Reasons Behind the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.

Post Number:#61  Postby Scott » June 22nd, 2010, 9:16 pm

Scott wrote:But when species G evolves from F which evolved from E which evolved from D which evolved from C which evolved from B which evolved from A, the difference between A and G may be much greater than the difference between A and B or between B and C, etc. This is part of why the moon analogy fails--because the question isn't so much whether the difference between G and A is categorically different than the difference between B and A but rather the question is whether the difference between G and F is categorically different than B and A.
Meleagar wrote:So far, it hasn't "failed". You've only asserted the contrary.

No, I didn't only assert the contrary, I explained it in the quote above. The jump from A to G is categorically different than the jump from A to B. But the jump from F to G is not. The jump from a creature who cannot move very fast to one who can fly well is categorically different than the small leaps in evolution by natural selection that have been demonstrated. The jump from a creature who has absolutely no sense of light waves to one who can see and then to one who can see with stereoscopic eyesight is categorically different than the small leaps in evolution by natural selection that have been demonstrated. And indeed the jump from creatures who have no legs or arms to erect, bipedal creatures is categorically different than the small leaps in evolution by natural selection that have been demonstrated. They are all categorically different from A to B in the way that A to G is categorically different than A to B. But they can be broken down into small steps in which case each of those smaller steps is not categorically different in any way that would make it unreasonable to, after getting from point A to point G, conclude we did it by doing the same thing done with point A to B and to point B and to C to go from point C to D and from D to E and from E to F and from F to G.

I don't know how I could convince you that it is reasonable to assume that if you can walk across any one town that is 5 miles long that you could walk across the whole state that is 500 miles long, if you have gotten across the state and there is no evidence of any other form of travel. If you want me to show you that each 5-mile-consecutive-set in that 500 is not categorically different than all of the others, I don't know how to do that if I don't have the time or specific knowledge about every single 5-mile-consecutive-set. But if every 5-mile-consecutive-set at which we do look in-depth, we see you can and did get across by walking it then it is reasonable not a compositional fallacy to assume you can and did get across all the 100 of the 5-mile sets particularly if you have already gotten across the full 500-miles and there is no evidence of any other explanation. Your moon example and your War and Peace example are each a false analogy and they may, being false analogies, be compositional fallacies unlike a reasonable induction. Indeed, ironically, it does seem fair to conclude that you can't walk to the moon because you can't walk to the clouds. And if you could walk to the clouds between where you were on Earth and the moon, then I think that would make it more reasonable to conclude you can walk to the moon, particularly if walking was the only known form of travel and you have traveled to the moon.

A required aspect of any scientific theory is falsifiability. The reasonably achieved theory that I can walk across the 500 mile state would be disproved by the discovery of a magical force-field in the middle to which nobody can walk-through but would require some kind of special spaceship to cross. The theory of gravity would be disproven if we woke up one morning all floating away. The theory of evolution by natural selection would be disproven if there was a single small leap that couldn't have occurred or big leap that couldn't be broken down into smaller leaps. So if your point is that the theory is fallible or falsifiable, then I agree. It is as at least as falsifiable as the theory of gravity. Every logically valid induction is--technically--fallible. But it is incorrect to say these theories commit a so-called composition fallacy such as the alleged fallacy in your moon example.

Together we personally can try to research the known data to see what evidence there is that a certain small leap could have or did occur by evolution by natural selection or not if that's what you really want to do. But if we don't want to spend years and get a doctorate doing it, then we need to break it down into one or two small leaps, such as the jump from winged creatures that could glide long distances to ones that can actually fly or the jump from creatures who can't walk on two legs to ones who can but not for long (like my old cat), or we could do ones that usually don't walk on two legs to those who usually do. We personally don't have the resources to do them all, just as we may not have the resources to research in-depth each mile on a 500-mile-consecutive set of land. But if we look at some different sets of 5-consecutive-miles within the full 500-miles and find each of those are walkable or were walked, it is reasonable in the absence of any evidence otherwise and especially under the fact that we have travelled the 500-miles to conclude we did it by walking; right?
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4205 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Post Number:#62  Postby Meleagar » June 23rd, 2010, 11:53 am

Scott wrote:
Scott wrote:But when species G evolves from F which evolved from E which evolved from D which evolved from C which evolved from B which evolved from A, the difference between A and G may be much greater than the difference between A and B or between B and C, etc. This is part of why the moon analogy fails--because the question isn't so much whether the difference between G and A is categorically different than the difference between B and A but rather the question is whether the difference between G and F is categorically different than B and A.
Meleagar wrote:So far, it hasn't "failed". You've only asserted the contrary.

