Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[Dinwar]

We're attacking it from two different angles. Co-authorship?

 

[Aridas]

I'd like to do the opposite.This should read.

The mechanism for evolution is deliberately misrepresented by him in order to argue that it seems implausible.
​

The mechanism for evolution is misrepresented by more than just him. I was being kind, though, and using what he actually said, as a guide, given that arguments sections were intended to be representative of his stated arguments, not necessarily what they actually are.

Nice summary, Aridas.

Condensed version: Patrick has read a creationist website, removed explicit Goddidit references and regurgitated it here, thinking the God bit is the only flaw in their criticism of the ToE. As in all his threads he's just trolling for fun, but the rest of us get to learn lots of cool stuff from the posters patiently explaining why he's wrong.

More likely, the book "Darwin on Trial" and related materials, given his mention and praise of it. In post #683, I posted a review which supposedly summarizes the arguments in the book. These arguments seem, to me, to have numerous points in common with Patrick1000's arguments.

 

[Mojo]

I mentioned it before...

I said something about it as well, although via a different analogy.

 

[nomuse]

Present your molecular evidence for birds from dinosaurs. Show us the EVIDENCE that a dinosaur became a bird over time by way of a series of random, undirected, unrelated mutations. Show us how an informational change came about that resulted in the creation of an avian cardiopulmonary system from that of a reptile.

neo-Darwinism makes the claim this to be the case and as "science" must provide a way to test/confirm/falsify the claim. If it cannot provide/suggest such a test, then the theory, the hypothesis, is meaningless.

My point, what I am suggesting, is that this is indeed the case. The ball is not in my court, it is in yours.

And you studied biology WHERE?

Do you actually think that every potential combination is of equal probability? Do you think every organism has potential to go in any possible direction? That's as insane as thinking that the fitness landscape is completely flat.

And the construction of your following sentence betrays that you, just like the Creationists, can't free your mind from thinking of the end state as a goal. We ended up with the modern avian, pulmonary system and all (how is it, by the by, that you can spell "pulmonary" but can't spell "Naturalistic?") But we could have just as well ended up in billions of other places, with other functional systems (or with evolutionary dead ends, for that matter).

This is like analyzing the probability of an accident after the fact. Before it happened, it may have been a thousand-to-one odds against the double-boiler being hit by a falling brick and collapsing sideways on to a half-empty can of gasoline. After it happened, the odds of it happening are....ONE.

 

[EHocking]

The mechanism for evolution is misrepresented by more than just him. I was being kind, though, and using what he actually said, as a guide, given that arguments sections were intended to be representative of his stated arguments, not necessarily what they actually are.

Quite. And kudos for all that are still engaging with him, despite his method of argument.

 

[Dinwar]

But we could have just as well ended up in billions of other places, with other functional systems (or with evolutionary dead ends, for that matter).

As a matter of fact, we DID end up with a number of various things that were what you could call part bird, part reptile. Archaeopteryx itself is one: if you look at the bones, it's clearly a small dinosaur similar to a Veloceraptor. If you look at the feathers, it's clearly a bird. And recent research has shown taht Archaeopteryx is not, in fact, the ancestor to modern birds.

Other aspects of biology show this as well. Take eyes for example. Creationists love to say that they're irreducibly complex, but anyone who knows any anatomy outside of Phylum Chordata can only laugh at such a stupid statement. We've got the whole range of eyes, from the Ctenophora clusters of photosensitive cells to eyes that make our eyes look pathetically simplistic. And these are in living organisms--the eyes were good enough for those organisms that they didn't advance significantly after a certain point (that point varying between phyla, class, etc).

Egg-layng mammals and marsupials also show radically different evolutionary paths mammals could have taken (and some did take).

It's actually the norm for those side-branches to happen. It's just that it's ALSO the norm for most of those side branches to be trimmed by extinctions, allowing people like Patrick1000 to pretend that there's some insurmountable (but never defined) barrier between ancestors and decendants.

 

[FattyCatty]

Actually, I am an English teacher, but I found the quoted passage (It's actually not a sentence at all--just a string of gerund phrases with no predicate) more humorous than disappointing.

Anyway, kudos to everyone taking the time to respond seriously here; I'm learning a lot in this thread.

I agree, both about the almost-sentence-paragraph and about learning a lot in this thread.

Nice summary, Aridas.

Condensed version: Patrick has read a creationist website, removed explicit Goddidit references and regurgitated it here, thinking the God bit is the only flaw in their criticism of the ToE. As in all his threads he's just trolling for fun, but the rest of us get to learn lots of cool stuff from the posters patiently explaining why he's wrong.

Again, I agree.

I want to thank all the patient posters who have provided information for others. I found that the best way to read the thread was to scroll through Patrick1000's posts and read only the replies. I would especially like to thank Dinwar for his patience and explanations and Lowpro for his red-to-blue example. I'm learning lots; there have been some great links to read and some books to add to my list. Thanks again to all the patient posters.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I found that the best way to read the thread was to scroll through Patrick1000's posts and read only the replies.

