Unsatisfactory Scientific Explanations?

[whois]

OK; this is going nowhere. I was hoping to discuss the reasons why each of us holds the views we do. All I seem to get is cherry picked quotes, assertions, misinterpretations, and non-sequiturs. I've given reasoned arguments for what I think is mistaken (i.e. most of it), but instead of reasoned arguments in response, I'm getting the same copy-pasta again. I'm not interested in argument by proxy or argument from (questionable) authority; Noble & Margulis, etc., are interesting, if fringe, views in this field; but I want to hear your reasoning - how & why you think your assertions make sense, how they work, how they account for the available evidence; just broad-brush outlines, nothing too detailed.

If you can't explain in your own words, why you hold the views you do, and are unable or unwilling to argue your own corner and explain or defend your own views when they're questioned, I have to seriously doubt your understanding of them.

Incidentally, it's generally considered impolite to tell people what they might or might not think. Better to ask, if you think it's important or relevant, or say nothing if it isn't.

i believe i have done a MUCH better job at explaining my viewpoint than you have yours.
although you might not like to admit it, you are using the same outmoded concepts that all supporters of the modern synthesis make, and you do so relying on the work of others.
i have, on the otherhand have linked concepts that haven't even been proposed for such things as macro evolution.

also, i seriously doubt if you are in any position to insinuate my sources as "inept".
as far as that goes, i will leave you with what margulis said about such things:
Anyone who makes this kind of ad hominem criticism exposes himself, doesn't he?

also, i find it quite telling that margulis isn't remembered for her groundbreaking research, but is chastised for daring to question the standing dogma of evolution.

 

[whois]

Now, we seem to agree on this part:
Both gradual and sudden changes can occur.

when i say gradual changes, i don't mean it as some kind of progressive or adaptive change.
i mean it as "variations around a norm" sort of thing

Where we differ is here:
"HGT that is responsible for macro evolution."
which leads you to another conclusion I disagree with,
"when it comes to macro evolution gradual changes do not accumulate."

i didn't just pull this out of the air.
there is more than one source that refers to the gaps in the record, and these gaps aren't the result of an incomplete record.
they are real, there are no fossils for them.
there is no gradual shading between groups of organisms.
PE was accepted to explain this, but the molecular clock hypothesis negates that explanation.

There are a couple problems actually:
1. The logic does not follow. Even is HGT is responsible for speciation level changes, that does not mean that gradual changes must not accumulate.

i think one can safely say that quantum physics is proof that logic is not infallible.

2. HGT, while common in bacteria, is fairly rare in eukaryotes. (though it can by no means be ignored) Most long term evolution projects actually control for HGT by strictly isolating the population (E coli citrate experiment, various fruit fly experiments) Likewise, I'm unaware of any evidence of horizontal gene transfer during observed wild speciation events of animals.

and?
this sort of thing perfectly explains events such as the cambrian explosion.

3. No mechanism for a reversal of gradual change is proposed, nor examples of observation of reversals cited

this is the reason why i say this sort of thing isn't a progressive, adaptive one, because it isn't.
you are apparently picturing "gradual change" as some sort of progress, and it isn't.
it's more along the lines of variations about a norm.

To ensure we are not running into a definitional issue, let me briefly define some terms:
HGT: Transfer of heritable genetic traits from one individual to another apart from reproduction

actually it's the genes that are transferred, and this isn't limited to a single gene.
i believe one of my sources has said an entire strand of DNA can be transferred in this fashion.
also, there doesn't appear to be any barriers to HGT.

Epigenetic: heritable traits in an individual that are DNA sequence independent

acquired inheritance might be thrown in here too.

Gradual Change: small iterative phenotypic changes over the course of many generations due to the introduction and eventual fixation of minor genetic changes.

the fossil record directly discounts this.

If you are using any of these terms differently, please give the definition you are working with so I can read your posts as intended.

all i can do in this regard is posit the comments from knowledgeable people on the subject, and go from there.
of this i can be sure, the emerging biology is more removed from the modern synthesis than the modern synthesis was from darwinism.
we simply cannot continue to keep using the outmoded and abandoned concepts of the modern synthesis.
we are going to have to man up to that fact

 

[whois]

one other aspect i find interesting concerning this debate is the following:
if it's presented from a creationist site, it's dismissed as creationist.
if it's presented from a scientist, they are dismissed as being a renegade.
if neither of the above can be applied then it's dismissed as a quote mine or some kind of misrepresentation.
the above INVARIABLY happens when some aspect of evolution is presented that goes against standing dogma.
frumious puts this sort of thing right before your nose.
he does a fairly good job at throwing around words such as "quote mine", misrepresentation", and "renegade".
the only reason he doesn't mention creationist is because none of my sources are creationist, or he would have.

 

[[serious]]

when i say gradual changes, i don't mean it as some kind of progressive or adaptive change.
i mean it as "variations around a norm" sort of thing

What returns them to the norm? Why do domesticated animals like dogs and cats not return to their wild norm as strays? Without either a plausible mechanism or an observation of it occurring, why would we accept such a hypothesis?

i didn't just pull this out of the air.
there is more than one source that refers to the gaps in the record, and these gaps aren't the result of an incomplete record.
they are real, there are no fossils for them.
there is no gradual shading between groups of organisms.
PE was accepted to explain this, but the molecular clock hypothesis negates that explanation.

We should discuss what is meant by the geologically sudden appearance of a group. These are appearances over the course of 100,000 years or so. This would be consistent with periods of strong selection followed by periods of stability after the species had evolutionarily settled into their niche. Take wolves for example. 50,000 years ago we had just a few types of wolves, all of whom looked very wolf like. Then, humans domesticated a group of them and began applying a selection pressure to them. Within a few tens of thousands of years, we ended up going from wolves to poodles and great danes. But how do we know it's gradual over those periods of intense selection? Well, ongoing domestications so us that they are at least smooth over the course of 60 years (Russian Domestic Red Fox).

i think one can safely say that quantum physics is proof that logic is not infallible.

I would disagree, quantum physics may not be intuitive, but it's highly logical.

and?
this sort of thing perfectly explains events such as the cambrian explosion.

You said HGT was responsible for macroevolution. I was pointing out that currently, all macroevolutionary changes I know of in animals show no sign of HGT proximate to the speciation event.

As for the cambrian explosion, we are talking about a period of 25 million years. It is fully compatible with natural selection.

this is the reason why i say this sort of thing isn't a progressive, adaptive one, because it isn't.
you are apparently picturing "gradual change" as some sort of progress, and it isn't.
it's more along the lines of variations about a norm.

Not "progress" but adaptation to the current environment. Change the environment, and you change the local optimum and natural selection brings it to the new "center".

actually it's the genes that are transferred, and this isn't limited to a single gene.
i believe one of my sources has said an entire strand of DNA can be transferred in this fashion.
also, there doesn't appear to be any barriers to HGT.

I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make here. How is that different from what I said?

acquired inheritance might be thrown in here too.

meaning what exactly?

the fossil record directly discounts this.

How so? Can genes not reach fixation over the course of 100,000 years? Even a minor benefit in a large population will hit fixation in a few hundred to a few thousand generations.

all i can do in this regard is posit the comments from knowledgeable people on the subject, and go from there.
of this i can be sure, the emerging biology is more removed from the modern synthesis than the modern synthesis was from darwinism.
we simply cannot continue to keep using the outmoded and abandoned concepts of the modern synthesis.
we are going to have to man up to that fact

Other people aren't here. I'm asking how you, the person I'm talking to, are using the terms. Terms appearing in scientific literature are usually either defined or used in very standard ways. I'm asking you to do the same.

 

[whois]

What returns them to the norm? Why do domesticated animals like dogs and cats not return to their wild norm as strays? Without either a plausible mechanism or an observation of it occurring, why would we accept such a hypothesis?

i've given my opinion on this.
i believe transposons are responsible for the variations we see within a species.
this type of mutation is neither fixed, gradual, adaptive, or accumulating it's just a variation of the germline.

We should discuss what is meant by the geologically sudden appearance of a group. These are appearances over the course of 100,000 years or so. This would be consistent with periods of strong selection followed by periods of stability after the species had evolutionarily settled into their niche. Take wolves for example. 50,000 years ago we had just a few types of wolves, all of whom looked very wolf like. Then, humans domesticated a group of them and began applying a selection pressure to them. Within a few tens of thousands of years, we ended up going from wolves to poodles and great danes.

the explanations do nothing to fill these gaps.
the very fact that PE was accepted is proof that these gaps are not a result of "missing fossils"
also, the molecular clock hypothesis (which has a lot of support) negates "fast evolution", nor is there a workable theory for it.

But how do we know it's gradual over those periods of intense selection? Well, ongoing domestications so us that they are at least smooth over the course of 60 years (Russian Domestic Red Fox).

because of the work of kimura and jukes.
for example:
The concept of natural selection as the foundation of evolutionary change has been largely superseded, mostly through the work of Motoo Kimura, Tomoko Ohta, and others, who have shown both theoretically and empirically that natural selection has little or no effect on the vast majority of the genomes of most living organisms.
. . .
Kimura, Ohta, Jukes, and Crow dropped a monkey wrench into the "engine" at the heart of the modern synthesis — natural selection — and then Gould and Lewontin finished the job with their famous paper on “the spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm”. The rise of evo-devo over the past two decades has laid the groundwork for a completely new and empirically testable theory of macroevolution, a theory that is currently facilitating exponential progress in our understanding of how major evolutionary transitions happen. And iconoclasts like Lynn Margulis, Eva Jablonka, Marian Lamb, Mary Jane West-Eberhard, and David Sloan Wilson are rapidly overturning our understanding of how evolutionary change happens at all levels, and how it is inherited.
evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/11/modern-synthesis-is-dead-long-live.html
and interestingly enough, margulis is refered to as a iconoclast in the above article, not a rebel.
this is one of the points i would like to stress.
when she first proposed her hypothesis (that went against dogma) her character was attacked, calling her a renegade and a rebel.
this sort of thing happens far too often.
it isn't hard to see that there have been a number of scientists that have had their characters damaged beyond repair.

I would disagree, quantum physics may not be intuitive, but it's highly logical.

it is?
how logical is it to be awarded a nobel prize for proving the elctron to be a particle, then some years later another scientist wins a nobel prize for proving it to be a wave?
how much logic does it take to state "the events of today can affect the past"?

You said HGT was responsible for macroevolution. I was pointing out that currently, all macroevolutionary changes I know of in animals show no sign of HGT proximate to the speciation event.

HGT is the only reasonable explanation.
the genetic molecular clock hypothesis discounts a fast/ slow type of evolution.

Not "progress" but adaptation to the current environment. Change the environment, and you change the local optimum and natural selection brings it to the new "center".

except for the fact you are talking about an epigenetic change, acquired characteristics, lamarkism in a different costume.

Can genes not reach fixation over the course of 100,000 years?

genes to not "gradually" become fixed in an organism.
it's all or nothing.

Even a minor benefit in a large population will hit fixation in a few hundred to a few thousand generations.

not according to the nearly neutral theory.

Other people aren't here. I'm asking how you, the person I'm talking to, are using the terms. Terms appearing in scientific literature are usually either defined or used in very standard ways. I'm asking you to do the same.

why are you expecting things from me that you aren't willing to do yourself?
all that you have done in this post is state the standing dogma of evolution.
as a matter of fact, that is what almost everyone has done here, they steadfastly refuse to see that many important assumptions of the modern synthesis has been abandoned.

 

[stevevw]

some scientists have even put forth a multiverse scenario for abiogenesis.
whether it's being seriously considered is questionable.

In the context of how life and existence came about I would say that some scientists are appealing to these ideas because they cant explain it in logical cause and effect terms. They have to look outside the normal parameters of how things are calculated and explained. To me that shows that using the idea that God may be the answer is not so unreal.

well, suggesting it and discussing it, doesn't mean they support it.
this is where physicists have an advantage over evolutionists.
physicists can discuss their field without other physicists getting all stupid about it.

I think the physicists have to come up with these ideas one way or another because the evidence points to the answer being somewhere along those lines. The evidence or at least the evidence according to the calculations they use says there has to be black holes, worm holes, and dark energy and matter. The evidence points to the possibilities of multiverses, hologram dimensions and time travel. So these things are the end results of their own calculations. But there is a good dose of speculation mixed in as well. But as opposed to someone who suggests that God may be another idea scientists can say their ideas are valid because its science when in reality its science fiction.

there is one thing you need to remember, einstien questioned quantum physics til his dying day.
he thought it was either outright wrong, or at the very least incomplete.
it's very likely it's the latter.
the question now becomes, what are we missing.

Not really. Einstein was dealing with the macro world. His theories were mainly explaining big objects though the calculations extended to all things including the micro world and thats where he couldn't unite it. But the quantum world does act differently to what he was dealing with. It wasn't so much that something was wrong or missing in the sense that it would then allow calculations from relativity to be applied to quantum physics. I dont there is anything that can be applied. They are two different things in the one existence. They may just somehow morph from one thing to another bu some sort of event that can ever e explained.

i've said this before, and i'm almost sure of it, the grand unification theory must include the life sciences.
IOW, once we figure out one, it will solve the other.

I agree and that is why some scientists are including the consciousness and metaphysics as the theory will have to be all inclusive whether traditional scientists want to include it or not.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

i believe i have done a MUCH better job at explaining my viewpoint than you have yours.

I'm happy to let forum readers decide that for themselves.

i seriously doubt if you are in any position to insinuate my sources as "inept".

Fortunately, I didn't.

i find it quite telling that margulis isn't remembered for her groundbreaking research, but is chastised for daring to question the standing dogma of evolution.

On the contrary, she's mainly remembered for her groundbreaking research. But it's not uncommon that groundbreaking scientists do exceptional work in their early careers and questionable work in their later years (Einstein springs to mind).

 

[stevevw]

You need to ask just what they mean by 'more to reality than we see'. You already know there are atoms, radiation, gravity, etc., but you don't see them. The holographic universe idea is based on a mathematical equivalence; the information in a 3D volume can be holographically encoded onto a proportional 2D surface; two mathematical ways of looking at the same thing. Assuming that this is relevant to our universe, asking which is 'real' is like asking whether length is really made up of yards or metres.

But cant that same logic of calculations be applied to things like multiverse. If so then they are postulating that there are other dimensions where other realities exist. Thats what I am trying to say that even though they base these ideas in the maths it is still a pretty far fetched idea that they are having to come up with.

Yes, Everettian Many Worlds is variety of 'everything that can happen does happen'. But each observer only sees one version, so it has no everyday relevance or consequence.

It does have some relevance in that I can think that somewhere there is another me or you living a slightly different existence. Or that somewhere there is a totally different reality that is wildly different. Yes we can never go there and we only have our own existence. But to even allow that to be real is no different to saying there could be another dimensions like the spiritual world or that our conscience may go onto another dimension.

It's not 'just imaginative stuff'; QM stipulates what outcomes you can expect from certain experiments, and with what probabilities. The interpretations are attempts to explain the formalism in real-world terms with the fewest assumptions (such as 'collapse of the wavefunction'). But the same theory tells us what our everyday world is made up of and how it behaves; and it rules out those paranormal and supernatural phenomena. It doesn't rule out parallel universes, or multiverses; if anything, it implies they should exist, but in the vast majority of formulations, they cannot interact, and in the few where they might, it would be on a cosmological scale.

So we could include things like heaven or spiritual dimensions or that our conscience lives on if we can come up with some equations to support this. Isn't that what some who support that the conscience lives on are doing. Arent they using similar explanations as those who postulate other ideas like multiverses and time travel with quantum physics. They are just trying to add other ideas from the possibilities that quantum physics presents.

I think you're probably right - how can we ever know that we know all there is to know? there will always be the unknown unknowns [/Rumsfeld]

If we know that we know that we know then maybe "ah forget it".

As you already know, things aren't always how they seem.

Thats why I think its important to not exclude things based on personal beliefs. Science also has to consider that the answers may be beyond the scientific explanations. What would they do then. But I guess if we can come up with a scientific explanation for say God or heaven then its no longer classed as unscientific.

Why not? We know the rational explanations for many of these things; when they're investigated in depth there's almost always a plausible mundane explanation for them. But people don't like mundane explanations, they like mysteries; and they find it hard to acknowledge that their perceptions and memories are unreliable.

Yes this is true. This is what makes the world go around to some extent. I think that as we have moved closer to the core of existence we are finding some hard to explain things in terms of the normal ways we explain stuff. There may be no rational explanation in the end for some of it and we will have to allow for some new ways of thinking.

False dichotomy. As someone said, "it's important to have an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out".

But no so close that you miss something important.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

one other aspect i find interesting concerning this debate is the following:
if it's presented from a creationist site, it's dismissed as creationist.
if it's presented from a scientist, they are dismissed as being a renegade.
if neither of the above can be applied then it's dismissed as a quote mine or some kind of misrepresentation.
the above INVARIABLY happens when some aspect of evolution is presented that goes against standing dogma.
frumious puts this sort of thing right before your nose.
he does a fairly good job at throwing around words such as "quote mine", misrepresentation", and "renegade".
the only reason he doesn't mention creationist is because none of my sources are creationist, or he would have.

1. I haven't dismissed creationists or creationist sites.
2. I haven't dismissed a scientist for being a renegade. I'm saying views contrary to the mainstream should be treated with caution.
3. I don't recall using the phrase 'quote mine' (quote me if you can); I generally call it 'cherry picking'; for both that and misrepresentation, I call it as I see it.
4. If you had provided creationist sources, I would be justified in calling them creationist; however, I generally prefer to address the arguments rather than the stereotype.

I'd appreciate it if you lay off the ad-hominems. If you don't agree with my arguments or views, you're welcome to counter them with reasoned argument. But 'poisoning the well' with ad-homs is petty and spiteful - and probably against the forum rules.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But cant that same logic of calculations be applied to things like multiverse. If so then they are postulating that there are other dimensions where other realities exist. Thats what I am trying to say that even though they base these ideas in the maths it is still a pretty far fetched idea that they are having to come up with.

Yes, 'Many Worlds' does sound far-fetched. For a long time it was very unpopular in the physics community for that reason. But as time goes on and no substantive evidence or explanations emerge in support of the assumptions of other interpretations, more and more physicists are taking it seriously. Personally, I find it an intriguingly ironic counterpoint to the 'other dimensions' I read so much about in science fiction and fantasized about as a child, but it is also rather unsatisfying... like the multiverse solutions to the appearance of fine tuning - logical, but somehow disappointing. However, reality cares not a jot for my personal sentiments.

It does have some relevance in that I can think that somewhere there is another me or you living a slightly different existence. Or that somewhere there is a totally different reality that is wildly different. Yes we can never go there and we only have our own existence.

People have had imaginative fantasies about that kind of thing since language began, but the best ones involved interaction. As things stand, it seems the real world doesn't allow that.

But to even allow that to be real is no different to saying there could be another dimensions like the spiritual world or that our conscience may go onto another dimension.

It is different, because all the Everettian many worlds have the same quantum formalism, which means the same physics, which means no. The universes of multiverse theory may all have different physics, but they are self-contained non-interacting bubbles in the 'bulk'; if it were possible for universes with different physical laws to interact, the consequences would be potentially catastrophic for them.

 

[whois]

.
Fortunately, I didn't.

unfortunately you did.
you called both noble and margulis "questionable authority" in post 478.
in post 464 you presented a link that refered to margulis as a rebel.
in post 459 you referred to her as a renegade.

On the contrary, she's mainly remembered for her groundbreaking research. But it's not uncommon that groundbreaking scientists do exceptional work in their early careers and questionable work in their later years (Einstein springs to mind).

and that's the point.
margulis put forth hypothesis that went against standing dogma and gets the "questionable work" stigma hung around her neck.
fortunately for her, she has been vindicated by current research.
many other scientists also get this kind of treatment if they question the dogma of evolution.

 

[whois]

1. I haven't dismissed creationists or creationist sites.
2. I haven't dismissed a scientist for being a renegade. I'm saying views contrary to the mainstream should be treated with caution.
3. I don't recall using the phrase 'quote mine' (quote me if you can); I generally call it 'cherry picking'; for both that and misrepresentation, I call it as I see it.
4. If you had provided creationist sources, I would be justified in calling them creationist; however, I generally prefer to address the arguments rather than the stereotype.

I'd appreciate it if you lay off the ad-hominems. If you don't agree with my arguments or views, you're welcome to counter them with reasoned argument. But 'poisoning the well' with ad-homs is petty and spiteful - and probably against the forum rules.

i have done nothing except to point out the very things you are doing furmious.
and it's a cancer that pervades evolutionary debate, you certainly aren't the only one that does it, and you are very far from being the worst offender.
review post 478.

as to the points above:
2. why treat dissenting evidence with caution?
shouldn't it be treated with the respect ALL evidence warrants?
this type of attitude prevented transposons from being accepted for almost 50 years.

3. why call it anything? why not just outright disprove it instead?
there is no reason to refer to my posts as:

. . . cherry picked quotes, assertions, misinterpretations, and non-sequiturs.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

unfortunately you did.
you called both noble and margulis "questionable authority" in post 478.
in post 464 you presented a link that refered to margulis as a rebel.
in post 459 you referred to her as a renegade.

But no insinuation of 'ineptness'. You read that into it yourself.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

2. why treat dissenting evidence with caution?

Who said anything about dissenting evidence?

3. why call it anything? why not just outright disprove it instead?

I've made my arguments; you're welcome to make yours. I'm happy to wait.

 

[Hoghead1]

What exactly is your evidence for your claim that many other scientists get the same treatment if they question the dogma of evolution, Whoisrational? Examples please.

 

[[serious]]

i've given my opinion on this.
i believe transposons are responsible for the variations we see within a species.
this type of mutation is neither fixed, gradual, adaptive, or accumulating it's just a variation of the germline.

first you said horizontal gene transfer, and now you are saying transposons. Those aren't the same things.

Transposons are elements in the genome that can move to another part of the genome.

Horizontal gene transfer is transfer transfer of a gene or genes to another organism.

genes to not "gradually" become fixed in an organism.
it's all or nothing.

guess I should have defined that
fixation refers to one allele becoming universal in a population. The change in its prevalence must be gradual outside of very small populations or very catastrophic die offs.

why are you expecting things from me that you aren't willing to do yourself?
all that you have done in this post is state the standing dogma of evolution.
as a matter of fact, that is what almost everyone has done here, they steadfastly refuse to see that many important assumptions of the modern synthesis has been abandoned.

I'm asking you to do exactly what I'm doing, defining terms or using them in standard ways. Did you misread the post?

 

[[serious]]

I'm happy to let forum readers decide that for themselves.
Fortunately, I didn't.
On the contrary, she's mainly remembered for her groundbreaking research. But it's not uncommon that groundbreaking scientists do exceptional work in their early careers and questionable work in their later years (Einstein springs to mind).

My favorite is Tesla with his ghost theories.

 

[[serious]]

as to the points above:
2. why treat dissenting evidence with caution?
shouldn't it be treated with the respect ALL evidence warrants?
this type of attitude prevented transposons from being accepted for almost 50 years.

You are putting words in his mouth. He said "views contrary to the mainstream should be treated with caution."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My favorite is Tesla with his ghost theories.

There are quite a few; Linus Pauling and his vitamin C megadose theory, Rupert Sheldrake and morphic resonance, Roger Penrose and his Orch OR quantum consciousness woo, etc. Most of them seem to come to grief in their later years, when they move outside their field of expertise, or when their field moves beyond the scope of their work, and they start looking for 'something more' or 'beyond' the everyday.

 

[Loudmouth]

There are quite a few; Linus Pauling and his vitamin C megadose theory, Rupert Sheldrake and morphic resonance, Roger Penrose and his Orch OR quantum consciousness woo, etc. Most of them seem to come to grief in their later years, when they move outside their field of expertise, or when their field moves beyond the scope of their work, and they start looking for 'something more' or 'beyond' the everyday.

Another worth mentioning is Fred Hoyle who stuck to his nucleosynthesis guns his entire life, trying to claim that hydrogen was continually being produced from vacuum energy as an alternative to the Big Bang. He was a really smart guy, especially with his work on the production of heavier elements in supernovae. Being smart doesn't stop you from being wrong, unfortunately.