No, I didn't only assert the contrary, I explained it in the quote above. The jump from A to G is categorically different than the jump from A to B. But the jump from F to G is not.


Scott, this is nothing but an assertion. You have no idea if the actual biology involved is, in principle, represented by your description. You are just asserting that the accumultive variations required to build stereoscopic vision from scratch are within the reach of natural selection. "Within the accumulative reach of natural selection" is the category I was referring to when I said that Alun had not shown that A to Z was not categorically different than A to B, or A to C.

A to B might represent an easily achievable natural selection accomplishment. A to C might represent an enormously difficult accomplishment. A to D migh represent an impossible accomplishment.

The issue isn't if such sequential, accumulative changes occurred; the issue is if natural selection is a sufficient sorting process to build Z from scratch. Just because natural selection can get you from A to B, and maybe from B to C, that doesn't mean it can get you any further towards Z than that. A to Z is not just any old sequence; it is a very specific, necessary, complex, functional sequence that must somehow be "naturally selectable" throughout the process, and must never come crashing down due to genetic enropy.

As far as I know, evolutionary scientists have never produced a model of natural selection that demonstrates it to be capable of such a sorting success. Blind (non-teleological) sorting searches cannot produce just any result, no matter how much time is given them.

The jump from a creature who cannot move very fast to one who can fly well is categorically different than the small leaps in evolution by natural selection that have been demonstrated. The jump from a creature who has absolutely no sense of light waves to one who can see and then to one who can see with stereoscopic eyesight is categorically different than the small leaps in evolution by natural selection that have been demonstrated. And indeed the jump from creatures who have no legs or arms to erect, bipedal creatures is categorically different than the small leaps in evolution by natural selection that have been demonstrated. They are all categorically different from A to B in the way that A to G is categorically different than A to B. But they can be broken down into small steps in which case each of those smaller steps is not categorically different in any way that would make it unreasonable to, after getting from point A to point G, conclude we did it by doing the same thing done with point A to B and to point B and to C to go from point C to D and from D to E and from E to F and from F to G.


All you are doing here is making assertions about what is within the categorical description of "within the accumulative power of natural selection to accomodate" without showing it. Just asserting that natural selection can generate any sequence of variations because it can generate some sequences is not overcoming the fallacy of composition.

I don't know how I could convince you that it is reasonable to assume that if you can walk across any one town that is 5 miles long that you could walk across the whole state that is 500 miles long, if you have gotten across the state...


You'd have to show me that the biological distance from A to Z is comparable in principle to the land-distance from A to Z instead of just asserting that it is.

and there is no evidence of any other form of travel.


"We don't know of any other form of travel, so it is more likely that walking can get you there." is an argument from ignorance. Also, please support your assertion that there is no evidence of any other "form of travel", biologically speaking.

If you want me to show you that each 5-mile-consecutive-set in that 500 is not categorically different than all of the others, I don't know how to do that if I don't have the time or specific knowledge about every single 5-mile-consecutive-set. But if every 5-mile-consecutive-set at which we do look in-depth, we see you can and did get across by walking it then it is reasonable not a compositional fallacy to assume you can and did get across all the 100 of the 5-mile sets particularly if you have already gotten across the full 500-miles


What you are missing in your analogy is what I represented as "needing to build a rocket to get to the moon": the potential for natural selection to not be capabable of acquiring the target. Your analogy assumes, by making every location "walkable", your conclusion. You have made an analogy that suits your conclusion.

