Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: How Do You Like Your Science? (Crick's dictum or not)

Expand Messages
  • Charles Palm
    Stewart: Charles you have an infuriating tendency to complicate the most simple of ideas, by harvesting far too much entirely superfluous information. You re
    Message 1 of 105 , Mar 31, 2012
      Stewart: Charles you have an infuriating tendency to complicate the most
      simple of ideas, by harvesting far too much entirely superfluous
      information. You're all over the place. My Philosophy has nothing to do
      with the conclusions I reach with a process as simple to grasp as this is. The
      genetic code of an individual was not pre-existing. This applies to the
      mice in the film, every single creature has a unique genetic code. What
      you describe as pre-existing would be more accurately termed 'mutable'. DNA
      is like musical notes, it can be rearranged to produce a new song, but it's
      still produces music.

      Charles P: Stewart, you said, "The genetic code of an individual was not
      pre-existing". Do you believe that ALWAYS THERE = PREEXISTING ? Please
      explain your understanding of Hypothesis A from Understanding Evolution and
      the evo-devo research done by scientists like Sean B. Carroll.

      Understanding Evolution:
      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07 Resistant
      strains... were always there � and are just more frequent now because all
      the non-resistant... died.

      1 Scientists generally think that the first explanation is the right one.

      2 Directed mutations, the second possible explanation relying on
      non-random mutation, is not correct.

      Charles P: Stewart, what do you believe was the CAUSE of the "MUTABLE"
      DNA ? The "cause" must precede the "effect".

      Causality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality Causality is the
      relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect),
      where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.
      Causality is a basic assumption of science. Within the scientific method,
      scientists set up experiments to determine causality in the physical world.
      Embedded within the scientific method and experiments is a hypothesis or
      several hypotheses about causal relationships. The scientific method is
      used to test the hypotheses.

      Stewart: To insist that the colour of hair of my respective children was
      pre- determined by DNA, is as ridiculous as claiming it was planned by a
      designer. There is a wide variety of of possible pigmentation they could
      have had, because the same genetic code has been passed down through
      generations, each of which left all the building blocks of their respective
      gene sequence.

      Charles P:
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Mausefalle_300px.jpg No
      one is suggesting that hair color for your children was PLANNED by a
      designer. What scientists are saying is that DNA is a digital code. No
      one has ever discovered a code that was not ultimately designed by someone.
      The MOUSE TRAP is designed. However, the MOUSE TRAP can be used as a tie
      clasp, a spit ball shooter, a paper weight, etc. In other words, the
      purposely designed MOUSE TRAP can be "mutated" to be used for a myriad of
      other purposes. If the average reader uses a MOUSE TRAP to swat
      cockroaches or to shade their eyes from bright sunlight, that does not
      change the fact that the MOUSE TRAP was designed by someone for another

      Evidence of evolution:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve The extreme detour
      of this nerve (about 15 feet in giraffes) is cited as evidence of
      evolution as opposed to intelligent design. The nerve's route would have
      been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from
      the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over
      the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in
      the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart.
      Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to
      accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.

      Charles P: Those who oppose intelligent design seem to think that they
      know how a GOOD DESIGNER would have done a BETTER JOB!!! The recurrent
      laryngeal nerve of a giraffe is the result of the use of the same COMMON
      DESIGN PARTS as those used in fish and in humans. Who should be the judge
      as to whether the result is a GOOD JOB or BAD JOB and which EMPIRICAL
      METHODS should be used for judgments?

      Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duckbilled_platypus The platypus
      looks like it was DESIGNED by a COMMITTEE.


      Gluadys: I too have been asking this question. In particular I have been
      asking "How many pre-planned DNA codes exist in one species?" To date there
      has been no answer from you, Charles. Citing sources that do not promote
      the concept of pre-programmed DNA does not answer my question or D R
      Lindberg's question. AS for the commentary on Understanding Evolution,
      does this mean you are merely substituting a different phrase for random
      mutation and natural selection? Does "pre-programmed DNA" not have any real
      meaning of its own? How many pre-planned genomes existed in the insect
      population before it was exposed to insecticide? So, if you both inherited
      the pre-planned DNA of your common ancestor, how is it that you are not as
      similar as identical twins today? How does pre-programmed DNA work to
      produce variation in a species? How can this be with pre-programmed DNA?
      How can chromosomal crossover change pre-programmed DNA? If I take two
      identical strings of red beads, break them and reconnect each end to the
      other string, I still have two identical strings of red beads. Even if the
      strings of beads have a complex colour pattern, if they both have the same
      pattern, (as per pre-programmed DNA) crossover would not change that
      pattern. The pre-existing pattern would not be changed by the crossover. If
      they have a different pattern to begin with, how did the patterns become
      different since they are both inherited from a common ancestor? I have
      been taking you seriously enough on pre-programmed DNA to ask for a clear
      presentation of what you mean by this phrase and examples of how it works
      to generate bio-diversity. You have not responded. Do you take your own
      ideas seriously enough to think them through?

      Meiosis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xMXKU7JnMQ&feature=related At
      time 2:27 the 4 gametes are genetically different.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1_-mQS_FZ0 At 0:29 the first shuffle of
      nature's genetic deck. This forms NEW hybrid chromosomes.

