Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-12-2012, 12:53 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2012 04:39 PM by tiagorod84.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(03-12-2012 12:31 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  You see your paradigme concerning genes that can or cant be used in phylogenetic tree building is based on nothing other than the notion that some must have a faster evolutionary rate, which is not based on any known molecular clock, but rather, on an assumption that it must have happened this way. Again another example of backwards logic, i.e. the horse following the cart. This is a classic case were one uses the lack of evidence as evidence. In this case, a cohesive phylogenetic tree. This is done all the time in evolutionary theory.
Let us see. If you observe that a gene is highly conserved among the vertebrate group and another gene is highly variable among the same species and given that evolution is a verifiable fact: what would you conclude about evolution rate? Of course this is a simplification, no phylogenetic tree is based on just one gene, unless you want to study the evolution of a specific trait.

That backward logic argument is typical of creationists, 'have you observed the evolution of a gene throughout million of years? No! Then how do you know?'. By that logic, then cosmology is just good as astrology. Indirect evidence is evidence!!

Unless, you don't accept evolution as a natural phenomenon... Oh wait! That might be the case...

I've told you, if the extended synthesis explains evolution in a more accurate way, i'll gladelly accept it!

I'll always come back to the same question, what are your claims? Do you wish that self-organization points out to ID? Is that it? Laughat

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2012, 05:01 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Well again your citing evolution as a verifiable fact and incontrovertible truth/ a dogma. If you are speaking of prokaryote to man evolution from a common ancestor through descent with modification, you have no way of knowing this. However if you mean evolution as "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next" Then yes, in this case evolution is a fact. No one dispute the fact that things change. It is the limits of change that are disputed. I side with Mendel on this. There is a limited gene pool which means limited change. I never said that phylogenetic-trees were based on just one gene and it was you who brought up an older method of inferring phylogenetic trees, and said it was fun, which was a sarcastic way of telling me that phylogenetic trees have some how proven this notion. When I cited evidence showing the conflicting data, you then changed your tune.

As for your question of what I would conclude. What I would conclude about the so called evolution rate of genes (and again if your speaking of prokaryote to man) is that we have no known molecular clock to date to make any meaningful and or empirical calibration that can even resemble any true scientific method. What variable gene among the same species are you speaking of? And if there are these so called variables within the same species, then again this is a problem for your paradigme, not mine. I said noting of indirect evidence, I spoke of a "lack of evidence" in support of a cohesive cross species phylogenetic tree, which you regard as evidence.

I'm sure you would support anything that makes a case for your paradigme, but the problem with the extended synthesis is as I said before, it is coming under fire not because of its science, but because of politics. Example Jerry Coyne has made it known through the blogosphere that he is pissed off at Massimo Pigliucci for even publicly addressing the need for an extended synthesis, and the same can be said of Larry Moran and PZ Myers as well as many other well known defenders of the neo Darwinian paradigme who believe this proposed extended synthesis/advancement in knowledge, is not worth the talking points it would give to ID'ers and creationist. As I pointed out before, and even cited video in where Eugenie Scott director and the NCSE will not support the extended synthesis because in her own words,..... people would confuse self organization models with intelligent design.

The main point is that the current theory is obsolete and outdated and most in the know, know this. It is only the the rest of the vast majority that do not have a clue. As the old saying goes, ignorance is bliss. I have even spoken with tenured college professors who accused me of lying about the meeting in Altenberg Austria in 2008. In their own words, if it actually took place, they would have known about it. Yet when I referenced the data they refused to even look.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2012, 05:39 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(03-12-2012 05:01 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  Well again your citing evolution as a verifiable fact and incontrovertible truth/ a dogma. If you are speaking of prokaryote to man evolution from a common ancestor through descent with modification, you have no way of knowing this. However if you mean evolution as "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next" Then yes, in this case evolution is a fact. No one dispute the fact that things change. It is the limits of change that are disputed. I side with Mendel on this. There is a limited gene pool which means limited change. I never said that phylogenetic-trees were based on just one gene and it was you who brought up an older method of inferring phylogenetic trees, and said it was fun, which was a sarcastic way of telling me that phylogenetic trees have some how proven this notion. When I cited evidence showing the conflicting data, you then changed your tune.

This is what makes no sense. Why do you assume a limit? Genes are modified and created by several mechanisms; there is no inherent limit to genes or their effects.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2012, 05:52 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(03-12-2012 05:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-12-2012 05:01 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  Well again your citing evolution as a verifiable fact and incontrovertible truth/ a dogma. If you are speaking of prokaryote to man evolution from a common ancestor through descent with modification, you have no way of knowing this. However if you mean evolution as "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next" Then yes, in this case evolution is a fact. No one dispute the fact that things change. It is the limits of change that are disputed. I side with Mendel on this. There is a limited gene pool which means limited change. I never said that phylogenetic-trees were based on just one gene and it was you who brought up an older method of inferring phylogenetic trees, and said it was fun, which was a sarcastic way of telling me that phylogenetic trees have some how proven this notion. When I cited evidence showing the conflicting data, you then changed your tune.

This is what makes no sense. Why do you assume a limit? Genes are modified and created by several mechanisms; there is no inherent limit to genes or their effects.
Maybe it is you who should ask yourself why you're assuming there are no limits. We know that even random mutations are errors that happen during the transcription process, yet if you know of a countless random mutation creating novel and beneficial genes in eukaryotes organisms, then please tell and be specific. We are all mutants. Each generation goes through between approximately hundred and possibly more mutations per generations. All though most are neutral many are deleterious and can explain death and disease much better than beneficial novelty, and even beneficial mutations that are exceedingly rare come with a cost in fitness. There are no free lunches in nature. This is what the great John Sanford referes to as "genetic entropy"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2012, 05:57 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(03-12-2012 05:52 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  
(03-12-2012 05:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  This is what makes no sense. Why do you assume a limit? Genes are modified and created by several mechanisms; there is no inherent limit to genes or their effects.
Maybe it is you who should ask yourself why you're assuming there are no limits. We know that even random mutations are errors that happen during the transcription process, yet if you know of a countless random mutation creating novel and beneficial genes in eukaryotes organisms, then please tell and be specific. We are all mutants. Each generation goes through between approximately hundred and possibly more mutations per generations. All though most are neutral many are deleterious and can explain death and disease much better than beneficial novelty, and even beneficial mutations that are exceedingly rare come with a cost in fitness. There are no free lunches in nature. This is what the great John Sanford referes to as "genetic entropy"
You are not properly accounting for opportunity. Huge numbers of organisms and unimaginably large amount of time. While most mutations are neutral and many are deleterious, a few are beneficial. And those only have to happen occasionally.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2012, 06:15 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
<<Well again your citing evolution as a verifiable fact and incontrovertible truth/ a dogma. If you are speaking of prokaryote to
man evolution from a common ancestor through descent with modification, you have no way of knowing this. However if you mean evolution as[font=Times][size=medium] "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next">>

Yep, I cannot make a prokaryote evolve to a human during my entire carreer. But what kind of argument is that?
Indirect evidence is all we have regarding past events. And the available evidence point out in one direction: a common ancestor! The fact that we still don't have perfect genes to calibrate evolution events, doesn't mean the ones that exist are entierely wrong. For now there are good estimates and new approaches are getting refined. It seems to me that you're just stating things... You're dangerously moving towards the obsolote 'God of the gaps' argument.

«The main point is that the current theory is obsolete and outdated and most in the know, know this. It is only the the rest of the vast majority that do not have a clue. As the old saying goes, ignorance is bliss.»

Seriously?! How lame is that?

I will tell you this over and over again, I'll gladly accept that extension if it proves to be more consistent than the current scientific theory.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like tiagorod84's post
03-12-2012, 06:27 PM
AW: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Why are you guys arguing with a proponent of ID about evolution again? Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2012, 06:30 PM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2012 12:13 AM by tiagorod84.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(03-12-2012 05:52 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  
(03-12-2012 05:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  This is what makes no sense. Why do you assume a limit? Genes are modified and created by several mechanisms; there is no inherent limit to genes or their effects.
Maybe it is you who should ask yourself why you're assuming there are no limits. We know that even random mutations are errors that happen during the transcription process, yet if you know of a countless random mutation creating novel and beneficial genes in eukaryotes organisms, then please tell and be specific. We are all mutants. Each generation goes through between approximately hundred and possibly more mutations per generations. All though most are neutral many are deleterious and can explain death and disease much better than beneficial novelty, and even beneficial mutations that are exceedingly rare come with a cost in fitness. There are no free lunches in nature. This is what the great John Sanford referes to as "genetic entropy"

John Sanford, like the great Young Earth Creationist scientist? You rely on the scientific authority of a deluted man that think that the earth is 6000 years old...
This is getting better and better...

That statement of poor Dr Sanford was based on the work of Crow and Kondrashov, which does not correpond to reality! Empirically we see that species are not extinguished after a few generations. He also made a computer program that proves the quick doom of species... In no way poor Dr. Sanford was arbitrary! But let me give you an example:

In my personal experience, I work with a bacteria that was isolated in the 50's from the genus Streptomyces. Given that the cultures are renewed on a weekly basis in many different labs around the globe, I think we must be working with virtual bacteria. Believe me they do not present signs of early senescence. Remember, bacteria do not possess a separation of somatic/ germ cell line, it's all directly inherited. Antibiotic overproducing strains (quite a nice trait to have in the environment! Yep that's right adaptive advantage) often arise from random mutation screenings with UV light! In fact, pharmaceutical companies use this method to obtain optimized strains. So you see, those mean bacteria that resist genetic entropy empirically refutes poor Dr. Sanford...

If you really want to validate something, you cannot purely rely on mathematical models, bench work is the way! And for what is worth, bacteria would be a tremendous model to test the genetic entropy hypothesis.

Other verified examples:

What is deleterious or positive is not up to you to decide or poor Dr. Sanford! The final judge will be natural selection or genetic drift phenomena. A mutation that is deleterious in one sense may be highly beneficial in other: the example of sikle cell anemia/ malaria illustrates that! Even a putative neutral mutation can be positive in some scenarios: the example of people who are naturally resistant to HIV illustrates that! Environment is an ever-changing madaf****, so adapt or perish!

Therefore, genetic entropy is bogus and the book of poor Dr. Sanford should be renamed from "Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome" into "On the doom of species - How do I mistify the Genome".

I'll grant you this, I've made one assumption during this debate. I've assumed that you were an idiot! But even that has been validated empirically.

I rest my case.

John Sanford... Seriously?! Hilarious!

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2012, 06:38 PM
RE: AW: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(03-12-2012 06:27 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Why are you guys arguing with a proponent of ID about evolution again? Consider
Well, we were having an intelligent discussion and it wasn't obvious at first that he was an idiot. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2012, 08:26 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2012 08:34 PM by THEMAYAN.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(03-12-2012 05:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-12-2012 05:52 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  Maybe it is you who should ask yourself why you're assuming there are no limits. We know that even random mutations are errors that happen during the transcription process, yet if you know of a countless random mutation creating novel and beneficial genes in eukaryotes organisms, then please tell and be specific. We are all mutants. Each generation goes through between approximately hundred and possibly more mutations per generations. All though most are neutral many are deleterious and can explain death and disease much better than beneficial novelty, and even beneficial mutations that are exceedingly rare come with a cost in fitness. There are no free lunches in nature. This is what the great John Sanford referes to as "genetic entropy"
You are not properly accounting for opportunity. Huge numbers of organisms and unimaginably large amount of time. While most mutations are neutral and many are deleterious, a few are beneficial. And those only have to happen occasionally.You have noting to base this oppurtunity on
You have nothing to base this opportunity on, and use time as a magic wand. Time wears things down. It doesn't build things up to a higher state of order. In fact we have in the past few years discovered C Value enigma which holds that the complexity of an organism cannot be determined by its genetic composition and especially its size. Scientist were stunned at yet another failed prediction when it was discovered that the lowly protozoa contained more genomic information than that of humans, and by orders of magnitude. In fact the simple onion has more genetic information than we do.

According to the accepted time line, if true, we see the very first eukaryotic creatures/multicellular creatures appearing within a geological blink of an eye. Some say (depending on who you ask) the radiation event took place within ten, five, or three million years. Some Chinese who have the best fossils on the planet of that era use words like genesis when describing this part of our history. The Cambrian radiation event alone which began the Cambrian explosion shows life appearing abruptly and already highly specialized with no known ancestry and already within their respected categories, globally and also within orders of magnitude. This shows anything but Darwinian gradualism. This diversification of life continues for another sixty million years. Dawkins admits... 'Its as they were just planted there out of nowhere' which he referes to as a delight to the creationist. Of course he believes this sudden appearance is an illusion, but I and many others do not. And your wrong about mutations. I pointed to the human chimp genome earlier and the amount of mutations that would have to have happened within the accepted time frame would have been fatal, and at the same time, they would have also had to be all beneficial, yet again beneficial mutation are so rare that I only know of one, and that is the sickle cell mutation which could possibly give a person a functional advantage in a malaria stricken region, but also comes with a cost because if both parent have this trait, it can cause sickle cell disease which is deadly.

Evolutionary theory cannot account for the origin of the digital encoded specified information within our genome. It is a specific language which is useless without an equally sophisticated transcription process along with the ribosome which can read and interpret the language of DNA into the language of amino acids and proteins in order to produce the same complex proteins and genes living things require. Now just recently in the last few years we have discovered even more complex under layers of reams and reams of encoded information once written off as junk and again once used as a poster child for bad design, yet nothing could be further from the truth, and this is yet another example of a failed prediction or analogy that failed to conform to the neo Darwinian model. Neo Darwinism cant even touch, muchless answer these few questions, and that is only the tip of the iceberg. The theory only makes sense when it is accepted without question as I did so for so many years, but I got tired of having my arguments destroyed by people who already knew the theory was based largely on assumptions and unfounded extrapolations, and this was twenty plus years ago. We have learned so much more in the last two decades.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: