Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[Lowpro]

Hey look at you, trying to downplay your own embarrassing argument...

Sure it isn't essential or anything...only...it was the crux of your entire platform.

Oh, and now it goes on record that you're purposely ignoring the evidence against your argument and it is now understood that you admit that you have no proof against the mechanism for the theory of evolution. All this 21 pages finally comes to a conclusion.

 

[Dinwar]

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.

So you really are just arguing "I don't understand how this can happen." That's what your argument boils down to--"I don't get it".

If you admit that mutations, recombination, crossovers, etc. ad nauseum can change DNA, and that sometimes this leads to a live organism and gets passed down to the next generation, you've accepted the mechanism for microevolution.

If you admit that those small changes can accumulate into larger changes, you've accepted the mechanism for macroevolution.

That's it. That's all there is to the theory. Unless there's some magical stage that they only tell non-scientists about.

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

There IS NO mechanism. If the change survives into the next generation, it survives. If the change doesn't, it's gone. Once a new change arises, that's an accumulation of changes.

You seem to think that "big changes" are somehow different from small ones, on some fundamental and as-yet undefined level. They're not. You are, yet again, ignoring the element of time. I'm not going to argue that time allows the small changes to accumulate--no one who knows anything about the geologic record disputes that, the evidence is too clear. What I'm saying is that you view animals from the perspective of TODAY'S animals (and you ignore all the other kingdoms and domains entirely, for no good reason). You don't understand what the past animals were like. I do--it's my job to. Steven J. Gould understood it better--read "Wonderful Life" for a very good and accessible discussion of those early life forms. In short, what we consider big changes are only big changes because so many other changes require them to work--back when they first arose, they were piddly little changes, akin to a shift in the shape of a carple or a tweak in bone structure (both changes existing in modern animals, both of which can be traced to pretty specific events, the latter of which can be traced to a specific gene in a human population in Germany). They were nothing, extremely minor, the type of changes we see in populations all the time today.

Add half a billion years or more worth of changes on top of them, and suddenly they take on the appearance of extreme importance. But it's an illusion fostered by temporal chauvanism. In fact, in reality, the changes, at the time they were made, were minor.

For reference, see Gould's "Wonderful Life" and Valentine's "On the Origin of the Phyla". I also submit as evidence the entire fossil record, which illustrates how minor these changes were when they arose, and how subsequent adaptations and alterations built upon them to make them appear to be major changes.

 

[Patrick1000]

I am hardly ill-versed.......

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.

I may me incorrect with my thinking, my analysis, but I am hardly ill-versed.......and far from unfamiliar with the history of biology and the specifics/details with regard to its most important pieces of literature.

I believe I mentioned I would present evidence based on current research, in the same sense I presented the cytochrome c information to provide those not familiar with a feel for how these very points, the issues being discussed in this very thread, are debated by professional biologists on a daily basis.

 

[Dinwar]

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

All of those who work with this data every day, who you say know that there are flaws in the mechanism but who continue to argue that the modern understanding of the mechanism quite neatly explains what we see. The ones like my friend who's looking into the genetic mutations that affect flagella, for example. But essentially you've called us all frauds and liars, because saying "These scientists know this, but won't say it" is saying "These scientists are frauds, and are lying". There's no difference between those statements in science.

 

[Dinwar]

I believe I mentioned I would present evidence based on current research, in the same sense I presented the cytochrome c information to provide those not familiar with a feel for how these very points, the issues being discussed in this very thread, are debated by professional biologists on a daily basis.

yes, yes, you've mentioned it. What you haven't done is DEMONSTRATE it.

 

[AdMan]

I know some of you are thinking of the lurkers when you respond to Patrick.

For anyone else who doesn't want to waste their time -

Don't feed the troll.

He is just posting inanities with the intent of getting you riled up and responding to them.

Let him go back down to the depths that are the CT subforum.

No one will miss him up here. Let him go back to arguing that Apollo was a hoax, or that 9/11 was a conspiracy, or similar ********.

Don't dignify his idiotic arguments with rational responses. He is only going to ignore them.

My $0.02.

 

[Patrick1000]

I don't know how it happened Dinwar.....

So you really are just arguing "I don't understand how this can happen." That's what your argument boils down to--"I don't get it".

If you admit that mutations, recombination, crossovers, etc. ad nauseum can change DNA, and that sometimes this leads to a live organism and gets passed down to the next generation, you've accepted the mechanism for microevolution.

If you admit that those small changes can accumulate into larger changes, you've accepted the mechanism for macroevolution.