      Charles P:
      Chromosomal crossover generates NEW INFORMATION by mixing the 23,000
      coding genes. Think of it like shuffling the cards in a deck and then
      selecting only few each time. Each "hand of cards" is NEW INFORMATION that
      has been copied from the original deck.

      Gluadys: One question: How many pre-programmed DNA genomes were designed
      for one species?

      Charles P: Until I find some EMPIRICAL METHODS to the contrary, I assume
      that each KIND of male and female animal have a unique preexisting genome
      since ancient times. I assume that there are fewer KINDS of animals than
      there are SPECIES of animals. Different KINDS of animals seem to be
      purposefully designed using different permutations of the known CODING
      GENES. I haven't studied anything but animals so far.

      Charles P: Thank you for taking my ideas seriously and keeping an OPEN
      MIND. Now, I also have an open mind. To turn this into a discussion,
      please answer your own questions using the neo-Dawinist and theistic
      evolution ideas. In my opinion, you are asking me to answer the questions
      that you NEVER ASKED of Richard Dawkins, Jerry A Coyne, the National Center
      for Science Education, etc. Now, it seems that you want me to research the
      answers just so that you can say I am "wrong". I really would appreciate
      EMPIRICAL METHODS to point out my mistakes. I learn by my mistakes, so
      anything SCIENTIFIC that you have to say would be greatly beneficial to me
      and to others here on Origins Talk.


      Stewart: You have completely misinterpreted this explanation. Hypotheses A
      suggests that the DNA had the capability of mutating to allow for
      pathogens, so those bacteria which utilise the immunity survive and
      multiply. Hypotheses B suggests that the bacteria create new information
      specifically in response to the pathogens in order to survive. Hypotheses
      A is correct because it requires only that the bacteria employ at random,
      the genetic content they already have Hypotheses B would require that they
      wait to see where the attack comes from, and in what form, before
      developing a strategy to combat it. This would require intelligence and
      conscious planning on the part of the bacteria, qualities they certainly
      don't have.

      Understanding Evolution:
      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php Your
      one-stop source for information on evolution.

      Charles P: Stewart, I suggest that you study what the evo-devo scientists
      are reporting. If you agree with everything they say, that is OK with me.

      Stewart: How could there be a low level of hostility in the environment?
      If some creatures live it is because they have unwittingly adapted to exist
      in the environment as it is. If they exist long enough the environment will
      inevitably change, making it more hostile to them.

      National Center for Science Education: http://ncse.com/ Defending the
      teaching of evolution and CLIMATE SCIENCE.

      Charles P: The NCSE seems to believe that the teaching of CLIMATE SCIENCE
      means that a previous LOW LEVEL OF HOSTILITY IN THE ENVIRONMENT is worth
      studying for the survival of biodiversity.

      Stewart: Charles it is impossible to reverse engineer human beings, what
      you have done here is long division on the human population, not reverse
      engineering. Even then you cannot accurately allow for war, disease,
      famine and the many other constricting factors populations, and life in
      general have been subject to. Consequently there is no way you could come
      to an accurate count using this method.

      Charles P: Thank you, Stewart, for keeping an OPEN MIND while you
      considered my ideas. Any time you have some EMPIRICAL METHODS to discuss
      here on Origins Talk, please share them with us.

      Stewart: All the scientific reasons are at your disposal, you are very
      much aware of them. The problem you have is not that you lack information
      but that you misread it, resulting in a bad conclusion. You also introduce
      false concepts such as the reverse engineering of DNA , the existence of
      genetic planning, purposeful intent and so on. If your mind is as open as
      you claim, you would try to view the information without the presumption of
      a creator. This would allow you to see where the limitations of the
      information lead us. We can envisage the mechanism of genetic diversity
      but we cannot confidently declare knowledge of its origin. To claim it was
      introduced by a designer or a god is purely speculative on the basis that
      there is no information or evidence to bolster that conviction. That is
      why science in general will not endorse the concept(s) of Intelligent
      Design or Creationism.

      Charles P: I still have an OPEN MIND. I am not a creationist. I do not
      have a presumption of a creator when I report EMPIRICAL METHODS. I do not
      declare knowledge of any designer or a god nor anything speculative...
      except where I say, "In my opinion". It makes no difference to me if
      "SCIENCE IN GENERAL" does or does not endorse the concepts of Intelligent
      Design or Creationism. All of those are part of philosophies. My only
      interest here is the description for the origin and diversity of life. My
      personal philosophies have NOTHING to do with what EMPIRICAL METHODS are
      telling us. EMPIRICAL METHODS are telling us that the origin and diversity
      of life on Earth WAS NO ACCIDENT.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • gluadys
      ... LOL. How many other choices do you think there are? However, it is not a matter of choosing. It is a matter of thinking through the implications of your
      Message 105 of 105 , Apr 9, 2012
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
        > Gluadys: What does this predict concerning empirical observations of the
        > placement of nostrils in cetacean fossils? Your hypothesis should lead to a
        > clear answer to these questions:
        > 1. Should there be fossils with characteristics intermediate between a
        > terrestrial mammal and a modern cetacean? Yes or no?
        > Charles P: I am only given two choices, so I will choose "no".