In my analogy, I didn't claim that the goal **was** on the moon; we don't know if it is or not. To stick to the land analogy, we don't know if every target location is acquirable by walking from any other particular point. Or, to put it another way, even if it is acquirable by walking (and that hasn't, to my knowledge, been shown), we don't know if a walker using the "natural selection" search method can find our target in any amount of time, because the "natural selection" model is not looking for our target; it is more or less aimlessly wandering (since natural selection is non-teleological) and can at any moment fall off a cliff, encounter a predator or disease, break a leg, or simply wander around in circles. Also, we don't know how "eyesight" would be represented on the walking landscape.

That such an aimless (non-teleological) walker can walk five hundred miles and survive is not being challenged. That such a meandering walker can find the specific target we are talking about has not - to my knowledge - been demonstrated even in principle. Our target - stereoscopic color eyesight - is not just "any" 500-mile location; it represents very specific, functional, complex locations in a very, very large landscape, which is full of challenges towards finding such massively sequential, interdependent, functionally complex, heirarchical locations. Those aren't just "any" locations on the map.

and there is no evidence of any other explanation.


Please support this categorically assertion.

Your moon example and your War and Peace example are each a false analogy and they may, being false analogies, be compositional fallacies unlike a reasonable induction.


Claiming they are false analogies by presenting an alternate analogy that is convenient to your conclusion is not showing that they are . Also, I did not claim that the target goals of eyesight or winged flight were analagous to the moon or War and Peace; I was stating that they might be. We don't know if your analogy is correct, or the moon and war and peace analogy are correct, and because we do not know, it is a compositional error to state that A to B is categorically the same (acquirable by natural selection, or walking) as A to Z.

The only way that you can support the claim that those analogies are false is by demonstrating that A to Z is factually acquirable by natural selection. You haven't shown that; you've only asserted it by claiming that it is categorically (acquirable by walking, or natural selection)the same as an A to B walk.

Your assertions that A to Z "is" categorically the same as A to B (obtainable by a walker, or obtainable by natural selection) is just that - an assertion. Your assertion that my analogy is false, and yours is correct, is just that - an assertion. I don't assert that your analogy is false, or that mine is correct; my assertion is that A to Z hasn't been shown to be categorcially (obtainable by a walker, or obtainable by natural selection) the same as A to B.

Providing evidence that our walker can walk 5 miles, or even that he can walk 500 miles, is not evidence that he can find the kind of target location we are talking about.
Meleagar
 
Posts: 1874 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am

Post Number:#63  Postby Unrealist42 » June 23rd, 2010, 3:43 pm

As far as the A-Z argument goes the theory of natural selection has shown itself to be a very good predictor of previously unknown transitional species. As scientific investigation has continued many previously unknown but predicted links in Darwin's tree of life have been found and more links are found on an almost daily basis.

While the entire chain of A to ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ has not been uncovered many very large portions of the chain have been using predictable and verifiable criteria. Without exception every species discovered has fit nicely into the tree. DNA has caused a major rearrangement of the branches of the tree but if anything that has just pointed to a necessary reordering of criteria and reinforced the results to the molecular level.

The disproof of Darin's tree of natural selection is fairly easy and straightforward, just find one organism that does not fit in.

ID does not even try to do this. ID is based on the criteria that the scientific record is incomplete. This is no different than saying astrology is also science, or phrenology or the thousand other pseudo-sciences that abound beyond the fringes of known science.
User avatar
Unrealist42
 
Posts: 343 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 25th, 2010, 7:04 pm
Location: City of Dreams

Post Number:#64  Postby Alun » June 23rd, 2010, 7:39 pm

Hi Unrealist42, thanks for your comments--I agree with you, the categories he's talking about are indeed best shown by experiment, rather than being an inherent feature of the backbone argument. However, I think debate regarding Intelligent Design is better left to the thread devoted to that topic. As you've noticed from that thread, the debate about Intelligent Design's merits is difficult in its own right, and not very helpful in approaching the justification for the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Meleagar, just in case you missed it, I replied to you before Scott, here.
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi
User avatar
Alun
 
Posts: 1118 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm

Post Number:#65  Postby Unrealist42 » June 23rd, 2010, 9:23 pm

Alun wrote:Hi Unrealist42, thanks for your comments--I agree with you, the categories he's talking about are indeed best shown by experiment, rather than being an inherent feature of the backbone argument. However, I think debate regarding Intelligent Design is better left to the thread devoted to that topic. As you've noticed from that thread, the debate about Intelligent Design's merits is difficult in its own right, and not very helpful in approaching the justification for the theory of evolution by natural selection.