Ditto.

At first I read his posts, but rapidly found them to be largely non-responsive to the information that he was being given.

I found that aggravating enough that I got to the point I was just quickly scanning his posts to see if there was anything new - mostly there never was.

I now mainly ignore them, though I will give them a quick scan to keep responses to them in context.

 

[FattyCatty]

Ditto.

At first I read his posts, but rapidly found them to be largely non-responsive to the information that he was being given.

I found that aggravating enough that I got to the point I was just quickly scanning his posts to see if there was anything new - mostly there never was.

I now mainly ignore them, though I will give them a quick scan to keep responses to them in context.

Yeah, that's how I did it. At first I faithfully read all his posts, then started skimming them, now just scroll through with an eye out for new key words. I read what he says when it's quoted in a reply, that's it.

 

[Patrick1000]

Batter up, a softball for you nomuse.......

And you studied biology WHERE?

Do you actually think that every potential combination is of equal probability? Do you think every organism has potential to go in any possible direction? That's as insane as thinking that the fitness landscape is completely flat.

And the construction of your following sentence betrays that you, just like the Creationists, can't free your mind from thinking of the end state as a goal. We ended up with the modern avian, pulmonary system and all (how is it, by the by, that you can spell "pulmonary" but can't spell "Naturalistic?") But we could have just as well ended up in billions of other places, with other functional systems (or with evolutionary dead ends, for that matter).

This is like analyzing the probability of an accident after the fact. Before it happened, it may have been a thousand-to-one odds against the double-boiler being hit by a falling brick and collapsing sideways on to a half-empty can of gasoline. After it happened, the odds of it happening are....ONE.

Batter up, a softball for you nomuse.......

Fancy meeting you here here nomuse. Somehow, I get the feeling you shall not last long in this neck of the woods. But to be fair, I'll serve you up a big fat softball. I respectfully request that NO ONE! help nomuse with this soft ball question for a week. If he doesn't answer it, come up with a reasonable explanation by then, at that time others are welcome/invited to provide nomuse help by way of a suggested "solution". I myself shall provide a good solution/possible explanation as well.

So nomuse, you buy into the mainstream view of the modern synthesis' mechanism do you? Well then, riddle me this young man;

The human genome contains 4 different haemoglobin type domains. Two of the domains code for the more familiar alpha and beta chains of the haemoglobin found in adult red blood cells. Another domain codes for a fetal haemoglobin chain, and a fourth domain codes for myoglobin, the latter, a heme based carrier of oxygen found within muscles. We assume in outline the tenets of the modern synthesis, its mechanism, the model for evolution in which you believe nomuse.

Such being the case, one would assume all four of the haemoglobin chains arose from a common haemoglobin ancestor. We might call that HA. So HA became first alpha say, then alpha became beta, then beta became fetal, then fetal became myoglobin. This isn't a real path, just an example to make a point. AND, the point is, were the modern synthesis on target, its mechanism, one would expect the haemoglobins and myoglobin would line up in such a way, have conventional mechanism evident by way of a step by step logical haemoglobin thread, one leading to the next. A sequence of haemoglobins, a pedigree should be evident, one underscoring your favored mechanism nomuse, mutations occurring that lead from one heme protein coding domain to the next. You'd be able to tell such was the case, that the modern synthesis was valid, if say in my hypothetical above; DNA sequence wise/homology wise, alpha was found to be closer to HA than beta, was found to be closer than fetal, was found to be closer than myoglobin.

As it turns out, nothing could be further from the truth. In the first place, myoglobin is very distinct in terms of its coding sequence as compared to the adult haemoglobins(alpha, beta) and fetal haemoglobin. The three of them, hemoglobin alpha, haemoglobin beta and fetal haemoglobin are equally distant from myoglobin in terms of their coding, their respective DNA sequences.

Beta and fetal haemoglobins are much closer together DNA sequence wise than either are to alpha. On the other hand, the DNA sequence homology, the sequence distances between alpha and fetal and beta and fetal are equal.

So you questioned my fundamental competency nomuse, now I will challenge yours with a simple "soft ball" as I said and we shall all see if you have any common sense as regards this subject at all.

If the conventionally proposed mechanism for evolution is valid; mutation/crossing over/meiosis/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition, how could this/might this mixed up hodge-podge of heme based proteins ever come about?

PLEASE!!!!! NO NO NO HELPING HIM, after one week we can all join in. Who knows, maybe he'll put me in my place and give us the best answer anyone has ever suggested for this. Somehow I think not though.

Batter up nomuse, you talk awfully big, let's see what you've got……..

 

[steenkh]

How come personal incredulity is so hip for you, Patrick?

 

[Mojo]

Such being the case, one would assume all four of the haemoglobin chains arose from a common haemoglobin ancestor. We might call that HA. So HA became first alpha say, then alpha became beta, then beta became fetal, then fetal became myoglobin. This isn't a real path, just an example to make a point. AND, the point is, were the modern synthesis on target, its mechanism, one would expect the haemoglobins and myoglobin would line up in such a way, have conventional mechanism evident by way of a step by step logical haemoglobin thread, one leading to the next.

