Chez Watt: Re: New falsifiable proposal/prediction of design


"floyd" <farchy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1133683626.021744.325980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<snip>

>> How is evolutionary theory falsifiable by the standards of scientific
>> rigor you are setting forth.
>
>
> 1) Mutation is falsifiable by demonstrating that gametes are always, or
> at least nearly always high-fidelity copies of somatic cells, and that
> inaccuracies in copying are inevitably non-viable.
>
> 2) Gene flow is falsifiable by demonstrating that the movement of
> organisms from one population of a species to another does not result
> in the alteration of the relative frequencies of alleles in either
> population after the passage of two or more generations.
>
> 3) Drift is falsifiable by demonstrating that there are no "sampling
> errors" caused by non-selective, "random" matings, and
>
> 4) Selection is falsifiable by demonstrating that there is no
> statistically significant correlation between phenotype and
> reproductive output.
>
> I can gladly give you the equations for testing the statistical
> significance of these effects if you wish, but if you'd prefer to avoid
> any complex mathematics and stick with simple algebra, the Hardy
> Weinberg equations are quite sufficient to test whether any of the
> above forces are operative.
>
>
>
>> Has the ToE been proved empirically in the
>> majority of species that exists today?
>
>
> How do you mean? It has been amply demonstrated as a general rule. Do
> you mean "have evolutionary pathways been proposed for every species?"
> Then no; no more than ballistic trajectories have been described for
> every falling object. Do you think any *specific* trajectory presents
> a challenge to the general rule? If so, we can test it for you. Just
> tell me which lineage you think violates the general rule and I'll do
> my best to get the data.
>
>
>
>> Is evolution something that has been proved on a case to case basis?
>
>
> Yes. Although "proof" is probably not the word you wanted there.
> "Evolution" is an observed fact. _How_ it happens, on a case-by-case
> basis is obviously an empirical issue.
>
>
>
>>
>> Let's see how the rigor that is a prerequisite for your acceptance of a
>> divergent explanation to the ToE:
>
>
> I'm not entirely clear about the question the above sentence is
> intended to convey. I think you may have elided an important verb
> there.
>
> Doing my best to guess what you meant, I _think_ you are asking whether
> or not the ToE compares favourably to other explanations of the
> available data. If so, ...what other explanations exist? (Note:
> scientists don't generally consider "It all happened by magic" a viable
> alternate explanation, so I assume you have something other than that.)
>
>
>>
>> If you want the ToE to be falsifiable, you need proof of transition
>> between at least two forms.
>
>
> Yes, absolutely! If the ToE is correct, the small-brained quadrupedal
> apes and the large-brained bipedal hominids are related. If so, if we
> look in strata of the correct age, we should expect to see something
> that is neither a small-brained quadrupedal ape nor a large-brained
> biped, but something in-between. It could be a large brained quadruped
> _or_ a small-brained biped, but there should be some transitional
> species in between the two.
>
> By the same token, if we look in strata of the correct age, we should
> see something that has some characteristics of a bird and other
> characteristics of a reptile.
>
> Again, assuming the ToE is correct, in more recent strata, we should
> see animals that retain characters that were useful in their ancestors,
> even though they are not useful in the living organisms. For example,
> we might expect to see molar teeth which are only useful in grinding
> plant foods, but they might appear in the jaws of creatures that rely
> exclusively on blood as a food source.
>
> We might even expect, if our technology was sufficient, to find
> sequences of DNA that do not actually code for proteins or enzymes, but
> are nevertheless present in the cells of organisms. If the ToE is
> correct, we should expect that the non-coding sequences of DNA should
> be similar between related organisms. It's easy to explain why
> _coding_ sequences might be similar between organisms that live in
> similar environments.
>
> For example, if functionality was the major reason for similarity, then
> we would expect that African vultures and North American vultures,
> which live in similar habitats, look a lot alike and have similar
> diets, should be genetically pretty similar as well. We would not
> expect that North American vultures were more similar to other North
> American birds and Arican vultures to other African birds, _unless_
> there was a "familial" relationship between them. ToE predicts
> similarities between American vultures and other American birds will be
> greater in number than the similarities between American vultures and
> African vultures. A purely formalist comparisson, such as might be
> developed by a conscious designer, would predict the reverse; similar
> organisms, living similar lifestyles in similar environments should be
> most closely genetically similar, despite their unique independent
> origins.
