundational theory of multiple fields of study isn't good enough. Particularly not when you're as ill-versed in the literature and evidence as you are.

Who did I call a fraud Dinwar?????, a liar.......Seriously, you are losing perspective here.

I think I mentioned what a terrific writer I thought Darwin was/is, insanely literary, fabulous, and the biology is every bit as good as his pen.

I said evolution's mechanism as conventionally presented was inadequate.

I did criticize Dawkins, he is a special case because of the aggressive element to his atheism.

The other mainstreamers I admire for the most part, some more than others.

 

[Patrick1000]

Skip the hot air stuff then Lowpro.....

How is it in dispute? No really, aside from your argument from ignorance (the hot air balloon analogy that DOESN'T WORK) You've provided no reasoning, no evidence, not even an INFERENCE that the mechanism of evolution doesn't work.

Remember how I asked if you were going to puss out on answering this question?! Will you now go on record that you cannot provide any information against it, you just don't like it and you want to make an ass out of yourself to prove it?

* Wait hell, I read it again because something's nagging me. You DON'T question that small changes build up to big ones..you acknowledge it as fact. It's like you're saying " I cannot provide evidence against your arguments, none but I don't like it enough. It needs some pizazz...

Skip the hot air stuff then Lowpro.....If it does not work for you, no big. it is not essential to anything. It is a metaphor helpful to some in their seeing my perspective, whether or not they agree.