Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: How Do You Like Your Science? (Crick's dictum or not)
- 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.
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.
[HYPOTHESIS A = CORRECT]
2 Directed mutations, the second possible explanation relying on
non-random mutation, is not correct.
[HYPOTHESIS B] = 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
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.
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
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]
- --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
>LOL. How many other choices do you think there are?
> 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".
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"?
>Then the question is moot.
> 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.
>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?
>What we should be discussing is EMPIRICAL METHODS. No one
> doubts that different animals have different nostril designs. What is
> scientific about THAT?
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.
>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.
> 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.
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.
>Try me. Show me some evidence that is clearly at odds with the theory of evolution.
> Charles P: In my opinion, you will ALWAYS believe in neo-Darwinism and
> theistic evolution no matter what evidence is presented to you.
It is part
> of your philosophies and who you are. All that I am saying is that thereYou 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 no EMPIRICAL METHODS ever presented to support the philosophies.
Are you sure you know what "empirical" means?
>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.
> 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.
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 EMPIRICALActually 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.
> METHODS to describe ancestry between dolphins and land mammals, either).
>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.
> 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.
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?