|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intended mutations | |||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
It is, as I said, related but it is almost certainly going to turn into a red herring that will take everyone off for 50 or more posts. That is the major reason for wanting to avoid it here.
The others are as noted above. The concept being discussed can be handled with smaller scale examples.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Irrefutable Addendum Careful...
The parsimonious evolutionists are basically treating the topic like this; evolution happened therefore all that was required was nature and chance without intention.
A more realistic appraisal would be evolutionary processes are powerful designers - so powerful that they can beat human designers hands down. Humans, in their hubris, assume that because this design is better than their design, it must be the result of a super-human (perhaps a god or an hyper-intelligent alien). We now understand evolutionary processes, so we don't need to think this way. It could be intentional design, so here are some tests that would differentiate non-intentional evolution, and directed evolution As an addition, it might be difficult to tell the two apart, and I agree. That is why I have no problem with theistic evolutionists and so on. However, intentional mutations are not necessary to explain things at this time. This is where parsimony kicks in of course. My test still exists for those who would like to demonstrate intentional mutations once and for all.
I need an example to show you what I mean; You have a man who inflates a balloon. You have a machine that inflates a balloon. In both examples, the end result is the same. Your argument is that because you have an inflated balloon in your posession, then that proves conclusively that the balloon was inflated by the machine, because it is possible to inflate it with a machine, without the man.. Unfortunately you have assumed something which you have argued against. In your analogy we have evidence of the natural mechanism (the machine) and the designer (the human). In reality we don't know that a designer exists. A little more accurate analogy in your vain would involve a room full of baloons and in the middle of it a baloon making machine. There is nobody around, and no evidence anyone has been around. There is a diary and in it are some entries from a bunch of people claim to have seen someone around blowing balloons up, but that was about a thousand or two years ago now. It also says that the first human blower started this process 6,000 years ago. The human operates in a way which is means he is basically intangible. When we start testing things, all the evidence we can find tells us that the oldest (and now deflated) balloon is 4 billion years old. Of course the analogy breaks down at the 'where did the machine come from' stage, but there you go
(P.s. I will read any posts to me, but basically this concludes my participation.). Bye for now. If you choose to remain as a non-participant I thank you for taking the time to read what I have said. Take care Mike, keep chasing those chickens - your Apollo will tire
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: 1 in 10 to the billionth power is a ratio. If I actually wrote that out, there would be so many zeros that it would just piss every off had I done so. I think this part of the problem. ToE speaks so casually and flippantly about millions and billions of years of time or probablity factors that its virtualy unfathomable to distinguish the number 1 from the number 1 in 10 to the billionth power. Relationally speaking, you have better odds at winning the lotto 10,000 times over than reaching 1 in 10 to billionth power. That figure is nothing to scoff at.
quote: I'm sorry. No, that wasn't directed to you. I nearly finished a book just over a month ago and instead of remembering my arguments from scratch, I go back into the Word template and paste in here. That's why I have a quote for almost every post. I should have snipped that tidbit off. My apologies.
quote: I understand the theory very well. But where are the transitional forms? People keep saying to me, "There are transitional forms," but I've yet to see any. All that has ever been introduced to me, is Archaeopteryx, bacteria, and maybe Pakicetus. I object to every one of them for various reasons.
quote: Thanks for the clarification. Since I know nothing about that, I'll have to read up on it and get back to you after some analysis.
quote: “The absence of fossil evidence has been a persistent problem for evolution.” -Dr. Steven J. Gould "The interpretation supported by Eldridge and Gould is that allopatric speciation in small, peripheral populations automatically results in "gaps" in the fossil record. Throughout their essay, however, runs a larger and more important lesson: a priori theorems often determine the results of "empirical" studies, before the first shred of evidence is collected. This idea, that theory dicatates what we see, cannot be stated too strongly." http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/...ssictexts/eldredge.pdf Taken dircetly from here: Evolution - Classic Texts "We emphatically do not assert the "truth" of this alternate metaphysic of punctuational change. Any attempt to support the exclusive validity of such a monistic, a priori, grandiose notion would verge on the nonsensical. We believe that gradual change characterizes some hierarchical levels, even though we may attribute it to punctuation at a lower level”the macroevolutionary trend produced by species selection, for example. We make a simple plea for pluralism in guiding philosophies”and for the basic recognition that such philosophies, however hidden and inarticulated, do constrain all our thought. Nonetheless, we do believe that the punctuational metaphysic may prove to map tempos of change in our world better and more often than any of its competitors”if only because systems in steady state are not only common but also so highly resistant to change." -Stephen J. Gould In so many words, he said that its a metaphyisical theory based on hope.
quote: If there were thousands, then thousands would be posted on TalkOrigins. As it stands, that clearly isn't the case.
quote: And what empirical scientific data have you gathered to come up with this notion? A weaning mechanism?
quote: Yes, that's possible. But this does not serve to prove any macroevolutionary mechanism.
quote: Read Boltzman's theorem on entropic forces. If it only encompassed thermodynamic principles in a closed system, then nothing would ever deteriorate or die.
quote: This much is true.
quote: Entropy affects virtually everything and nothing in the known universe has been able to counter that. Its as solid a principle of physics as Newton's observations on gravity.
quote: You proved nothing of sort. You confused two terminalogies that aren't in any sense synoymous. In any case, I've been barred from speaking about this further.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
nemesis_juggernaut writes: quote: Yeah, I've heard this quite a bit, but I disagree with it fundamentally. Any exhibition of intent indicates some level of cognizance. You could say that nature has a mind if it intentionally chooses the stronger over the weaker. Its a crap shoot otherwise, which in that case would constitute 'chance.' Playing your odds is still all about chance as well. Any which way we slice it or cleverly repackage it, it is chance if you say there is no cognizance behind it. I was just pointing out Hamilton's error, not trying to draw the thread into a new topic, but understanding how natural selection works is key to understanding why mutations do not require direction or intent. To understand how selection is non-random, imagine dropping equal numbers of arctic hares and desert rabbits into the arctic. One month later you return and count how many of each survived. It doesn't take any great insight to realize that there will be many more arctic hares still alive than desert rabbits. That's because selection is non-random. Those best suited for the environment are selected. It is not a random roll of the dice. Selection is an unambiguously non-random process. It is not perfectly non-random, of course, since there will always be the occasional "strongest in the herd" who happens to be walking under a tree when a branch decides to fall and kill him, but by and large selection is a non-random process.
As you've elucidated, the first eye was said to have come by pigmentation in the skin, perhaps a freckle or a mole. Then, they say, rays of sunlight converged on this organism and caused a sunspot where it developed into a cluster of light sensitive cells. Then, they claim that the organism could feel the energy from the sun and so it turned towards the source. They purport that a nerve came out of it all, thus, evolving the first eye. But this is an unsubstantiated claim founded on no empirical facts. It sounds somewhat plausible, and so, its pawned off as some kind of scientific certainty. There's a bunch of minor errors contained in the above that I won't dwell on. It's more important to address your final comment about scientific certainty. Science does not believe that speculations about the development of sight in an evolutionary context constitute "scientific certainty." At best they constitute extremely well supported hypotheses, and it can even possibly be argued that they are valid theories of eye evolution, but they are definitely not certainties. Nothing in science is certain. Natural selection renders unnecessary any intent and direction with regard to the eye evolution. If improved sight is helpful to the organisms survival, then mutations that result in improved sight will be preserved, i.e., selected for. It doesn't take any significant mutation to turn the location of a light sensitive spot into a minor depression. It again takes only a minor mutation to turn a light sensitive spot in a minor depression into one in a slightly deeper depression. It does not take any great mutation to turn a light sensitive spot in a deep depression to begin narrowing the top of the depression (pinhole camera-style focusing). This is how evolutionary development of characteristics progresses, one tiny advantageous step at a time. The disadvantageous steps are discarded, the advantageous ones are kept. It's like a ratchet. AbE: Fixed typos. Suggest switching the example from eye evolution to wing evolution. --Percy This message has been edited by Percy, Mon, 05-08-2006 09:12 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Apparently no one can stay on topic, including me.
Giving this thread a holiday. Come back tomorrow, folks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi all,
To help keep this thread on topic when it resumes, here is a list of topics that are *not* the topic of this thread. These have all been mentioned in this thread at one time or another:
This thread is about the need for mutations to have intent and direction, and the accompanying implication of a designer. This message has been edited by Admin, Sun, 05-07-2006 04:21 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Welcome back, everyone!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote: Here is the problem:
quote:Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money The only way I can see to get to your notion of "equilbrium" of advantages AND disadvantages is if there are two FORMAL types of variation. I think this can come about by a molecular analysis that got cofused for Gould with a "phenotype" that was only corrected in part scholarly when mole bios decided for naming things "seqence similiarity" rather than 'homology' despite the current claims of German investigators that the term is nothing but the dead skin of some croc of shhhhhh, I say more later if necessary... Even with an alias this can happen if the POPULATION receives a differnet statstical division when the factors are being digrammed in cause and correlation. The newest point would be that De Vries cognized, admittedly from an innacurate sample (Onethera), something that Darwin did not and that Mendel also had a DIFFERENT perspective. What I find hardest to address here is how point mutations can be fluctuating variations IN PARTICULAR RADIALLY SYMMETRIC directions and yet be the base of actual mutational variation. I have spoken times over about 1-D symmetry here on EVC and I find that Gould and the "editor" simply have not taken analysis "beyond Carnap" and have slept with Wittgenstein perhaps snoring a bit too loudly. I would like to call attention to:http://EvC Forum: Mutations Made Easy -->EvC Forum: Mutations Made Easy where I first intended to discuss this without needing to make the difference of natural and artifical selection explict. This would be required if one was to discuss "intended" mutations such that at least mutational variation with fluctuating variation artifically selected could intend a mutation as you suggest WITH CHOICE. Regardless there is a problem with the weight given to discussion ofcoincident geneotypes over contingent phenotypes that perhaps masked the logica you inovked?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Thanks for the clarification. Since I know nothing about that, I'll have to read up on it and get back to you after some analysis. I was just wondering if you ever got around to reading up on the Chorella v. phenomenon I described.
But where are the transitional forms? I usually start here:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ Those are just vertebrates, though.
In so many words, he said that its a metaphyisical theory based on hope. I don't see the word "hope" appearing in Gould's paragraph. Can you cite the source where Gould says his model is based on hope, not evidence?
Yes, that's possible. But this does not serve to prove any macroevolutionary mechanism. Which is not what it was offered to support. Why are you changing the subject so often? You don't get to ask me to support something, and then when I do, tell me that it doesn't support something other than what you originally asked. You're not being honest.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024