No, you wouldn't. Common ancestry, and the currently accepted mechanism, doesn't mean they should line up like some sort of "ladder". Your argument is like saying that if the children of siblings share common ancestry, then we would expect you to be descended from your cousins, or vice versa.

ETA: This sort of orderly progression towards a particular goal is what we might expect if the changes were somehow directed. The fact that we don't dee this sort of progression is actually evidence against your position.

 

[Patrick1000]

I asked you to refrain from suggesting a solution OR objecting ....

No, you wouldn't. Common ancestry, and the currently accepted mechanism, doesn't mean they should line up like some sort of "ladder". Your argument is like saying that if the children of siblings share common ancestry, then we would expect you to be descended from your cousins, or vice versa.

I asked you to refrain from suggesting a solution OR objecting ....in the case of this one example for now. I would like to see, if left unassisted, whether or not nomuse has any idea at all as to how to tackle this type of biology "problem".

Please.... Thanks.......

If you'd like your own challenge Mojo I'll cook up a real good one for you. As I said, the haemoblobin example is a softball. I've got a jillion of 'em, better ones, much more difficult.

For the time being, I would like to see if the man who questioned my competency has any at all.

This thread will go on for a long time. I quite literally have not even come close to warming up. You ain't seen nothing yet. That said, for now, I'd like to leave this one simple question, in the short term anyway, for nomuse.

 

[Mojo]

I asked you to refrain from suggesting a solution OR objecting ....in the case of this one example for now. I would like to see if unassited whether or not nomuse has any idea at all as to how to tackle this.

There is no need for anyone to "tackle this", because it is not something that is implied by the theory that you are objecting to. You are once more arguing against a strawman.

 

[Mojo]

If you'd like your own challenge Mojo I'll cook up a real good one for you. As I said, the haemoblobin example is a softball. I've got a jillion of 'em, better ones, much more difficult.

I do not consider myself to be anything like an expert in this, but even I can see the flaws in your arguments.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Patrick, how have you gone in your investigations of self organisation and evolutionary computation? Do you believe applications and experiments in these fields demonstrate the creativity that you deny can emerge out of the environmental selection of random mutations?

 

[Patrick1000]

First of all, it is important to be clear about one thing.......

I do not consider myself to be anything like an expert in this, but even I can see the flaws in your arguments.

First of all, it is important to be clear about one thing.......Though a minority view, my general questioning of the modern synthesis' mechanism is a view shared by some of the most capable biologists in the world today. It is by no means fringe thinking. And the points I have brought up, points such as the "meaning" of the cytochrome c data, are issues debated with ferocious intensity by MAINSTREAM! biologists every day. In other words, these people do not see flaws in my arguments themselves. They recognize their validity. Their criteria for confirmation of a scientific theory, evolution's mechanism in this case, is much less strict than mine, but on the other hand, they acknowledge my challenge as real and cogent and VERY MEANINGFUL.

So Mojo, what are your personal views as to the "meaning" of the cytochrome c example, the lack of transitional forms in the fossil and living "records", the fact that cyclostomes are not viewed by molecular biologists as being biochemically primitive and are no closer to any non-vertebrate species than any other vertebrate group? So, tell us, tell me......... I am waiting......

You talk a big game Mojo, haven't seen concrete support from you either for the modern synthesis' mechanism.

 

[Patrick1000]

I liked your videos a great deal......

Patrick, how have you gone in your investigations of self organisation and evolutionary computation? Do you believe applications and experiments in these fields demonstrate the creativity that you deny can emerge out of the environmental selection of random mutations?

I liked your videos a great deal......When I have a chance/time to do the subject justice, I'll write to you about it. Got to wind down now, sleep a bit.

The videos were quite good. Thanks for the references/suggestions

 

[Patrick1000]

I'm a musician.....

How come personal incredulity is so hip for you, Patrick?

I'm a musician.....

 

[Mojo]

First of all, it is important to be clear about one thing.......Though a minority view, my general questioning of the modern synthesis' mechanism is a view shared by some of the most capable biologists in the world today. It is by no means fringe thinking. And the points I have brought up, points such as the "meaning" of the cytochrome c data, are issues debated with ferocious intensity by MAINSTREAM! biologists every day. In other words, these people do not see flaws in my arguments themselves. They recognize their validity. Their criteria for confirmation of a scientific theory, evolution's mechanism in this case, is much less strict than mine, but on the other hand, they acknowledge my challenge as real and cogent and VERY MEANINGFUL.

So Mojo, what are your personal views as to the "meaning" of the cytochrome c example, the lack of transitional forms in the fossil and living "records", the fact that cyclostomes are not viewed by molecular biologists as being biochemically primitive and are no closer to any non-vertebrate species than any other vertebrate group? So, tell us, tell me......... I am waiting......

You have read the responses you have already received on this, haven't you?