That's it. That's all there is to the theory. Unless there's some magical stage that they only tell non-scientists about.

There IS NO mechanism. If the change survives into the next generation, it survives. If the change doesn't, it's gone. Once a new change arises, that's an accumulation of changes.

You seem to think that "big changes" are somehow different from small ones, on some fundamental and as-yet undefined level. They're not. You are, yet again, ignoring the element of time. I'm not going to argue that time allows the small changes to accumulate--no one who knows anything about the geologic record disputes that, the evidence is too clear. What I'm saying is that you view animals from the perspective of TODAY'S animals (and you ignore all the other kingdoms and domains entirely, for no good reason). You don't understand what the past animals were like. I do--it's my job to. Steven J. Gould understood it better--read "Wonderful Life" for a very good and accessible discussion of those early life forms. In short, what we consider big changes are only big changes because so many other changes require them to work--back when they first arose, they were piddly little changes, akin to a shift in the shape of a carple or a tweak in bone structure (both changes existing in modern animals, both of which can be traced to pretty specific events, the latter of which can be traced to a specific gene in a human population in Germany). They were nothing, extremely minor, the type of changes we see in populations all the time today.

Add half a billion years or more worth of changes on top of them, and suddenly they take on the appearance of extreme importance. But it's an illusion fostered by temporal chauvanism. In fact, in reality, the changes, at the time they were made, were minor.

For reference, see Gould's "Wonderful Life" and Valentine's "On the Origin of the Phyla". I also submit as evidence the entire fossil record, which illustrates how minor these changes were when they arose, and how subsequent adaptations and alterations built upon them to make them appear to be major changes.

I don't know how it, evolution, happened Dinwar....., and neither apparently does anyone else. Am I a bad person?

No one understands gravity. Does that make Newton's or Einstein's work useless? Hardly......

On the other hand, it makes little sense to not point out that problems do exist with regard to our current useful though flawed scientific models. It makes little sense to not point out that problems with our understanding of evolution do in fact exist, and they are very big problems.

I am obviously no great scientist, but what if the great scientists like Einstein did just "go along". What if Einstein said to himself;

"You know, I realize Newton is way off base here. Gravitational effects cannot pass through space/time instantaneously. And you know what else????....., if Newton were right, we'd have a definite distance that we'd know was the right one to plug into the inverse square law describing the gravitational relationship between the earth and sun? But we don't have that distance do we?, since no reference frame can be preferred. Maybe I should just keep my mouth shut about my having realized that with respect to Newton's presentation of a Universal Law of Gravitation we don't know what numbers to plug in for the earth-sun distance, and so in Newton's Law's case, we really have no idea at all what the gravitational relationship is between the earth and the sun. I guess I will just keep my mouth shut and pretend there is no problem here. It's not like I could make any progress or change things anyway. And Newton is so famous and authoritative. People won't buy in to anything I have to offer anyway."

Is that how Einstein should have thought Dinwar? There wouldn't have been General Relativity had he been a complacent, go along, no big deal, just shut up and go with the established convenient perspective type of guy.

Sure he respected Newton a ton, but Einstein wasn't going to sit there and buy into something obviously incorrect.

We should not either when it comes to our understanding of evolution.

 

[Lowpro]

I don't know how it, evolution, happened Dinwar....., and neither apparently does anyone else. Am I a bad person?

No one understands gravity. Does that make Newton's or Einstein's work useless? Hardly......

On the other hand, it makes little sense to not point out that problems do exist with regard to our current useful though flawed scientific models. It makes little sense to not point out that problems with our understanding of evolution do in fact exist, and they are very big problems.

I am obviously no great scientist, but what if the great scientists like Einstein did just "go along". What if Einstein said to himself;

"You know, I realize Newton is way off base here. Gravitational effects cannot pass through space/time instantaneously. And you know what else????....., if Newton were right, we'd have a definite distance that we'd know was the right one to plug into the inverse square law describing the gravitational relationship between the earth and sun? But we don't have that distance do we?, since no reference frame can be preferred. Maybe I should just keep my mouth shut about my having realized that with respect to Newton's presentation of a Universal Law of Gravitation we don't know what numbers to plug in for the earth-sun distance, and so in Newton's Law's case, we really have no idea at all what the gravitational relationship is between the earth and the sun. I guess I will just keep my mouth shut and pretend there is no problem here. It's not like I could make any progress or change things anyway. And Newton is so famous and authoritative. People won't buy in to anything I have to offer anyway."

Is that how Einstein should have thought Dinwar? There wouldn't have been General Relativity had he been a complacent, go along, no big deal, just shut up and go with the established convenient perspective.

Sure he respected Newton a ton, but Einstein wasn't going to sit there and buy into something obviously incorrect.

We should not either when it comes to our understanding of evolution.

Gee, if only the something like the scientific method existed to test and demonstrate phenomena to explain them...

Einstein worked on Newton's theory of gravity to explain and demonstrate what Newton's theory failed to explain adequately.

The same is true for evolution, considering it had changed since Darwin's time; it hasn't been disproven and actually is much stronger in its predictive power than Newton's original theory was, but that may be harder to quantify.

But you, look at you Patrick. All you are saying is that the ToE is inadequate...only you haven't proven it. Cytochrome C? Not an issue. System evolution of cladistics? Also not a problem.

You've got nothing. You don't need to sit down and shut up to pretend there isn't a problem, you need to sit down and shut up because you don't understand what you're talking about.

 

[Patrick1000]

It would appear that you did not understand the substance of my post.....

Gee, if only the something like the scientific method existed to test and demonstrate phenomena to explain them...

It would appear that you did not understand the substance of my post...., and so, it seems that I am not able to understand the substance of your response.

 

[Patrick1000]

Again, I am not arguing no evolution....

Gee, if only the something like the scientific method existed to test and demonstrate phenomena to explain them...

Einstein worked on Newton's theory of gravity to explain and demonstrate what Newton's theory failed to explain adequately.

The same is true for evolution, considering it had changed since Darwin's time; it hasn't been disproven and actually is much stronger in its predictive power than Newton's original theory was, but that may be harder to quantify.

But you, look at you Patrick. All you are saying is that the ToE is inadequate...only you haven't proven it. Cytochrome C? Not an issue. System evolution of cladistics? Also not a problem.

You've got nothing. You don't need to sit down and shut up to pretend there isn't a problem, you need to sit down and shut up because you don't understand what you're talking about.

Again, I am not arguing no evolution...

 

[Lowpro]

It would appear that you did not understand the substance of my post...., and so, it seems that I am not able to understand the substance of your response.

Dude your post was just you waxing poetic trying to equate Einstein working against Newton's inadequate theory with you trying to work against what you consider the ToE's inadequacies.

There is a problem with your idea. Einstein isn't some backseat observer twit who doesn't know what he was talking about. He had a good grasp of the mathematics and worked REALLY hard with no particular aim to disprove or prove anything; only to prove using mathematics the phenomena of gravity. He didn't disprove gravity, he only amended what was then an inadequate theory.

 

[Lowpro]

Again, I am not arguing no evolution...

OMG dude...READ

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

Gee, if only the something like the scientific method existed to test and demonstrate phenomena to explain them...

Einstein worked on Newton's theory of gravity to explain and demonstrate what Newton's theory failed to explain adequately.

The same is true for evolution, considering it had changed since Darwin's time; it hasn't been disproven and actually is much stronger in its predictive power than Newton's original theory was, but that may be harder to quantify.

But you, look at you Patrick. All you are saying is that the ToE is inadequate...only you haven't proven it. Cytochrome C? Not an issue. System evolution of cladistics? Also not a problem.

You've got nothing. You don't need to sit down and shut up to pretend there isn't a problem, you need to sit down and shut up because you don't understand what you're talking about.

Again, I am not arguing no evolution...

I see it now. YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO READ! You were never taught reading comprehension skills. You pick up keywords and run with that and that's why there's this illusion that you cannot take criticism straight on and instead move goalposts and create strawmen! It's because you suck at reading!

 

[Patrick1000]

I believe I write reasonably well.......

Dude your post was just you waxing poetic trying to equate Einstein working against Newton's inadequate theory with you trying to work against what you consider the ToE's inadequacies.

There is a problem with your idea. Einstein isn't some backseat observer twit who doesn't know what he was talking about. He had a good grasp of the mathematics and worked REALLY hard with no particular aim to disprove or prove anything; only to prove using mathematics the phenomena of gravity. He didn't disprove gravity, he only amended what was then an inadequate theory.

I believe I write reasonably well.......That said, I have never been accused of waxing poetic. Not sure how to take that, and so I shall accept it as a compliment.

Writing abilities, or lack thereof aside, my point about Newton and Einstein is appropriate, pertinent and nothing less than EXCELLENT.

It is a point more than relevant, one having everything to do with the current subject matter.

 

[Wowbagger]

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.

Cytochrome C is not relevant. Genetic drift is can happen. But, not all changes are like that. Some end up being adaptive. Some end up being destructive.

Do you agree with that much?

Again, I am not arguing no evolution...

You were trying to claim we need an "Einstein" to find a mechanism for it. Do you still think so?

 

[Lowpro]

I believe I write reasonably well.......That said, I have never been accused of waxing poetic. Not sure how to take that, and so I shall accept it as a compliment.

Writing abilities, or lack thereof aside, my point about Newton and Einstein is appropriate, pertinent and nothing less than EXCELLENT.

It is a point more than relevant, one having everything to do with the current subject matter.

In your dreams maybe. You haven't presented any good reason to find the ToE or its mechanism for genetic variance to be inadequate. Unexplained, sure, but predicted through the ToE? Most definitely. Oh I guess I can give you a good enough Einstein for it though:

Barbara McClintock

 

[Dinwar]

I don't know how it, evolution, happened Dinwar....., and neither apparently does anyone else. Am I a bad person?

The flaw is that we DO know how evolution occurred. The scientists who study how evolution occurred on Earth are called paleontologists. They figure out, given fossil evidence, what changes occurred when.

I am obviously no great scientist, but what if the great scientists like Einstein did just "go along".

You've not done what Einstein has done. Einstein pointed out specific flaws in Newton's theories, made specific predictions, and provided a superior method for dealing with the issue.

Where are the flaws in the post you quoted in its entirety?

What specific predictions can you make better than evolution?

How does your understanding of evolution explain the fossil record better than Gould or Valentine's understanding explains it?

Sure he respected Newton a ton, but Einstein wasn't going to sit there and buy into something obviously incorrect.

We should not either when it comes to our understanding of evolution.

I don't. There are nuances of evolution that I don't agree with. I've always been dubious about cladistics, for example. The thing is, I can point out specific flaws in the idea--for example, the assumption that any species gives rise to one daughter species is more or less foundational to cladistics/phylogeny. Sometimes it does--the fruit flies of Hawaii demonstrate this quite well. But other times, such as during rapid radiations, we have no reason to assume that only one novel species arose at a time.

See what I did there? I pointed out specific flaws in the theory, one which anyone can check. I pointed out specific evidence--including where, at least in a general sense, one should look for it.

What I did NOT do was demand that we reject cladistics because there's a flaw in it. I know at least one researcher is working on this problem and is more familiar with the issue than I am, and I'm willing to admit that I haven't done the requisite research to make such a statement.

I also did NOT compare myself to Einstein. That's -5 points on the Crackpot Index.

I also haven't insulted any of the previous researchers, nor have I implied that those who continue to use cladistics are wrong. Again, until I have something better, I can't--I don't have anything better to offer them, nor do I have any evidence that I'm more right than they are.

Gee, if only the something like the scientific method existed to test and demonstrate phenomena to explain them...

If I may be so bold, I'll take a stab at this one.

Einstein wasn't accepted until his theory produced results. For example, it predicted Mercury's orbit more accurately than Newtonian physics. Einstein proposed a hypothesis, then tested it. You haven't so much gotten to the "propose a hypothesis" stage. Your idea is prescientific--it's what you get before you get scientific ideas. Appropriate for a bull session, but not for challenging real science.

Finally, I have to ask yet again for you to address my post, Patrick1000. You copied the whole thing--I assume you read it. Please address the issues I raised therein. What specific mechanism prevents small changes, over geologic time scales, from accumulating until they gain the appearance of large changes? If you cannot propose any mechanism whatever, the only conclusion to draw is that you don't understand it. YOU don't get it. That says nothing about what the rest of us understand.

 

[Patrick1000]

Of course I agree, biologic information change is not homogeneous.....

Cytochrome C is not relevant. Genetic drift is can happen. But, not all changes are like that. Some end up being adaptive. Some end up being destructive.

Do you agree with that much?

You were trying to claim we need an "Einstein" to find a mechanism for it. Do you still think so?

Of course, I agree. Biologic information change is not homogeneous.....

Cytochrome c is one single mitochondrial membrane protein in a whirl of outrageous complexity.

If you are asking me, there may be MANY ways in which biologic system information change occurs, MANY ways.

I was not claiming we needed an Einstein, I was pointing out we make progress by APPROPRIATELY challenging authority. It is the only way we move from paradigm to hopefully better paradigm.

Einstein and Darwin type guys are unique, singular talents. It is an extremely interesting perspective to see Darwin as Newton's counterpart and imagine someone could come along and jump start things. Come up with something new and better in terms of our understanding of biology as Einstein did for physics at the turn of the century.

When I first read your question, my gut reaction was NO. "No" because biology is fundamentally so much more complex than physics, though somewhat ironically, it is the physics/math types viewed as most brainy, presumably because their language isolates their priesthood in a way that the language of biology does not do likewise for those working in the field of living systems.

Anyway, upon further reflection, why not? There may be a 9 year old girl out there now. She is fascinated by flowers, moths, dogs, cats, her parents, whales, birds and bats. Her mind wheels away it does indeed, and in 20 years time, we'll have something special and new and better. Perhaps I should not be as pessimistic as I have been.

 

[Wowbagger]

Anyway, upon further reflection, why not? There may be a 9 year old girl out there now. She is fascinated by flowers, moths, dogs, cats, her parents, whales, birds and bats. Her mind wheels away it does indeed, and in 20 years time, we'll have something special and new and better.

It's possible. I'll agree with that much.

But, your claim is that the currently accepted mechanism is somehow not adequate to explain much of evolution.

While I agree that something better might come along in the future, I disagree that the current process is not adequate. After seeing it work, for myself, in many different ways, I think it is perfectly adequate.

You have not really demonstrated that it is inadequate. You agree that not all changes are neutral like Cytochrome C.

 

[Sideroxylon]

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

You have been given evidence that you are wrong yet you continue to trot this out. What the hell, Patrick. Go read, watch and learn and if you still hold this position then make an argument that amounts to more than "I don't understand how natural selection can result in creativity therefore it can't."


Guys, I have found a free program evolution modeling program called 3DVCE.

This application is an example of evolutionary computing that you can run on your own Windows PC at home (see the download section). It uses a process similar to biological evolution to gradually evolve a population of virtual creatures in a 3D graphical and physical environment. Much of the inspiration for this project came from the wonderful work of Karl Sims. In the mid 90's Dr. Sims did something very similar, using an evolutionary algorithm to evolve the body plans and control systems of virtual creatures whose bodies were composed of jointed blocks. His creatures were evolved in simulated land and water environments for their ability to swim, walk, jump, follow a light source, and compete against opponents for control of a resource. See the related projects section for links some videos from Dr. Sims and links to other virtual creature evolution projects).

With this program you can watch a process of simulated Darwinian evolution unfold before your eyes (although the process can take several days of computer time depending on your computer speed and your evolution settings). The user is given control of many of the parameters of the evolution such as the size of the creature population, the mutation rate, the ability for which the creatures will be evolved, and many other settings. Users are encouraged to send me any interesting creatures they should happen to produce for inclusion in the Zoo . There are already numerous strange and interesting virtual creatures on display there, with many more to come.

http://www.stellaralchemy.com/lee/vce3d_about.php

If you follow that link you will find videos, including a tutorial playlist and examples of evolved creatures. Dinwar, I don't know if it will do what you want but it looks like a nice starting point for some like myself.

 

[Mojo]

I am obviously no great scientist, but what if the great scientists like Einstein did just "go along". What if Einstein said to himself;

"You know, I realize Newton is way off base here. Gravitational effects cannot pass through space/time instantaneously. And you know what else????....., if Newton were right, we'd have a definite distance that we'd know was the right one to plug into the inverse square law describing the gravitational relationship between the earth and sun? But we don't have that distance do we?, since no reference frame can be preferred. Maybe I should just keep my mouth shut about my having realized that with respect to Newton's presentation of a Universal Law of Gravitation we don't know what numbers to plug in for the earth-sun distance, and so in Newton's Law's case, we really have no idea at all what the gravitational relationship is between the earth and the sun. I guess I will just keep my mouth shut and pretend there is no problem here. It's not like I could make any progress or change things anyway. And Newton is so famous and authoritative. People won't buy in to anything I have to offer anyway."

Is that how Einstein should have thought Dinwar? There wouldn't have been General Relativity had he been a complacent, go along, no big deal, just shut up and go with the established convenient perspective type of guy.

But "going along" is precisely what you are arguing for when you argue that we need to do something about the theory of evolution because "75% of adults here are Christian" and the theory doesn't correspond to their beliefs.

If Newton, Galileo and Copernicus (or others) had been prepared to "go along" and modify their hypotheses to accomodate religious dogma, we would still have the geocentric model, crystal spheres and epicycles, and no theory of gravity, let alone General Relativity.