I'm sorry, you are right. Its just that reading Meleagar's posts, which seem to me more dogmatic ID arguments than considered refutations of natural selection, I felt it important to mention the place where his arguments come from and where they stand in the general realm of science.
User avatar
Unrealist42
 
Posts: 343 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 25th, 2010, 7:04 pm
Location: City of Dreams

Post Number:#66  Postby Meleagar » June 24th, 2010, 8:55 am

Alun wrote:This is elementary and you had no problem with it when you read through section 2 of the OP. To reiterate, all biological evidence suggests that traits (observable characteristics of an organism) are entirely defined by the genetic information contained in DNA if it is 'read' by RNA.


Untrue. From Nature:

Genetic mechanisms alone cannot explain how some cellular traits are propagated. Rapid advances in the field of epigenetics are now revealing a molecular basis for how heritable information other than DNA sequence can influence gene function. These advances also add to our understanding of transcriptional regulation, nuclear organization, development and disease.


From Epigenetics: DNA Isn’t Everything in ScienceDaily:

Researchers in a group led by Renato Paro, professor for Biosystems at the Department of Biosystems Science and Engineering (D-BSSE), crossed the flies for six generations. In this experiment, they were able to prove that the temperature treatment changes the eye colour of this specific strain of fly, and that the treated individual flies pass on the change to their offspring over several generations. However, the DNA sequence for the gene responsible for eye colour was proven to remain the same for white-eyed parents and red-eyed offspring.


From Computational Epigenetics published in Bioinformatics:

Epigenetic research aims to understand heritable gene regulation that is not directly encoded in the DNA sequence. Epigenetic mechanisms such as DNA methylation and histone modifications modulate the packaging of the DNA in the nucleus and thereby influence gene expression. Patterns of epigenetic information are faithfully propagated over multiple cell divisions, which makes epigenetic regulation a key mechanism for cellular differentiation and cell fate decisions. In addition, incomplete erasure of epigenetic information can lead to complex patterns of non-Mendelian inheritance. Stochastic and environment-induced epigenetic defects are known to play a major role in cancer and ageing, and they may also contribute to mental disorders and autoimmune diseases.


If you require more evidence, I can direct you to it or you can simply google "epigenetics" and find it yourself.

Alun wrote:]]It will always be possible that some external force is evident, or that some degree of change cannot be explained by the internal mechanism suggested by the theory of natural selection, but both of these are contingent matters to be investigated empirically, not conceptual flaws in the argument.


Since a necessary part of your argument has been factually disproven by science, it can no longer be valid conceptually.
Meleagar
 
Posts: 1874 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am

Post Number:#67  Postby Alun » June 24th, 2010, 4:04 pm

Meleagar, your first quote is referring to RNA processes, which I did refer to outright. The second does not identify the basis for the heritable change, but it's likely to be the RNA processes (which are much harder to examine than DNA, as it can include one of three sorts of RNA, all of which are more fragile). The third is also referring to RNA reading processes. So all of those quotes back up my statements.
_______________________________________________

To explain the science more fully to anyone who cares: In general, after fertilization the first cell of an egg is equipped with all of usual cellular features--cell wall, mitochondria, and other organelle machinery. These elements of the egg are derived from the female in most familiar organisms, including humans, and they include RNA--large macromolecules that have a slightly different chemical composition than DNA, making them more flexible and less durable. Usually only half of the DNA comes from the father--the rest of the first cell was made by the mother.

Whereas aqueous DNA is almost always stable in a helical shape, RNA can be molded into a variety of shapes, and is used to 'translate' DNA into proteins. This process includes a 'messenger,' which is written by binding RNA nucleotides to DNA nucleotides, a 'transporter' which moves the messenger out of the nucleus, and finally the ribosome, which is essentially a protein factory that reads the messenger to construct proteins from amino acids which correspond to nucleotide 'codes.' Any change in the mother's RNA can be reflected in the offspring's RNA, and all DNA is read by RNA, so changes in RNA can have a huge impact on the organism.

Along with the overall RNA reading process there are an assortment of proteins that mark certain parts of the DNA for transcription, mark other parts of the DNA to be put away, and perform other regulatory tasks. Understanding the roles and triggers of these sorts of proteins is difficult, but they play a key role in DNA function and their initial features will also be determined by the mother directly.
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi
User avatar
Alun
 
Posts: 1118 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm

Post Number:#68  Postby Meleagar » June 24th, 2010, 5:26 pm

Alun,

The quotes directly contradict your claim that "all biological evidence suggests that traits (observable characteristics of an organism) are entirely defined by the genetic information contained in DNA if it is 'read' by RNA."

The traits are not "entirely defined" by genetic information in the DNA, as you have claimed; how those heritable traits manifest are defined both by the information in the DNA and how they are read by what kinds of affectd RNA.

If the traits were "entirely defined" by the information in the DNA, then if the DNA says "blue eyes", they will always be blue eyes, unless the DNA is mutated. However, if the DNA says "blue eyes", then only unmodified RNA will transcript and generate heritable blue eyes, but if the RNA has been naturally modified via chemicals, the result can be heritable green eyes, or heritable red eyes.

Therefore, the phenotypical expression of the DNA is not "entirely defined" by the DNA; it is also defined by the environmentally-variated state of the RNA that reads it.
Meleagar
 
Posts: 1874 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am

Post Number:#69  Postby Juice » June 24th, 2010, 5:30 pm

This discussion is rapidly entering into the realm of "what came first the chicken or the egg".

We can go round and round talking about "RNA" and "DNA" without having a good concept of how these two paradigms function properly.

First we can say that the crux of Darwin's theory is that all life was formed from a common origin meaning that a single, primitive, form of theorized life gave rise, through mutations of all life conceived on this planet through a process of reproduction. Further that this life "replicated" to reproduce itself.

For the evolutionist several problems arise in this consideration which correlates around "chirality" and "racemization".

These processes prove that undirected chemistry leads to death.

This can be noted with pharmaceuticals which must be able to synthesis correctly in order for them to work where chirality and racemization must be taken into consideration. This is a directed process. The creation of polymers which effect change must be directed since randomization always results in a drastic effect on an organism.

The right key for the right lock must be highly accurate and specialized for the lock to open!!!!
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!
User avatar
Juice
 
Posts: 1997 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm

Post Number:#70  Postby Alun » June 24th, 2010, 6:08 pm

Meleagar,

Meleagar wrote:The quotes directly contradict your claim that "all biological evidence suggests that traits (observable characteristics of an organism) are entirely defined by the genetic information contained in DNA if it is 'read' by RNA."

The traits are not "entirely defined" by genetic information in the DNA, as you have claimed; how those heritable traits manifest are defined both by the information in the DNA and how they are read by what kinds of affectd RNA.

:( In my statement that you quoted in your post, I specifically add the condition of RNA's involvement (I added italics above), which was meant to imply that changes to RNA have an effect on the information. I'm sorry if my summary statement confused you or was poorly written, but I see no way in which RNA's involvement would change the argument even if I had omitted it. RNA evolution is just as determined by natural selection as DNA evolution.
___________________________________________________

Juice,
Juice wrote:This discussion is rapidly entering into the realm of "what came first the chicken or the egg".

We can go round and round talking about "RNA" and "DNA" without having a good concept of how these two paradigms function properly.

I just described how the concepts function in like three paragraphs above. And who came first is not the issue. Darwin's theory of natural selection, and the modern theory of natural selection, are totally different than theories about 'what comes first,' such as theories about abiogenesis. Please don't go off topic.
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi
User avatar
Alun
 
Posts: 1118 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm

Post Number:#71  Postby Juice » June 24th, 2010, 7:41 pm

No Alun there is no mention of "abiogenesis" in my post!!

Only that what Darwinism and neo-Darwinism have in common is that life was formed from a single theorized organism and that organism reproduced to a point where enough "mutations" occurred to make all the life ever to have existed on this planet.

When we discuss information processing and transference which is what is necessary to accept that mutations give rise to an organism that is "improved" from the parent organism then this is the foundation of mutations.

But what about mutations then? What are they and how can they be "beneficial"? What decides which mutation is going to survive so that the organism survives? Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process. They effect one nucleotide base at a time and are called "point mutations".

What causes a mutation? A change in salinity? A change in PH? A change in atmospheric pressure? UV rays? UV rays that inhibit racemization necessary for a mutation to occur? Do you have any idea what it takes, how much specificity it takes, to keep a single amino acid functional? All the while this amino acid must just hang around until the time and place is just right for it to even effect the process of mutation to a millionth degree, let alone to begin to create whats necessary for the complexity of an eye or even a strand of hair.

Who or what defines a beneficial mutation? When that most finite of mutations is 10 billionth of what is necessary for the organism to recognize that it might, maybe possibly be beneficial, before it is, what "trashed"? Oh wait the organism doesn't just decide since evolution is an "undirected" process. This has been such a dilemma for the evolutionist that they had to add a new paradigm to the mystery being "punctuated equilibrium".

Consider for a moment that more than one mutation is necessary to effect a beneficial change necessary for the organism to survive. Given that not all mutations are beneficial then one deleterious mutation in a string of beneficial mutation would cause that organism not to survive. This is not what we see in the fossil record!!

What we see are anatomically correct organisms suited to their environment. We do not see experimentation of any kind. We see legs long enough, eyes clear enough and animals strong enough to reproduce exact copies of themselves.

Fine lets all accept evolution, but not as an undirected process. Sorry guys the evidence just isn't there to support that. All indications lead one to a directed process.
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!
User avatar
Juice
 
Posts: 1997 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm

Post Number:#72  Postby Unrealist42 » June 24th, 2010, 9:48 pm

Juice wrote:
Fine lets all accept evolution, but not as an undirected process. Sorry guys the evidence just isn't there to support that. All indications lead one to a directed process.


No they don't.

What the evidence leads to is the indication that our knowledge is incomplete, that we still do not know some things.

What you are positing is an alternative theory of scientific method, that science is based on a hypothesis of ignorance: We do not know X, so Y must be true.

The scientific method actually uses a hypothesis of knowledge: We know X, maybe Y is also true.

Science starts from what we do know. You start from what we do not know. There is a very profound difference here so it is no wonder that the very meaning of science needs to be changed to accommodate your position.
User avatar
Unrealist42
 
Posts: 343 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 25th, 2010, 7:04 pm
Location: City of Dreams

Post Number:#73  Postby Juice » June 25th, 2010, 2:07 am

Unrealist42-So evolution is based on "incomplete" knowledge which is presented as fact?

I suggest you take a more careful read of my post.

Chirality, point mutations and racemization are very much science.

If you do not know what caused X, even though you know x occurred then either nothing is true or u,v,w,x,y or z may possibly be true!!! Yet the evolutionist will make concrete assessments from, as you suggest, very little evidence. Yet want to tell me that it is impossible that the process is "undirected" from the same limited set of "facts".

GIMME A BREAK!!!!!!

It may interest you to know that Sir Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA compared his discovery to computer coding except he added that the coding in DNA was far more advanced and sophisticated than any computer language.

I bring up the precision necessary for complex strings of nucleotides to function and that is scoffed at as part of an "hypothesis of ignorance" because I assess that type of complexity as necessarily directed since no amount of undirected sophistication exists nor can it exist in any material reality no matter how much time an evolutionists can attach for a mutation to occur.

Tell me what caused the mutation that started all the multi-billion micro-mutations towards the development of the eye. Tell me how long did the condition which caused that initial mutation last? Was the same condition necessary to allow all the other, subsequent, mutations to occur?

You don't even ask the question of how an organism gained the ability to have successive, successful, mutations necessary to advance an organism. Instead answer, "just because we don't know doesn't mean that God did it". What is this Li'l Abner. You hide behind God more than a creationist does.

The question that I have asked is how could we possibly know the functionality of a mutation without knowing the functional effect of that mutation being asserted. If it is not directed then there is no way of knowing which specific mutation caused an effect or if that mutation may have caused numerous effects or have no effect at all, and what are the chances and frequencies of having one or the other or all three occur or not occur.

