Joined: Oct. 2005
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 14 2017,20:52)|
|Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 14 2017,10:20)|
|Gary, are you trying to say some kind of "cognitive model" -- whatever that might be -- is a better explanation of evolution than the current paradigm?|
After including the cellular level intelligence involved the following statement holds true: certain features of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
The premise is specific. A phrase like "current paradigm" only moves the goalposts to where they are unreachable.
|Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 14 2017,10:20)|
|How, exactly? How does a "cognitive model" explain HOX genes? Transcription errors (cross linkages, deletions, mutations...)?|
This question is the same as asking: How does a transistorized "electronic model" explain transistors?
HOX genes are components in the cell sized molecular level cognitive system that controls present and (through offspring) future morphology. Guesses are only "errors" if they do more harm than good.
|" certain features of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."|
Once more, no that is not specific. That phrase is absolutely meaningless and absolutely useless and completely unscientific and untestable unless you specify what "certain features" are and what is excluded.
|HOX genes are components in the cell sized molecular level cognitive system that controls present and (through offspring) future morphology. Guesses are only "errors" if they do more harm than good.|
You have yet to demonstrate that HOX genes are part of a cognitive system. You have yet to demonstrate that making guesses is part of intelligent behavior. To the contrary, "random guessing" is what happens when intelligence fails or is absent. However, learning from mistakes is a hallmark of intelligence. (Consider the way you are failing to learn from yours.)
In particular, while HOX genes control morphology, and mutations in HOX genes have created "order-level" evolutionary transitions in the lab, outcomes for mutations in HOX genes happen without regard to the needs of the individual or the species and many HOX mutations result in developmental failure (death) or severe disability.
Mutations are not volitional (unless you stretch "volitional" in the very narrow sense of Galhardo et al. at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed......17874), and are not "guesses". The most common form of all types of mutations are point substitutions, and most of these are neutral, with the rest being either harmful or beneficial. Even in the sort of system described by Galhardo et al., how does a system where most mutations are non-beneficial constitute intelligence or cognition?
How would a creature know ahead of time what mutations might produce desired effects? How does a genome "learn" - how does such a system not work by mutation and natural selection and genetic drift when mutations are random with respect to the needs of the organism and where mutations spread or disappear due to stochastic "luck" and/or their impact on the reproductive success of its owners relative to the success of everyone else in the species, as has been well documented in many lab and field studies? Since you have no lab or field studies or anything else to back up any of your assertions (unlike actual science), everyone but you concludes that you have nothing and are just blowing smoke.
Even a model might provide some support, if it were a) relevant to your major assertions, b) ground-truthed, c) based on meaning operational definitions and regular definitions, non of which applies to your nonsense.