RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (37) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Daniel Smith's "Argument from Impossibility", in which assumptions are facts< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2009,15:45   

(feel free to move this to the Bathroom Wall, but I hope it's specific enough to stand alone)

On his blog, Daniel Smith offered a tasty slice of arrogance.

I'd like to go through it point by point, to show that what Dan is doing is (quite dishonestly) presenting his assumptions as facts. His bar is so high because it is supported with lies.

However, his assumptions are testable predictions of a scientific "Hypothesis of Impossibility."

So, will Dan test his inadvertent hypotheses or simply assert that he is right? Or will he simply assert that we are bad?

Passing by his initial red herrings for the hypotheses, here goes...
Quote
In E. coli, (one of the simplest unicellular lifeforms on the planet), the amino acids aspartic acid, asparagine, lysine, threonine, isoleucine, and methionine are synthesized from the compound oxaloacetate via a series of biochemical steps - each of which requires its own unique enzyme, (remember?).

No, Dan, I don't remember that.

The reality here is that your hypothesis simply predicts that each biochemical step REQUIRES its own UNIQUE enzyme.

Is this prediction empirically true? Please define "requires" and "unique" before responding, and when you respond, man up and cite DATA. No passing the buck with quotes.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2009,16:51   

Quote (JAM @ Jan. 26 2009,16:45)
(feel free to move this to the Bathroom Wall, but I hope it's specific enough to stand alone)

On his blog, Daniel Smith offered a tasty slice of arrogance.

I'd like to go through it point by point, to show that what Dan is doing is (quite dishonestly) presenting his assumptions as facts. His bar is so high because it is supported with lies.

However, his assumptions are testable predictions of a scientific "Hypothesis of Impossibility."

So, will Dan test his inadvertent hypotheses or simply assert that he is right? Or will he simply assert that we are bad?

Passing by his initial red herrings for the hypotheses, here goes...
 
Quote
In E. coli, (one of the simplest unicellular lifeforms on the planet), the amino acids aspartic acid, asparagine, lysine, threonine, isoleucine, and methionine are synthesized from the compound oxaloacetate via a series of biochemical steps - each of which requires its own unique enzyme, (remember?).

No, Dan, I don't remember that.

The reality here is that your hypothesis simply predicts that each biochemical step REQUIRES its own UNIQUE enzyme.

Is this prediction empirically true? Please define "requires" and "unique" before responding, and when you respond, man up and cite DATA. No passing the buck with quotes.

After a long and tortuous discussion, Dan has unambiguously conceded that the predictions entailed in his "argument from impossibility" (predictions regarding necessary future failures of scientific efforts vis origins from within the framework of methodological naturalism) are not, and cannot be, scientific predictions.

To that extent he deserves credit.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2009,21:58   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 26 2009,16:51)
After a long and tortuous discussion, Dan has unambiguously conceded that the predictions entailed in his "argument from impossibility" (predictions regarding necessary future failures of scientific efforts vis origins from within the framework of methodological naturalism) are not, and cannot be, scientific predictions.

To that extent he deserves credit.

Bill,

I agree, but that's not my point, which is that he has accidentally specified predictions of a "hypothesis of impossibility," because his assumptions, which he falsely presented as facts, really are empirical predictions.

I'm not talking about his predictions of failure for others.

The point I'm trying to make to everyone is that one can test predictions of ID hypotheses after the onion of dishonesty is peeled back.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8944
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2009,22:13   

I think Daniel's restricted to the Bathroom Wall. I'm not sure. Ask Lou. If he is, he can't comment in this thread. FYI.

   
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2009,22:22   

Jam:
“The point I'm trying to make to everyone is that one can test predictions
of ID hypotheses after the onion of dishonesty is peeled back.”

Jam, what do you get when you cross an onion with a donkey?
Well, most of the time you get little onions, but once in a
while you get a piece of ass soo good, it brings tears to your eyes.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of
Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having
salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,21:05   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Jan. 26 2009,22:22)
Jam:
“The point I'm trying to make to everyone is that one can test predictions
of ID hypotheses after the onion of dishonesty is peeled back.”

Jam, what do you get when you cross an onion with a donkey?
Well, most of the time you get little onions, but once in a
while you get a piece of ass soo good, it brings tears to your eyes.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of
Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having
salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Zero

"thy King cometh" is a  prediction unsubstantiated or verified until the event happens.
Only then does the verse take on meaning and relevance because, for one, it proves you have spoken the truth, and two... you have saved your own ass.


Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Eze 3:19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,21:37   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 07 2009,21:05)
 
Quote (hereoisreal @ Jan. 26 2009,22:22)
Jam:
“The point I'm trying to make to everyone is that one can test predictions
of ID hypotheses after the onion of dishonesty is peeled back.”

Jam, what do you get when you cross an onion with a donkey?
Well, most of the time you get little onions, but once in a
while you get a piece of ass soo good, it brings tears to your eyes.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of
Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having
salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Zero

"thy King cometh" is a  prediction unsubstantiated or verified until the event happens.
Only then does the verse take on meaning and relevance because, for one, it proves you have spoken the truth, and two... you have saved your own ass.


Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Eze 3:19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

"Cthulhu fhtagn" is a  prediction unsubstantiated or verified until the stars once again come into proper alignment.
Only then does the verse take on meaning and relevance because, for one, it proves you have spoken the truth, and two... you're in deep shit.

--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,04:02   

Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 07 2009,21:37)
Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 07 2009,21:05)
 
Quote (hereoisreal @ Jan. 26 2009,22:22)
Jam:
“The point I'm trying to make to everyone is that one can test predictions
of ID hypotheses after the onion of dishonesty is peeled back.”

Jam, what do you get when you cross an onion with a donkey?
Well, most of the time you get little onions, but once in a
while you get a piece of ass soo good, it brings tears to your eyes.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of
Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having
salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Zero

"thy King cometh" is a  prediction unsubstantiated or verified until the event happens.
Only then does the verse take on meaning and relevance because, for one, it proves you have spoken the truth, and two... you have saved your own ass.


Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Eze 3:19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

"Cthulhu fhtagn" is a  prediction unsubstantiated or verified until the stars once again come into proper alignment.
Only then does the verse take on meaning and relevance because, for one, it proves you have spoken the truth, and two... you're in deep shit.

On the other hand, "Hastur, Hastur, Hastur" can possibly be considered a practical experiment, albeit one that ends up similarily to your second point...:)

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,06:06   

Schroedinger's Dog:
>On the other hand, "Hastur, Hastur, Hastur" can possibly be considered a practical experiment, albeit one that ends up similarily to your second point...:) <

Hastur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hastur (The Unspeakable One, Him Who Is Not to be Named, Assatur....)


Hey, you could be right!  

Ass/at/ur

See my last post on my thread, Zero res.

Feb. 07 2009,13:04

Similarily, yes.

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,07:06   

Yes, Daniel is restricted to the Wall at the moment. There may be some future effort to restrict a troll each to his own thread, but that's up to Wesley and his priority list.

I'm leaving the thread open for the moment, but if it begins to stray too far off topic (Daniel's nonsense), I'll lock it until the guest of honor arrives.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
mitschlag



Posts: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,15:45   

I don't think Daniel wants to leave the comfort of tile walls, ceramic appliances, and odor control wafers.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,19:24   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 12 2009,16:56)
                   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 12 2009,17:51)
If I cross a red flower with a white flower, I may get a red flower, I may get a white flower, or I may - in some instances - get a pink flower.  Pink colored petals is a morphological feature not present in either parent.  Does this meet my challenge too?
My wife and I are both right-handed.  Our children are both left-handed.  Left-handedness is a morphological feature not present in both parents.  Does this also meet my challenge?
Your argument is so absurd, quite frankly I'm surprised that you are even putting it out there.
If this is the best you can do - you've lost.
I've admitted when I was wrong throughout this discussion.  This is not one of those times.  Maybe it's time for you to admit that you're wrong.

Daniel

Well, if you want to think that your red/white flower system meets your challenge, that's up to you. It's frankly idiotic, since we know that in most situations, if the pink  flower color is determined by a single pair of incompletely dominant alleles (as is the case in snapdragons), the F2 generation from a cross of pink x pink flowered F1 plants will yield some red and white flowers again. Simple Mendelian genetics; maybe you can read about it someday.

That is not the case with these new species of Tragopogon. The novel plants breed true; the flowers remain the same as in the F1 plants. It is a novel complex (and stable) morphogenetic system where we know the immediate precursors. It fulfills your criteria, you know it, and we all know it. In addition, it is an example of speciation within the past few decades.

Merely asserting that an argument is absurd is not an argument. You need to tell us why it is absurd, and so far you haven't managed to do that. All of your arguments have been shot down, and yet you still can't bring yourself to take that first toddler step toward scientific thinking and admit that you are wrong.

Albatrossity,

Let's take a look at this and see what we actually have here.

Polyploidy is common in the plant world:                  
Quote
Polyploidy is an important evolutionary force. Recent estimates suggest that 70% of all angiosperms have experienced one or more episodes of polyploidization. The frequency of polyploidy in pteridophytes could be as high as 95%

The polyploid production of these Tragopogon varieties is a repeatable and frequent occurence:                  
Quote
Tragopogon mirus Ownbey and T. miscellus Ownbey are allopolyploids that formed repeatedly during the past 80 years following the introduction of three diploids (T. dubius Scop., T. pratensis L. and T. porrifolius L.) from Europe to western North America.
                   
Quote
Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus, two allopolyploid species of goatsbeard, may have formed as many as 20 and 12 times, respectively, in eastern Washington and adjacent Idaho (USA) in only the past 60–70 years; multiple polyploidizations have even occurred within single small towns. Studies of recent allopolyploidy in Tragopogon indicate that multiple origins can occur frequently over a short timespan and in a small area.

In polyploid varieties, the genetic distance between parents determines the amount of change in the resultant progeny:                    
Quote
Therefore, Brassica provides two important suggestions regarding genomic change after polyploidization: (1) the more divergent the parents, the greater the subsequent genomic change in the polyploid; and (2) the nuclear genome of maternal origin experiences less change than the paternal contribution.
                 
Quote
Analyses of rDNA ITS (internal transcribed spacer) + ETS (external transcribed spacer) sequence data indicate that the parental diploids are phylogenetically well separated within Tragopogon (a genus of perhaps 150 species), in agreement with isozymic and cpDNA data.
link and link

So what we have here is the normal product of polyploid reproduction in plants that are hybridized from two distantly related parents.  It works like recombination only with two (or more) copies of the genome.

(BTW, the term "speciation" is a term largely without meaning - since the term "species" is essentially undefined.)

Now you want to suggest this as an answer to my challenge for a new biological system with known precursors.  OK, let's assume you're correct.  This is the evolution of an entirely new morphological feature in one step.  All the enzymes are pre-positioned and pre-regulated.  The biochemical pathways are functional and intact - in one step.  If this is evolution (and technically it is), it's much more like the saltational evolution predicted by Berg, Schindewolf, Davison, Goldshmidt et al, than that predicted by Darwin.  

In fact, the Soltis, Soltis paper on multiple origins reads a lot more like Berg's Nomogenesis, than Darwin's Origin:                  
Quote
From Nomogenesis:

"Evolution bears a sweeping character, and is not due to single, accidentally favourable variations." (pg. 400)  

"...evolution is... an unfolding or manifestation of pre-existing rudiments." (pg. 403)

"The evolutionary process should be imagined in the following manner. A considerable quantity... of primitive organisms have developed on parallel lines, convergently experiencing approximately the same transformations and effecting that process at various rates" (pg. 404)

"Species arising through mutations are sharply distinguished one from another." (pg. 406)

"...evolution was chiefly convergent (partly divergent)... based upon laws... affecting a vast number of individuals throughout an extensive territory... by leaps, paroxysms, mutations" (pg. 406)

It also presents strong evidence in favor of Goldschmidt's hypothesis that the unit of evolution is the chromosome rather than the gene.

It's also strangely reminiscent of prediction I made way back when...
       
Quote
Phylogenetic trees will produce results that will increasingly rely on gene swapping and other mechanisms that cause large scale genetic changes.
link

Are you sure you want to cite this example Albatrossity?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,19:31   

Quote (JAM @ Jan. 26 2009,13:45)
(feel free to move this to the Bathroom Wall, but I hope it's specific enough to stand alone)

On his blog, Daniel Smith offered a tasty slice of arrogance.

I'd like to go through it point by point, to show that what Dan is doing is (quite dishonestly) presenting his assumptions as facts. His bar is so high because it is supported with lies.

However, his assumptions are testable predictions of a scientific "Hypothesis of Impossibility."

So, will Dan test his inadvertent hypotheses or simply assert that he is right? Or will he simply assert that we are bad?

Passing by his initial red herrings for the hypotheses, here goes...
   
Quote
In E. coli, (one of the simplest unicellular lifeforms on the planet), the amino acids aspartic acid, asparagine, lysine, threonine, isoleucine, and methionine are synthesized from the compound oxaloacetate via a series of biochemical steps - each of which requires its own unique enzyme, (remember?).

No, Dan, I don't remember that.

The reality here is that your hypothesis simply predicts that each biochemical step REQUIRES its own UNIQUE enzyme.

Is this prediction empirically true? Please define "requires" and "unique" before responding, and when you respond, man up and cite DATA. No passing the buck with quotes.

I got my information from my Biochemistry textbook JAM.  It states in the text that each step in this biochemical pathway is catalyzed by its own unique enzyme.  I used the term "requires" because the present system requires those enzymes to work.  If you're going to quibble about minutia, forget it.  You know what I mean, you're just being petty.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,19:40   

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 13 2009,02:06)
Daniel, whether you have been less than respectful and polite or not towards RB, Louis and the rest here, maybe you should consider the fact that your entire approach, with lengthy quotes, sermons and some rather dubious/irrelevant statements are by themselves a gross insult that expose ignorance not only about evolution but also a confusion stemming from your expressed goal: To have your faith and religious beliefs confirmed.

If you had faith you would not need confirmation from science. something like 'Doubting Thomas' comes to mind.

You are reaching for the moon but it still is 300.000 km away.

Have you listened to suggestions about what you should read?

The first thing you should know and understand, if you want to  engage scientists in debate is to leave your god out of it. Is that too much to ask?

I know they couldn't care less, nor is it relevant. Nor are your motives, the only thing that counts is: Do you want to learn? Do you want to understand? You ought to know by now that you won't get the answer you desperately are seeking here.

You have been treated with much more respect and patience than I think you deserve, even more than you have shown yourself. Your entire collection of postings is an insult to science and its representatives.

See, all you ever might obtain is an understanding of what science knows, what it says - but that would not solve your problem.

As a Gnostic, I can only laugh at your problem, I don't even feel sorry for you. Humility is not one of your Christian virtues, is it? Reminds me of Ray Martinez. Had English been my language I might have taught you a real lesson.

But words are wasted on you.

In his preface to "The Wisdom of Insecurity" (1954), Alan Watts wrote:

   
Quote
This book is written in the spirit of the Chinese sage Lao-tzu, that master of the law of reversed effort, who declared
that those who justify themselves do not convince, that to know truth one must get rid of knowledge, and that nothing is more powerful and creative than emptiness - from which men shrink. Here, then, my aim is to show - backwards fashion - that those essential realities of religion and metaphysics are vindicated in doing without them, and manifest in being destroyed.

I'm not here to have my faith confirmed.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,19:47   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:40)
I'm not here to have my faith confirmed.

Anything contrary to your idiosyncratic notions of faith = dismissed in whatever way you deem necessary, no matter how illogical or fallacious those dismissals may be.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,20:27   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:24)
Albatrossity,

Let's take a look at this and see what we actually have here.

Polyploidy is common in the plant world:                        
Quote
Polyploidy is an important evolutionary force. Recent estimates suggest that 70% of all angiosperms have experienced one or more episodes of polyploidization. The frequency of polyploidy in pteridophytes could be as high as 95%

The polyploid production of these Tragopogon varieties is a repeatable and frequent occurence:                        
Quote
Tragopogon mirus Ownbey and T. miscellus Ownbey are allopolyploids that formed repeatedly during the past 80 years following the introduction of three diploids (T. dubius Scop., T. pratensis L. and T. porrifolius L.) from Europe to western North America.
                         
Quote
Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus, two allopolyploid species of goatsbeard, may have formed as many as 20 and 12 times, respectively, in eastern Washington and adjacent Idaho (USA) in only the past 60–70 years; multiple polyploidizations have even occurred within single small towns. Studies of recent allopolyploidy in Tragopogon indicate that multiple origins can occur frequently over a short timespan and in a small area.

In polyploid varieties, the genetic distance between parents determines the amount of change in the resultant progeny:                          
Quote
Therefore, Brassica provides two important suggestions regarding genomic change after polyploidization: (1) the more divergent the parents, the greater the subsequent genomic change in the polyploid; and (2) the nuclear genome of maternal origin experiences less change than the paternal contribution.
                       
Quote
Analyses of rDNA ITS (internal transcribed spacer) + ETS (external transcribed spacer) sequence data indicate that the parental diploids are phylogenetically well separated within Tragopogon (a genus of perhaps 150 species), in agreement with isozymic and cpDNA data.
link and link

So what we have here is the normal product of polyploid reproduction in plants that are hybridized from two distantly related parents.  It works like recombination only with two (or more) copies of the genome.

(BTW, the term "speciation" is a term largely without meaning - since the term "species" is essentially undefined.)

Now you want to suggest this as an answer to my challenge for a new biological system with known precursors.  OK, let's assume you're correct.  This is the evolution of an entirely new morphological feature in one step.  All the enzymes are pre-positioned and pre-regulated.  The biochemical pathways are functional and intact - in one step.  If this is evolution (and technically it is), it's much more like the saltational evolution predicted by Berg, Schindewolf, Davison, Goldshmidt et al, than that predicted by Darwin.  

In fact, the Soltis, Soltis paper on multiple origins reads a lot more like Berg's Nomogenesis, than Darwin's Origin:                        
Quote
From Nomogenesis:

"Evolution bears a sweeping character, and is not due to single, accidentally favourable variations." (pg. 400)  

"...evolution is... an unfolding or manifestation of pre-existing rudiments." (pg. 403)

"The evolutionary process should be imagined in the following manner. A considerable quantity... of primitive organisms have developed on parallel lines, convergently experiencing approximately the same transformations and effecting that process at various rates" (pg. 404)

"Species arising through mutations are sharply distinguished one from another." (pg. 406)

"...evolution was chiefly convergent (partly divergent)... based upon laws... affecting a vast number of individuals throughout an extensive territory... by leaps, paroxysms, mutations" (pg. 406)

It also presents strong evidence in favor of Goldschmidt's hypothesis that the unit of evolution is the chromosome rather than the gene.

It's also strangely reminiscent of prediction I made way back when...
             
Quote
Phylogenetic trees will produce results that will increasingly rely on gene swapping and other mechanisms that cause large scale genetic changes.
link

Are you sure you want to cite this example Albatrossity?

Quit handwaving.

The fact that this is "normal", or "common" is an argument for my side. You are the fellow who claims that there are no examples of complex systems for which we know the immediate precursors. The fact that there are lots of them, including this one, is NOT an argument in your favor in any rational universe.

So, yeah, I'm sure that I want to cite this example, or any of a few dozen other examples, because it proves my point, rather than yours.

I assume, from your convoluted yet totally irrelevant comment, that you finally agree that this is an actual example of a complex system for which we know the immediate precursors.

If so, thanks for playing.  If not, tell me your latest argument for why this is not the case.

eta - First rule of holes: When you are in one, stop digging. When will Daniel stop digging?  When will he understand the contradiction in simultaneously asserting that this example is something that he claims never happens, and yet it is also cleverly predicted by the theories of his scientific heroes? The mental contortions engendered by a conclusion-first approach to science will never cease to amuse me!

eta II - Daniel, do you understand that you were hilariously wrong when you said that this was an example of "recombination"? Will you admit that you were wrong? Or were you hoping I would forget that great moment in the history of hubris?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Quack



Posts: 1770
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,09:39   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:40)
I'm not here to have my faith confirmed.

Allright, I got it wrong then? I borrow from Pauli:"Your ideas are so confused I cannot tell whether they are nonsense or not."

In any case, you have written so much that you have made me confused.

If it is not too much to ask, what exactly is it that you hope to achieve here?

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,13:36   

Quote
(BTW, the term "speciation" is a term largely without meaning - since the term "species" is essentially undefined.)


ORLY, pompous ass?

undefined by you?  very likely.

undefined by the biologist community at large?  Wrong.

user defined?  perhaps.  the fact that there are no sharp clean boundaries in nature doesn't argue for your position, fool.  It destroys it.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,14:10   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 14 2009,11:36)
Quote
(BTW, the term "speciation" is a term largely without meaning - since the term "species" is essentially undefined.)


ORLY, pompous ass?

undefined by you?  very likely.

undefined by the biologist community at large?  Wrong.

user defined?  perhaps.  the fact that there are no sharp clean boundaries in nature doesn't argue for your position, fool.  It destroys it.

So what is the currently accepted definition?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,14:12   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 13 2009,18:27)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:24)
Albatrossity,

Let's take a look at this and see what we actually have here.

Polyploidy is common in the plant world:                          
Quote
Polyploidy is an important evolutionary force. Recent estimates suggest that 70% of all angiosperms have experienced one or more episodes of polyploidization. The frequency of polyploidy in pteridophytes could be as high as 95%

The polyploid production of these Tragopogon varieties is a repeatable and frequent occurence:                          
Quote
Tragopogon mirus Ownbey and T. miscellus Ownbey are allopolyploids that formed repeatedly during the past 80 years following the introduction of three diploids (T. dubius Scop., T. pratensis L. and T. porrifolius L.) from Europe to western North America.
                         
Quote
Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus, two allopolyploid species of goatsbeard, may have formed as many as 20 and 12 times, respectively, in eastern Washington and adjacent Idaho (USA) in only the past 60–70 years; multiple polyploidizations have even occurred within single small towns. Studies of recent allopolyploidy in Tragopogon indicate that multiple origins can occur frequently over a short timespan and in a small area.

In polyploid varieties, the genetic distance between parents determines the amount of change in the resultant progeny:                          
Quote
Therefore, Brassica provides two important suggestions regarding genomic change after polyploidization: (1) the more divergent the parents, the greater the subsequent genomic change in the polyploid; and (2) the nuclear genome of maternal origin experiences less change than the paternal contribution.
                         
Quote
Analyses of rDNA ITS (internal transcribed spacer) + ETS (external transcribed spacer) sequence data indicate that the parental diploids are phylogenetically well separated within Tragopogon (a genus of perhaps 150 species), in agreement with isozymic and cpDNA data.
link and link

So what we have here is the normal product of polyploid reproduction in plants that are hybridized from two distantly related parents.  It works like recombination only with two (or more) copies of the genome.

(BTW, the term "speciation" is a term largely without meaning - since the term "species" is essentially undefined.)

Now you want to suggest this as an answer to my challenge for a new biological system with known precursors.  OK, let's assume you're correct.  This is the evolution of an entirely new morphological feature in one step.  All the enzymes are pre-positioned and pre-regulated.  The biochemical pathways are functional and intact - in one step.  If this is evolution (and technically it is), it's much more like the saltational evolution predicted by Berg, Schindewolf, Davison, Goldshmidt et al, than that predicted by Darwin.  

In fact, the Soltis, Soltis paper on multiple origins reads a lot more like Berg's Nomogenesis, than Darwin's Origin:                          
Quote
From Nomogenesis:

"Evolution bears a sweeping character, and is not due to single, accidentally favourable variations." (pg. 400)  

"...evolution is... an unfolding or manifestation of pre-existing rudiments." (pg. 403)

"The evolutionary process should be imagined in the following manner. A considerable quantity... of primitive organisms have developed on parallel lines, convergently experiencing approximately the same transformations and effecting that process at various rates" (pg. 404)

"Species arising through mutations are sharply distinguished one from another." (pg. 406)

"...evolution was chiefly convergent (partly divergent)... based upon laws... affecting a vast number of individuals throughout an extensive territory... by leaps, paroxysms, mutations" (pg. 406)

It also presents strong evidence in favor of Goldschmidt's hypothesis that the unit of evolution is the chromosome rather than the gene.

It's also strangely reminiscent of prediction I made way back when...
               
Quote
Phylogenetic trees will produce results that will increasingly rely on gene swapping and other mechanisms that cause large scale genetic changes.
link

Are you sure you want to cite this example Albatrossity?

Quit handwaving.

The fact that this is "normal", or "common" is an argument for my side. You are the fellow who claims that there are no examples of complex systems for which we know the immediate precursors. The fact that there are lots of them, including this one, is NOT an argument in your favor in any rational universe.

So, yeah, I'm sure that I want to cite this example, or any of a few dozen other examples, because it proves my point, rather than yours.

I assume, from your convoluted yet totally irrelevant comment, that you finally agree that this is an actual example of a complex system for which we know the immediate precursors.

If so, thanks for playing.  If not, tell me your latest argument for why this is not the case.

eta - First rule of holes: When you are in one, stop digging. When will Daniel stop digging?  When will he understand the contradiction in simultaneously asserting that this example is something that he claims never happens, and yet it is also cleverly predicted by the theories of his scientific heroes? The mental contortions engendered by a conclusion-first approach to science will never cease to amuse me!

eta II - Daniel, do you understand that you were hilariously wrong when you said that this was an example of "recombination"? Will you admit that you were wrong? Or were you hoping I would forget that great moment in the history of hubris?

So what is the mechanism by which this evolution (of a new morphological feature in one step) was accomplished?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,14:14   

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 14 2009,07:39)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:40)
I'm not here to have my faith confirmed.

Allright, I got it wrong then? I borrow from Pauli:"Your ideas are so confused I cannot tell whether they are nonsense or not."

In any case, you have written so much that you have made me confused.

If it is not too much to ask, what exactly is it that you hope to achieve here?

I've said it several times:  I came here to challenge and to be challenged.

I'm finding that most of you don't like to be challenged though.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,15:15   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,14:12)
So what is the mechanism by which this evolution (of a new morphological feature in one step) was accomplished?

You tell me, recombination-boy. You're the one that says Berg and Schindewolf and all those other fellows discussed this ad nauseam. What's the matter, did you run out of hubris?

PS - I notice you won't admit you were wrong, you just keep on stringing this out with new questions and the pretense that you "like to be challenged".

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,15:44   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,20:14)
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 14 2009,07:39)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:40)
I'm not here to have my faith confirmed.

Allright, I got it wrong then? I borrow from Pauli:"Your ideas are so confused I cannot tell whether they are nonsense or not."

In any case, you have written so much that you have made me confused.

If it is not too much to ask, what exactly is it that you hope to achieve here?

I've said it several times:  I came here to challenge and to be challenged.

I'm finding that most of you don't like to be challenged though.

Intelligent, well informed, good faith, intellectually honest challenge is welcomed.

Pig ignorant, pseudo-profound, nonsensical, arrogantly stupid, bad faith, intellectually dishonest challenge is not welcomed.

Spot the difference.

Quote
“They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” Carl Sagan


Hint: you aren't Galileo or Newton, you're the other one.

You clearly haven't come here to be challenged because when your drivel is exposed you habitually to retreat to unreasonable positions like "I personally don't find X convincing!" (appeal to personal incredulity) and "But it's all so complicated!" (appeal to prejudice/mystery). Desire to be challenged requires effort to effect that challenge. Effort that has been suggested you put in (yet seem suspiciously unwilling to do). Do you really expect that everyone here should act as personal tutor to you? And don't complain that you have admitted when you are wrong, you've made grudging admissions and then merely repeated your original erroneous claims.

Let's be blunt Denial. The reason you are here is to try to gainsay someone you consider to be on the "opposite team" in order to receive a feeling of validation for yourself and your views. You've been sold a line about evolution contradicting your faith and so you've set out to slay the dragon. Unfortunately you've set out unarmed.

Another one for you:

Quote
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them." Thomas Jefferson


Science: Ur not doin it at all, Denial.

Take the hint, get some minimal education in a subject BEFORE you bloviate about it. It will a) help you and b) help any interaction you have with anyone. I may have mentioned before that your ignorance doesn't equate to someone else's knowledge. I know you don't like this, and consider it talking down to you, but it's something ALL of us have to do, you're not special.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,16:08   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,14:12)
So what is the mechanism by which this evolution (of a new morphological feature in one step) was accomplished?

Er,

God did it?

Oh, right, sorry.....

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,16:16   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,14:10)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 14 2009,11:36)
Quote
(BTW, the term "speciation" is a term largely without meaning - since the term "species" is essentially undefined.)


ORLY, pompous ass?

undefined by you?  very likely.

undefined by the biologist community at large?  Wrong.

user defined?  perhaps.  the fact that there are no sharp clean boundaries in nature doesn't argue for your position, fool.  It destroys it.

So what is the currently accepted definition?

currently accepted by who?

bacteriologists?

mammalogists?

botanists?

entomologists?

why don't we, for the sake of this discussion (if that is truly what it is, and I have my doubts), just use the biological species concept definition.  

let us consider reproductive isolation as the criterion for where species demarcation begins and ends.  

let us leave aside stupid notions like "I am reproductively isolated from Inuits because I find them unattractive".  I'll give you a bonus point if you know which IDCist has used this argument, just for shits and giggles.  It'll show you have been paying attention.  No using teh google.

in the case of Albie's example, we have instantaneous reproductive isolation that is accompanied by major shifts in flower morphology.    in other words, it fits the criteria you demanded.

Do you understand that asking for an atom-by-atom account for the change in the molecular pathways that determine flower structure is simply moving the goalposts?

Do you understand that these examples are rare in the animal world and not-so-rare in the plant world (in other words, it doesn't support the argument for saltational evolution you claim that it does)?

Do you understand Zeno's Paradox, the misunderstanding of which  allows you to claim any event as a saltational event no matter what sort of historical or biological processes were in play?  For a hint, note that one polyploid is going to die where it grows.

Did you read the citation I posted yesterday about reproductive isolation due to Dobzhansky-Mueller effects in duplicate gene complexes within the model system Arabidopsis?  Again, this speaks directly to your misunderstandings.

I'm with Loose.  there is no point in attempting to hold your hand through this because you often give the impression of a petulant child, laying down in the floor and saying "No!".  The simple fact is that in all probable estimations, you are wrong.  You have been misled.  When you claim conspiracies and godless blinders, everyone is going to tell you to Fuck Off.  I have, and I will.  Because that nonsense is trite and tiresome.  Read the damn books, son.

Especially get a copy of the Mike Arnold book I posted, that is, if you really give a shit about any of this.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,16:46   

This is interesting too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
 
Quote
In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations that can interbreed with relatively closely related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series that are too distantly related to interbreed. Often such non-breeding-though-genetically-connected populations co-exist in the same region thus creating a "ring". Ring species provide important evidence of evolution in that they illustrate what happens over time as populations genetically diverge, and are special because they represent in living populations what normally happens over time between long deceased ancestor populations and living populations.

Ring species also present an interesting problem for those who seek to divide the living world into discrete species, as well as for those who believe that evolution does not create new species. After all, all that distinguishes a ring species from two separate species is the existence of the connecting populations - if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection, the ring species becomes two distinct species.


--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,19:24   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 14 2009,13:15)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,14:12)
So what is the mechanism by which this evolution (of a new morphological feature in one step) was accomplished?

You tell me, recombination-boy. You're the one that says Berg and Schindewolf and all those other fellows discussed this ad nauseam. What's the matter, did you run out of hubris?

PS - I notice you won't admit you were wrong, you just keep on stringing this out with new questions and the pretense that you "like to be challenged".

As near as I can tell, the evolution of this new feature began when there was some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polyploidy.  As you know however, that's just the beginning.  I don't know the exact genetic rearrangements, nor do I know which genes were expressed and why, nor do I know the makeup of the genes and the epigenetic factors involved in the production of the new feature, nor any of the metabolic factors involved, the biochemical pathways, their enzymes and their regulation.  I know none of this.  I know one thing however - all of this worked itself out in one single evolutionary step.  That's a lot!  The fact that this is a repeatable phenomenon where the above factors work themselves out every time leads me to believe that this is a either a normal reproductive event for plants, or, an evolutionary event with no random element whatsoever.  Care to choose?

I called it "recombination" but I was wrong.  I should have likened it to recombination - since it works in a similar manner - except for the number of chromosomes.  

This is all pretty neat and tidy - don't you think?  A new morphological feature with all of its many complex biochemical processes just falling into place.  So, do you think evolution normally works this way?  It sure seems a lot more like the "unfolding of pre-existing rudiments" than "selection acting on random variation" - wouldn't you say?

(Now which part of this will you snip and ignore?)

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4365
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,19:24   

As god-less evil scientists, why can't we just improve the world by breeding Daniel with his soul-mate RFJE, and just have ONE wierd rambling non-responsive thread?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
khan



Posts: 1483
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,19:42   

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 14 2009,20:24)
As god-less evil scientists, why can't we just improve the world by breeding Daniel with his soul-mate RFJE, and just have ONE wierd rambling non-responsive thread?

Will combining two halfwits yield a whole wit?

Or a quarter wit?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,19:53   

As I look at Danny's new avatar, I have to wonder if he's bumped into AFDave lately.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
  1103 replies since Jan. 26 2009,15:45 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (37) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]