Re: What kind of evidence is acceptable?
- --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
> David Williams: You like to quote the above a lot. I put the stuff earlier
> about endosymbiosis because it is an example of cell mergers. You may also
> have read in Dr. Shapiro's book about horizontal gene transfer. One example
> of this is the transfer of antibiotic resistance between unrelated
> bacteria. Another example is the transfer of genes from mitochondria to the
> cell nucleus. Mitochondria cannot make all of its proteins anymore even
> though it has a nucleus. It can make some, but the cell makes the rest.
> One can read about sentient bacteria that can band together in a biofilm
> and show intelligent cooperation and then one can watch it try to kill. It
> was scary. Dr. Shapiro calls his hypothesis, natural genetic engineering.
> I think it might also be referred to as evolution through intelligent
> design, with the intelligent agents being the cells themselves. Some
> people seem to me to think of an intelligent agent as some kind of project
> engineer who designs life forms in some kind of office in another
> dimension. There is no way a present to scientifically detect such
> activity. But the work of cellular intelligent agents can be scientifically
> David Williams: I found out about the intelligent behavior or red ants in
> Oklahoma one 4th of July. I put a fire cracker in an ant hill and lit it.
> Immediately, a platoon of red ants marched up the fire cracker and put out
> the fuse with their abdomens. While I was watching this with fascination, 2
> other platoons marched up my legs and bit me. I never tried to blow up ant
> hills again.
> David Williams: Intelligent behavior does not necessarily have to be
> directed by a marionette. An animal does not need a brain to see.
> Charles P: Thank you, David. I am glad that you have read Dr. Shapiro's
> book. Now I don't feel like the Lone Ranger. I keep repeating the quotes
> in hopes that someone else would read the book and share their
> interpretations of the evidence.
> Charles P: I have been trying to draw attention to animal echolocation
> under the subject of The Gaps Are Real, but that subject has changed its
> content to discussion of Bible scripture.
> Charles P: Common ancestry within a group is self-evident. Common
> ancestry between non-related groups is not self-evident. Animal
> echolocation is an example of common design between non-related groups.
> Without empirical and verifiable evidence to support the evolution
> of animal echolocation in non-related groups, why should science writers
> not exclude common ancestry of non-related groups from evolution theories?
Human echolocation is an ability of humans to detect objects in their environment by sensing echoes from those objects. By actively creating sounds for example, by tapping their canes, lightly stomping their foot or making clicking noises with their mouths people trained to orientate with echolocation can interpret the sound waves reflected by nearby objects, accurately identifying their location and size. This ability is used by some blind people for acoustic wayfinding, or navigating within their environment using auditory rather than visual cues. It is similar in principle to active sonar and to the animal echolocation employed by some animals, including bats, dolphins and toothed whales.
Vision and hearing are closely related in that they can process reflected waves of energy. Vision processes light waves as they travel from their source, bounce off surfaces throughout the environment and enter the eyes. Similarly, the auditory system processes sound waves as they travel from their source, bounce off surfaces and enter the ears. Both systems can extract a great deal of information about the environment by interpreting the complex patterns of reflected energy that they receive. In the case of sound, these waves of reflected energy are called "echoes".
Echoes and other sounds can convey spatial information that is comparable in many respects to that conveyed by light. With echoes, a blind traveler can perceive very complex, detailed, and specific information from distances far beyond the reach of the longest cane or arm. Echoes make information available about the nature and arrangement of objects and environmental features such as overhangs, walls, doorways and recesses, poles, ascending curbs and steps, planter boxes, pedestrians, fire hydrants, parked or moving vehicles, trees and other foliage, and much more. Echoes can give detailed information about location (where objects are), dimension (how big they are and their general shape), and density (how solid they are). Location is generally broken down into distance from the observer and direction (left/right, front/back, high/low). Dimension refers to the object's height (tall or short) and breadth (wide or narrow).
Neural substrates of echolocation in the blind
Echo-related activity in the brain of an early-blind echolocator is shown on the left. There is no activity evident in the brain of a sighted person (shown on the right) listening to the same echoes
Some blind people are skilled at echolocating silent objects simply by producing mouth clicks and listening to the returning echoes. It has been recently shown that blind echolocation experts use what is normally the `visual' part of their brain to process the echoes. The researchers first made recordings of the clicks and their very faint echoes using tiny microphones placed in the ears of the blind echolocators as they stood outside and tried to identify different objects such as a car, a flag pole, and a tree. The researchers then played the recorded sounds back to the echolocators while their brain activity was being measured using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Remarkably, when the echolocation recordings were played back to the blind experts, not only did they perceive the objects based on the echoes, but they also showed activity in those areas of their brain that normally process visual information in sighted people, primarily primary visual cortex or V1. Most interestingly, the brain areas that process auditory information were no more activated by sound recordings of outdoor scenes containing echoes than they were by sound recordings of outdoor scenes with the echoes removed. Importantly, when the same experiment was carried out with sighted people who did not echolocate, these individuals could not perceive the objects and there was no echo-related activity anywhere in the brain.
David Williams: Have you been reading Do While Jones nonsense again?
- D R Lindberg (To Jim in Missouri): You agreed that intermediate fossils
can be identified independently of of theory. That eliminates any
Charles P: The old idea of *transitional fossils* from the old Theory of
Evolution is not acceptable as empirical and verifiable evidence. Naming
them *intermediate* or some other name is a distinction without a
difference. Arguing *circularity* draws attention away from the central
issue. Look at this unscientific collection of intermediate fossils that
does not even meet the standards of Wikipedia. This page was last modified
on 14 January 2013 at 03:13.
List of transitional fossils:
1 This article needs additional citations for verification.
2 This documentation needs attention from an expert in Palaeontology.
Introduction to cladistics:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad1.html There are three basic
assumptions in cladistics: (1) Any group of
organisms are related by descent from a common ancestor. Please read (2)
and (3) for additional information.
Charles P: Everyone understands human genealogy and the concept of *common
ancestor* for humans. Everyone understands dog genealogy and the concept
of *common ancestor* for dogs. Why should anyone consider the concept of a
*common ancestor* between living things that are self-evident as being very
1 Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or
genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they
have important limitations.
2 When extinct species are included in a tree, they are terminal nodes, as
it is unlikely that they are direct ancestors of any extant species.
3 Scepticism must apply when extinct species are included in trees that
are wholly or partly based on DNA sequence data, due to the fact that
little useful "ancient DNA" is preserved for longer than 100,000 years, and
except in the most unusual circumstances no DNA sequences long enough for
use in phylogenetic analyses have yet been recovered from material over 1
million years old.
Understanding homology and analogy:
There is no empirical and verifiable method for determining *common
ancestry* between non-related living things.
Charles P: Common ancestry is assumed in the science of cladistics.
Transitional fossils are assumed to be intermediate between other fossils.
Transitional fossils are extinct species. Transitional fossils are
terminal nodes. Transitional fossils are unlikely to be direct ancestors
of any extant species.
Charles P: The skeptic does not have to qualify as a *creationist*. The
skeptic does not have to qualify as an *Intelligent Design Theorist*. The
skeptic does not have to qualify as *anti-science*. All a skeptic needs is
to do their homework to verify for themselves what is scientific and what
is not scientific.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]