>
>
>
>> You are proposing that the viability of an
>> organism is the basis of a species surviving, given its particular
>> context, which is a function of its capacity to survive given a specific
>> environment.
>
>
> Yes. Generally speaking, in my experience, a species composed entirely
> of non-viable organisms does not have a high probability of survival.
> Species composed of individuals who are not dead _do_ tend, on average,
> to be more successful than species that are composed of organisms that
> *are* dead. I admit that's a statistical correlation, and not a causal
> one. Perhaps you are aware of a species of organisms who are always
> born dead, but nevertheless manage to persist. If so, I would be truly
> excited to hear about them.
>
>
>
>> You need to exclude other reasons behind this viability and demonstrate
>> the mechanisms by which these changes take place.
>
>
> Again, I'm only speaking from my own, limited, experience, but I have
> found that the alternate to viability (that is, being dead), tends to
> intere with successful reproduction. No matter what other factors may
> be involved in reproduction, the character set ["s/he's not dead"]
> seems to be a prefered collection of attributes in most mate choices.
> I have heard that there are those who prefer the alternative, but (and
> again, this is only a statistical correlation) obligate necrophiliacs
> tend to have fewer offspring on average than their viviphiliac
> conspecifics.
>
>
>> Are they abrupt
>> changes in the genetic code??
>
>
> Nope, looks like it's been A,T,C and G on a phosphate and sugar
> backbone for quite a while now.
>
>
>> Are they gradual and progressive?
>
>
> "Progress" implies having an end in mind. I am not aware of any such
> goal. If you are, please share your insight, thank you.
>
>
>> Is there
>> physical proof? Do we know the mechanisms of morphogenesis, ie how genes
>> express themselves in the final form of a living creature?
>
>
> Mostly. We know that most genes code for a norm of reaction, and that
> the phenotype will develop within those constraints. The specific
> development of a specific gene in a specific environment is, of course,
> an empirical issue and not a theoretical one.
>
>
>>
>> I look forward to seeing how biologists will be able to uncover
>> abiogenesis
>
>
> Why? That's a specialty within organic chemistry. Asking biologists
> to sort it out is like asking auto mechanics to do surgery or surgeons
> to fix your car.
>
>
>> (if you have a theory by which you think you know how
>> organisms evolve, you need a starting point
>
>
> Don't be silly. Listen; I drive to work. If you want to know how the
> internal combustion engine works, you don't *really* need to know my
> home address, even though that is where I start. It is quite possible
> to know how cars work without knowing where the cars park at night. By
> the same token, it is possible to know how species change without
> knowing the origin of the first living thing.
>
>
>> and don't give me the usual
>> crap about how the ToE doesn't "concern" itself with the beginning of
>> creation-it's a cheap cop-out),
>
> No, it's mutual respect between disciplinary specialists. I know my
> colleagues over in the chemistry department are doing their best.
> Insofar as their work begins to impinge upon my own, I will look into
> understanding it. But the fact that I, as an anthropologist, do not
> understand the cutting edge of organic chemistry does not, in any way,
> discredit either anthropology or chemistry. Your "critique" of
> biologists for not _also_ mastering chemistry is equivalent to
> excommunicating every Bible-reader who has not copied the scriptures
> onto home-made paper.
>
>
>> explain morphogenetic factors-they are
>> *absolutely clueless*-
>
>
> Ok, here you have drifted into unqualified insult, and for no reason
> whatsoever. My post was nothing but polite, to the extent where
> another respondent thought I was a proponent of creationism, just
> because I was so willing to hear the case. You responded to my
> politeness with unprovoked insult. Is that how your saviour would
> advise you to behave?
>
>
>
>> that come into play, produce some physical proof
>> of their PE postulate,
>
>
> The Devonian Trilobites are physical, and they're "proof" enough for me
> that episodes of rapid change due to cladogenesis are interspersed with
> comparatively long periods of morphological statsis.
>
>
>
>> aka hopeful monster theory,
>
>
> The "hopeful monster" hypothesis is so fundamentally dfferent to PE
> that I can't imagine the thought processes involved that inspired you
> to conflate the two. That's like saying "polishing the chrome
> wheel-well trim on a 1966 T-Bird, A.K.A. buying an imported cigar from
> the wife of a two-term congressman". It doesn't make any sense.
>
>
>> explain how it is
>> possible that an organism becomes more complex as time goes by
>
>
> If you can define "increasing complexity" in quantitative terms,
> perhaps I can explain it. As it stands, it sounds as if you are under
> the mistaken impression that evolution was *trying* to make _you_. I
> assure you that, insofar as I understand it, this is not the case.
>
>
>> -such in
>> the case of humans and when they will point out, with humility and
>> honesty that the ToE is nothing but a hero-myth type of fairy-tale,
>
>
> One *can* certainly phrase evolution, especially hominid evolution, in
> the form of a hero's quest. I personally think it is foolish to do so,
> but one can, and some have. The major difference is that heroes'
> quests are necessarily *prescriptive*; they teach us how we _should_
> conduct ourselves in a moral sense, in an ethically interpreted
> environment. The ToE has *no* prescriptive meaning whatsoever, it is a
> purely _descriptive_ explanation. What we choose to do with the
> knowledge is up to us.
>
>
>
>> no
>> better than the account of creation in the Bible.
>>
>
>
>
>
> As far as "better", I agree, it *is* better, for _some_ purposes. If
> you want to understand the moral and ethical relations between the
> Israelites and YHVH, Genesis is your best source. Of course for other
> purposes, Genesis is not very useful. If you want to understand the
> relationship between N2O injections and accelleration in internal
> combusion engines, the Bible won't be much help at all. There is no
> "Gospel according to Earnhard". If you want to know how to translate a
> document written for Windows XP-Pro software to print on a printer
> connected to a Red-Hat Linnux, there is no chapter in Leviticus that
> will help you. I've checked. And if you want to understand why
> species seem to fit into a nested hierarchy on the basis of their
> morphology and why that hierarchy seems to correspond to the hierarchy
> delimited by their genes, Genesis is not going to be your ideal
> resource.
>
> But Nicolas, seriously, please listen. I don't care even one tiny
> little bit if you accept that evolution happens. Really. I don't. I
> don't want to convince you of anything.
>
> I *am* interested in good discussions however, and you are eloquent
> enough to be able to hold one. So I am asking you to take a look at
> what evolution is *actually* all about, and what its supporters think
> it is about, again, *not* because I want to convince you of anything,
> but because I think you will be a more effective debator if you know
> your opponents' position.
>
> Think of it as a court case. If you are the defense attourney and know
> the prosecution's case (or vice versa), you will be more successful at
> convincing the jury (or in our case, the lurkers) than if you don't.
>
> Tell you what, let's make it fair. You tell me some published resource
> that you think presents a good case for your side and I promise to read
> it. In exchange, you promise to read one resource I give you. We'll
> take turns. (I read fast, so if you want, we can even do two for one;
> I'll read two of yours for every one of mine. That's more than fair,
> don't you think?)
>
> I'll even go first. If you read _Finding Darwin's God_ by Ken Miller,
> I will read any two references you propose. (My next book
> recommendation will be R. Numbers' _The Creationists_, just so you know
> as much about your team as I do. I don't want to take any unfair
> advantage.)
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Answering Howards questions
    ... intermediacy between that species and ancestral great ape species. ... given that only a very very very few such organisms ... I am currently not engaging in any human evolution discussion. ... Not "only possible explanation," but the best explanation. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: New falsifiable proposal/prediction of design
    ... >> prediction unless and until you can state explicitly where that barrier ... >> species, or whatever taxonomic level interests you). ... > divergent explanation to the ToE: ... even though they are not useful in the living organisms. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: More Vatican Support for Evolution
    ... ROME -- Charles Darwin's theory that all living organisms have ... and evolution at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. ... For example, using mice, monkeys and other nonhuman species to ... Futuyma was one of dozens of scientists, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: More Vatican Support for Evolution
    ... ROME -- Charles Darwin's theory that all living organisms have ... and evolution at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. ... For example, using mice, monkeys and other nonhuman species to ... Futuyma was one of dozens of scientists, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Answering Howards questions
    ... intermediacy between that species and ancestral great ape species. ... given that only a very very very few such organisms ... I am currently not engaging in any human evolution discussion. ... Not "only possible explanation," but the best explanation. ...
    (talk.origins)