The problem here is that natural selection is grossly inefficient and ineffective. As Meleagar has pointed out on several occasions, natural selection does not explain how new functional information can be produced by random, undirected mutations.

Calling a theory which suggests, by reason and observation, that the mutation process that produces functionality must be directed, ignorant hypothesizing, is just a way evolutionist bury their heads in the sand against design probabilities.

If we consider the question of what came first we can then postulate organizational hierarchy. When we use these terms in relation to biology and specifically evolution then comes that question of how a sophisticated organism came to be wholly functional when complete integration is necessary for functionality.

In other words what does it take to coordinate functional mutations with all the other functional mutations.

For example; assume an amphibious animal ascended from a sea with eyes, digestive and nervous systems adapted to its water environment, the question then becomes what force is necessary to integrate mutations that spontaneously affect not only sight and brain but adjust the digestive system and nervous at the same time so that the animal can survive long enough to effect these changes through its reproductive abilities? Another question is; was it the same forces which motivated that animal to become what it ultimately became before leaving the water the same forces which adapted it to land?

Evolutionists need to start thinking out of the box, Man. You guys are still stuck in the 1800's.
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!
User avatar
Juice
 
Posts: 1997 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm

Post Number:#74  Postby Alun » June 25th, 2010, 2:42 am

Juice wrote:No Alun there is no mention of "abiogenesis" in my post!!

Only that what Darwinism and neo-Darwinism have in common is that life was formed from a single theorized organism and that organism reproduced to a point where enough "mutations" occurred to make all the life ever to have existed on this planet.

The theory of evolution by natural selection does not include the theory that life originated from one single first organism. It is a theory about how the life on Earth has changed, i.e. about evolution.
Juice wrote:But what about mutations then? What are they and how can they be "beneficial"? What decides which mutation is going to survive so that the organism survives? Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process. They effect one nucleotide base at a time and are called "point mutations".

I am very confused. The straightforward answers to your questions in this quote and in the rest of your post are all explained in my original post starting this thread, so what are you really asking?
Juice wrote:Unrealist42-So evolution is based on "incomplete" knowledge which is presented as fact?

Yes. If you can ask God what really happened, then maybe we can get some complete knowledge, but for now we take what we have the best evidence for to be most likely. Again, this is clearly stated in the OP. If you would bother to address the argument I laid out in the beginning, maybe we can actually learn something, instead of repeating the same confused discussion I had with you 6 months ago.
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi
User avatar
Alun
 
Posts: 1118 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm

Post Number:#75  Postby Meleagar » June 25th, 2010, 6:57 am

Alun wrote:I am very confused. The straightforward answers to your questions in this quote and in the rest of your post are all explained in my original post starting this thread, so what are you really asking?


No, you just asserted that an A to B mutation (the kind we have observed empirically is categorically the same as going from A to Z, that the process is only one of aggregation within the category, which is a fallacy of composition.

For analogy, what we have observed empirically, when it comes to natural selection's effect on phenotypical expression, is the same as selecting for the chance crimping of a wire, or the chance, slight re-shaping of a door handle in a fully functioning automobile.

To claim that those examples are categorically the same processes that transformed the reproducing lineage of the car, over millions of years, into a fully functioning battleship, a space shuttle and a 747 requires showing that the process is categorically the same, not simply asserting that it is.

Because a known sorting system (natural selection) can sort for some useful variations in an already enormously complex and functional machine that has in it a largely unkown capacity to gain recursive information/modification from the environment (epigenetics) to produce a phenotypical expression that might already be latent within the epigenome doesn't necessarily mean that natural selection is a sufficient sorting process to build an elephant from a single-celled creature over any length of time.

Asserting it is categorically the same process is not demonstrating it.

Juice wrote:In other words what does it take to coordinate functional mutations with all the other functional mutations.


The disconnect is astounding when people just assume that "if X can produce A-B, it can produce A-Z". Let's say that in driving my car I hit a speed bump that slightly bends the underside of my bumper; let's say that this is actually a good thing becuase that slight bend keeps me from scraping and hitting all sorts of things.

Is the process that generated that slight bend in the underside of my bumper categorically the same process that took the lineage of cars from the model T to my Chrysler Crossfire?
Meleagar
 
Posts: 1874 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST