Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[Aridas]

(because the only evidence for Creationism is the Bible)

I'm going to nitpick, just a little, and point out that Christian variants of Creationism are far, far from the only versions. Islamic and Hindu, for example, are other fairly influential versions. Native Americans, too, as an example of some of the less influential versions.

I've always found Thomas' proof of god "Since there can't be uncaused things there must be an uncaused thing" singularly unconvincing.

Indeed.

Purely in the interest of dispassionate reason, there is a possible ID Intelligent Agent which would fit the requirements without invoking a deity.

So long as ID confines itself to examining biological systems (of which we only know one - the earth's), there is a possible non-evolutionary, non-religious explanation for all we see.

Aliens.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Of course, accepting such an explanation invites bitter arguments about whether their tentacles are green or purple.

They're purple. The REAL debate is about whether they have eyestalks and what form the eyestalks would come in.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

The REAL debate is about whether they have eyestalks and what form the eyestalks would come in.

That's just silly.

The REAL debate is about whether you can have sex with them!

Just ask Capt. Kirk!

 

[Halfcentaur]

I've always found it strange how some Christians suggest aliens being more probable than gods is naturally absurd. Ben Stein's interview with Dawkins for instance.

 

[Dinwar]

I'm going to nitpick, just a little, and point out that Christian variants of Creationism are far, far from the only versions. Islamic and Hindu, for example, are other fairly influential versions. Native Americans, too, as an example of some of the less influential versions.

A fair criticism. ID is historically based on Christian Creationism, and that's the most vocal in the USA, but you're right, there are numerous other Creationist flavors.

I saw this, and wanted to share it. It's the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, a sort of encyclopedia for invert paleontology (with all that that implies, including "it's out of date before it's printed"). What I found facinating was this: Part M, Coleoidea. For $6.95 you too can own Chapter 15, a discussion on the moleculare evolution of this group. Remember, this is what the Creationists, Patrick1000, and randman say we cannot do. Someone forgot to tell the University of Kansas that, so they did it anyway.

 

[randman]

No Dinwar, you were the one saying molecular studies were invalid; that the science indicating genomic complexity of the last common ancestors to plants and animals was insane and not possible, etc, etc,....

Now you claim investigations of molecular evolution are possible?

Incredible.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

No Dinwar, you were the one saying molecular studies were invalid; that the science indicating genomic complexity of the last common ancestors to plants and animals was insane and not possible, etc, etc,....

Now you claim investigations of molecular evolution are possible?

Incredible.

Please provide us a reference. His post #, for instance, along with a quote from the post.

Not that I'm doubting you, of course.

 

[Dinwar]

that the science indicating genomic complexity of the last common ancestors to plants and animals was insane and not possible,

What I said was that there's no data to support the moronic notion that the genomic complexity of the common ancestor to both animals and plants was higher than the complexity of either animals or plants. That's not saying that genomic studies are impossible. They certainly ARE possible, and provide a great starting point for investigations of ancestry. Performed in conjunction with a paleontological study of a taxa, they certainly can shed a great deal of light on the evolution of the clade (sorry, biologists, but I don't think a genetic study alone, limited as it is to modern to Late Pleistocene organisms, can fully explore the evolution of a clade that's older than the Late Pleistocene).

What IS impossible is studying the genetic code of something for which we have no DNA, such as the last common ancestor of both animals and plants. We barely even have FOSSILS that far back. And I seriously doubt that the Treatise would even try (I know they haven't in the past, and I know some of the researchers working on it, so I'm pretty confident in this).

What is insane is the idea that the last common ancestor to animals and plants had a more complex genetic code. Not because it's wrong, but because we have no way of knowing. The mechanisms for adding complexity to a genome exist, as do those for constricting it, and the only "evidence" you've thus far offered is an inappropriately applied analogy to a bottleneck in a single species of animal. That's not even applicable to plant species, which frequently self-fertilize; it's insane to think that it's applicable to the last common ancestor of animals and plants.

When examining one well-defined clade with modern members, DNA can provide interesting data. When examining an ill-defined clade as complex as any which would include both Animalia and Plantia it's of very limited value, and when examining organisms which do not exist except as chemical trace fossils the suggestion raises serious doubts about the suggester's understanding of genetics.

 

[Patrick1000]

Great point about variations on the theme of "creationism"....

I'm going to nitpick, just a little, and point out that Christian variants of Creationism are far, far from the only versions. Islamic and Hindu, for example, are other fairly influential versions. Native Americans, too, as an example of some of the less influential versions.



Indeed.



They're purple. The REAL debate is about whether they have eyestalks and what form the eyestalks would come in.

Great point about variations on the theme of "creationism"....EXCELLENT!!!!!

 

[Patrick1000]

I guess it is not totally absurd.....

I've always found it strange how some Christians suggest aliens being more probable than gods is naturally absurd. Ben Stein's interview with Dawkins for instance.

I guess it is not totally absurd.....Gods and aliens owe their being to different phenomena. In the case of the former, the term "phenomena" is in a sense a category error, but nothing one can do about it......

 

[Patrick1000]

What exactly is it you are saying I claim that we "cannot do"....

A fair criticism. ID is historically based on Christian Creationism, and that's the most vocal in the USA, but you're right, there are numerous other Creationist flavors.

I saw this, and wanted to share it. It's the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, a sort of encyclopedia for invert paleontology (with all that that implies, including "it's out of date before it's printed"). What I found facinating was this: Part M, Coleoidea. For $6.95 you too can own Chapter 15, a discussion on the moleculare evolution of this group. Remember, this is what the Creationists, Patrick1000, and randman say we cannot do. Someone forgot to tell the University of Kansas that, so they did it anyway.

What exactly is it you are saying I claim that we "cannot do"...

 

[Patrick1000]

That is a good point randman......

Kot, Davison includes what others before him wrote in order to show that all along, the tenets of NeoDarwinism have been shown to be false. There is good reason for doing this.

First, it's a real shock for many to find so many great scientists that reject mainstream evo theory when you've been told your whole life everyone accepted it a long time ago and only religious fundamentalists reject it.

Secondly, the vast majority of reasons for their rejecting it are still true today. In some ways, mainstream evo theory is stuck in a paradigm they created for themselves 100 years ago, and this is true for how they see data and their basic, Haeckelian attitude and approach. It's sad but the reason someone like Davison brings up prior good arguments is that they were never addressed and refuted.

That is a good point randman......In at least one post of mine and perhaps two I made reference to some of the scientists that did not buy in, an impressive list of luminaries indeed.........

 

[Patrick1000]

He is not a crank Lowpro, randman is philosophically grounded....

Early homonids probably didn't share your enthusiam (or delusion, take your pick)

Hey, at least it's easier to spot you as a crank now

He is not a crank Lowpro, randman is philosophically grounded....

He works with a different set of assumptions, actually he is more rigorous than most.....

In a sense, he is doing the same thing I was doing earlier with my Wittgenstein, pressing the point that categories of thought outside those viewed as conventionally biologic may shed some light, and quite bright light at that, on the world of biological systems......

The point is, you cannot know yourself Lowpro if you were or were not "made by God", made by the hand of a divine creator. AND if you were, if you are a divine creation, it changes everything about what you or any biologist might say as to who we are, how we were made and what we are fundamentally about.......

 

[Dinwar]

What exactly is it you are saying I claim that we "cannot do"...

If you've been paying attention it's rather obvious.

In at least one post of mine and perhaps two I made reference to some of the scientists that did not buy in, an impressive list of luminaries indeed.........

As I recall, no it wasn't. And even if it were true, it's irrelevant. I've disagreed with prominent scientists before. There's no data to support the notion of intelligent design, which is what the positions you and randman have taken boils down to.

 

[Patrick1000]

It is a serious question and no I do not know.....

If you've been paying attention it's rather obvious.

As I recall, no it wasn't. And even if it were true, it's irrelevant. I've disagreed with prominent scientists before. There's no data to support the notion of intelligent design, which is what the positions you and randman have taken boils down to.

It is a serious question and no I do not know.....

 

[Patrick1000]

Sorry I missed your post so long ago JMM 777.....

I read every post of Patrick1000 in this thread, and he seems to think that evolution is a fact, at least to some extent. At least to an extent that even some Creationists would agree to.

What I fail to see is what else than small mutations and natural selection Patrick1000 suggests as the explanation for evolution. Intelligent design? A pantheistic god, mother nature? I think the discussion is meaningless before he reveals this card.

As for evidence for evolution, Patrick1000 essentially says that some pieces of evidence exist, but they are quite scattered and remote from each other, and therefore much of the line of evolution is a conclusion and assumption between the pieces of evidence, rather than actual evidence itself. So he requires that more dense pieces of evidence need to be found (maybe it will happen, maybe not), and/or other potentially possible explanations need to be speculated in the unknown grey areas between the pieces of evidence. But he does not reveal his cards, what other explanations than small mutations and natural selection he has in mind.

Sorry I missed your post so long ago JMM 777.....

To try and answer you now, late better than never......

Some facts, for example the commonality of the genetic code suggest common ancestry, but then when one looks to see what might account for this, it doesn't seem fully explained based on the information we have so far.

So how is it that all animals come to employ the same genetic code? I presume it to be the case because they all are ancestors, one came from another. They are linked through time, ALL DIRECT DESCENDENTS OF ONE ANOTHER. But it is not clear to me how this happened, how one ancestor became different from his/her predecessors JMM 777...

 

[Krikkiter]

He is not a crank Lowpro, randman is philosophically grounded....

He works with a different set of assumptions, actually he is more rigorous than most.....

In a sense, he is doing the same thing I was doing earlier with my Wittgenstein, pressing the point that categories of thought outside those viewed as conventionally biologic may shed some light, and quite bright light at that, on the world of biological systems......

The point is, you cannot know yourself Lowpro if you were or were not "made by God", made by the hand of a divine creator. AND if you were, if you are a divine creation, it changes everything about what you or any biologist might say as to who we are, how we were made and what we are fundamentally about.......

randman is philosophically what??? He's just done the equivalent of saying that the Bible is evidence of god!

 

[Dinwar]

randman is philosophically what??? He's just done the equivalent of saying that the Bible is evidence of god!

He's done worse than that--he's denied existence itself. randman is a philosopher like I'm a dragon bone armor-wearing Norseman.

In a sense, he is doing the same thing I was doing earlier with my Wittgenstein, pressing the point that categories of thought outside those viewed as conventionally biologic may shed some light, and quite bright light at that, on the world of biological systems

You're right in that you're both doing the same thing. You've both found some crackpot theorist to latch on to, and have assumed that because you've read that theorist's work you understand the field in question. Unfortunately for both of you, you don't. Any field of science is much larger than any individual researcher.

 

[Patrick1000]

A quote from my post at #224.......

If you've been paying attention it's rather obvious.

As I recall, no it wasn't. And even if it were true, it's irrelevant. I've disagreed with prominent scientists before. There's no data to support the notion of intelligent design, which is what the positions you and randman have taken boils down to.

A quote from my post at #224.......

"The legendary 1969 Alpach Symposium, aptly entitled "BEYOND REDUCTIONISM", was organized by Arthur Koestler. The symposium's intent was to bring together world class biologists all of whom were critical of and dissatisfied with orthodox Darwinism. The symposium roster read like a list of superstars, read like it because they were; Holger Hayden, W.H. Thorpe, Paul Weiss, David McNeil and the great Jean Piaget to name but just a few.

Arthur Koestler opened the session with his now famous remark, " invitations were confined to personalities in academic life with undisputed authority in their respective fields, who nevertheless share that HOLY DISCONTENT."

British biologist Sir Peter Medawar, Nobel Laureate and the man whose work was as responsible as anyone's for the development of the science/technology of organ transplantation said in his opening remarks at the 1966 Wistar Institute Symposium that there was something indeed missing from orthodox Darwinism. The missing something accounting for the existence of a widespread feeling of skepticism over the role that "chance" was/is advocated as playing in the process of evolution."

From Piaget to Medawar to their present day equivalents/contemporaries, great thinkers in biology and allied fields have not bought in. Certainly, Medawar's skepticism doesn't mean that Darwin was wrong. It does mean however that not everybody who is a big shot in biology is a full fledged full on Darwinist, an important point when debate degenerates at times to some mainstreamers of the more limited ability variety claiming Darwinism true by virtue of its being supported by all the major players. Such was not and is not the case. The great great Charles Lyell himself, geologist and Darwin's friend, Lyell's work in geology having had a huge influence on Darwin at the ground level, did not buy in for the most part.

It is important to point this stuff out simply to eliminate argument from authority as a trump card when debating Darwinism/the modern synthesis.

 

[Patrick1000]

You guys are simply not being fair.......

He's done worse than that--he's denied existence itself. randman is a philosopher like I'm a dragon bone armor-wearing Norseman.

You're right in that you're both doing the same thing. You've both found some crackpot theorist to latch on to, and have assumed that because you've read that theorist's work you understand the field in question. Unfortunately for both of you, you don't. Any field of science is much larger than any individual researcher.

Randman is trying to point out we all must begin with assumptions. Certain things have to be taken as given, otherwise one cannot begin to discuss ANYTHING IN ANY SENSE.

I think you are being unfair. Randman's points in this regard are quite valid.....

 

[Patrick1000]

Wittgenstein is hardly a crackpot theorist......

He's done worse than that--he's denied existence itself. randman is a philosopher like I'm a dragon bone armor-wearing Norseman.

You're right in that you're both doing the same thing. You've both found some crackpot theorist to latch on to, and have assumed that because you've read that theorist's work you understand the field in question. Unfortunately for both of you, you don't. Any field of science is much larger than any individual researcher.

Wittgenstein is hardly a crackpot theorist......He is arguably the most important philosopher of the 20th century. Bertrand Russell thought Wittgenstein the most capable philosopher of his era AND IN THE FIELD OF MATHEMATICAL PHILOSOPHY RUSSELL THOUGHT WITTGENSTEIN HIS OWN SUPERIOR Dinwar, hardly a crackpot. Mathematical philosophy....Bertrand Russell's superior.......hardly a crackpot.....

I did not introduce Wittgenstein for the purpose of suggesting he was correct with regard to how best we should view the language of sensation, but rather to press the point that there are different categories of thinking and that the forum in general was narrow minded with respect to its appreciation of this fact.

Biology does not trump philosophy Dinwar. The subjects are different. Interestingly, philosophy has something to say about biology. I believe what frustrates you is that it does not work the other way 'round. Biology, modern biology has NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT PHILOSOPHY, nothing to say about "crackpot" Wittgenstein, even if he may have been one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century.

With all due respect Dinwar, if I may be so bold, let go a little, turn on the radio, ride a bike, the world is not an equation. Randman has something to say here. You know not how you were made, and no one else does for that matter, so give it some space, let randman's views breath a little..........