        LOL. How many other choices do you think there are?

        However, it is not a matter of choosing. It is a matter of thinking through the implications of your theory.

        I am not asking if Charles Palm thinks there should or should not be fossils with characteristics intermediate between terrestrial and marine mammals.

        I am asking: "What does your theory say about this?"

        So, instead of just saying "no" you should be able to say: "According to my theory the answer is `no' because ___________________."

        Note that the evolutionary theory can do this. According to evolutionary theory the answer must be "yes" because evolution only allows for relatively small changes per generation so many generations must be intermediate between a fully terrestrial ancestor and a fully marine descendant.

        So, why does your theory say "no"?

        > 2. If the answer to 1. is yes, should one of those intermediate
        > characteristics be a placement of the nostrils between the snout and the
        > top of the head? Yes or no?
        > Charles P: What if the answer is: No.

        Then the question is moot.

        >What we should be discussing is EMPIRICAL METHODS. No one
        > doubts that different animals have different nostril designs. What is
        > scientific about THAT?

        You mean empirical methods like exploring for and finding fossils, carefully removing fossils from the place of discovery, carefully studying fossils, listing all their characteristics, measuring them in detail and comparing them with one another and with living species?

        It is not just that different animals have different nostril designs. It is the way the differences fall into patterns. That is why comparative anatomy is important. Paleontologists don't just look for character traits to catalogue them. They look for patterns that illuminate our understanding of biological history.

        > Charles P: I assume that because I cannot answer your questions to your
        > satisfaction that it is sufficient evidence, in your opinion, that
        > neo-Darwinism is "right" because anyone who questions neo-Darwinism is
        > "wrong". That is unscientific.

        Your theory is unscientific because it cannot do what a scientific theory ought to be able to do. It cannot determine in advance what empirical evidence a scientist needs to look for to support or falsify a theory.

        You can't answer the question because your theory gives you no way to expect one thing rather than another. The theory of evolution provides a way to do that.

        > Charles P: In my opinion, you will ALWAYS believe in neo-Darwinism and
        > theistic evolution no matter what evidence is presented to you.

        Try me. Show me some evidence that is clearly at odds with the theory of evolution.

        It is part
        > of your philosophies and who you are. All that I am saying is that there
        > are no EMPIRICAL METHODS ever presented to support the philosophies.

        You mean that no one found any fossils of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorodon or various other cetaceans? No one undertook the very empirical work of digging them up, examining the place they were found, examining the fossils themselves and co-relating the findings for comparison?

        Are you sure you know what "empirical" means?

        > Charles P: Gluadys, you and other writers have the advantage that you can
        > just make stuff up using LOGICAL REASONING without EMPIRICAL METHODS.
        > Anyone who honestly doubts what you have to say must come up with
        > EMPIRICAL METHODS to prove that what you said was just made up from your
        > own imagination. I don't mind a discussion of EMPIRICAL METHODS, but I
        > really do not see any point in discussion of YOUR PHILOSOPHIES.
        > =============================================

        That is unfair, Charles. You know I haven't made any of this up. You know, you have probably read yourself, of these discoveries. You know the empirical work and empirical observations that went into scientific conclusions about evolution. And if you haven't, the internet gives you quick access to this information.

        So, what empirical methods have you used, or have you heard of being used to support your conclusions? Tell me what your empirical methods are and then we can compare them. For example, what empirical methods tell you there cannot be creatures preserved in the fossil record with traits intermediate between terrestrial and marine mammals?

        > Charles P: Sharks and dolphins are NOT RELATED. (There are no EMPIRICAL
        > METHODS to describe ancestry between dolphins and land mammals, either).

        Actually there are. By using empirical methods we can determine that dolphins are more closely related to sharks than they are to squid. Of course, they are not closely related to sharks. Empirical methods also tell us dolphins are more closely related to trout than to sharks, though not by much. OTOH they are much more closely related to giraffes than to squid, sharks or trout. All of this comes from using empirical methods to study anatomy, embryology and genomics.

        > Charles P: The Gluadys hypothesis of nostril location on extinct fossil
        > species can't be tested by further investigation. No one knows why extinct
        > animals were purposefully designed that way. If we knew why, that would be
        > teleology and it would be prohibited by neo-Darwinism and theistic
        > evolutionism philosophies.

        Well, it has been tested by observation. Nostrils on cetacean-like fossils do occur in intermediate positions and do occur closer to the top of the head in species that lived more recently. That is factual observation (an empirical method) and matches the hypothesis.

        Of course, the alternate hypothesis of purposive design (which is deemed not to entail evolution) tells us nothing at all. It cannot tell us to expect this sequence of intermediate traits, nor can it explain why the sequence actually exists. A very strange deficiency in a theory that claims to be founded on the existence of purpose. One would think that purpose would be easily explainable. Especially if one applies reverse engineering to figure out what a character trait is used for.

        Now what if one unites evolution and purposeful design, seeing evolution as the natural means by which God produced his beautiful and diverse designs? Why not?
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.