Unsatisfactory Scientific Explanations?

[lesliedellow]

Personally, I suspect it's an 'empty' question, like asking why you are you, in your part of the world, rather than someone else in another part of the world.

No it isn't an empty question, otherwise people like Daniel Dennett wouldn't put so much effort into trying to define it away, and end up convincing nobody except those who want to be convinced.

 

[[serious]]

anyone that has access to the tree of life can easily see where i got my information.
and regardless of what you say, science has no empirical proof of it.
your explanation above is a typical example of the kind evolutionist use to "explain" their dogma.
if there is empirical evidence then please provide it, sorry, saying it's so doesn't make it so.

Starfish and centipedes aren't even in the same phylum. I'd need a source on this one.

As far as the observation of macroevolution, we've observed speciation, which fits the original definition. To work from an alternate definition, we actually need an alternate definition.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

but why?
why should belief evolve?
using this line of reasoning, you can easily come to the conclusion that belief in god is only natural.
you could even take it further by saying belief in the supreme can make us supreme.
in this case, can we assume that god is a vital part in the evolution of humanity?

What has this to do with placebo or nocebo effects?

I think it's fair to say that a propensity to belief in the paranormal or supernatural is only 'natural'. There are simple evolutionary reasons for a tendency to superstitious and magical thinking, attribution to invisible agency, and mythologies. There are also understandable reasons for the development of supervening deities and the dogma of organized religion in larger societies. It's remarkable how persistent these beliefs are in the modern world.

 

[[serious]]

The wikipedia article is a pretty good summary. The section on 'Misuse' is probably relevant here

That, sadly, does seem to be what's going on. I wouldn't mind the definition dodge if he'd just actually provide the new definition.

 

[whois]

Starfish and centipedes aren't even in the same phylum. I'd need a source on this one.

As far as the observation of macroevolution, we've observed speciation, which fits the original definition. To work from an alternate definition, we actually need an alternate definition.

take a look at your friendly nieghborhood tree of life.
you need to ask evolutionists why they make these connections.
there certainly isn't any empirical evidence of it.

 

[whois]

What has this to do with placebo or nocebo effects?

faith, or belief, maybe?

I think it's fair to say that a propensity to belief in the paranormal or supernatural is only 'natural'.

if it is so natural, then why do evolutionists become thoroughly unglued over it?
can you provide ANY scientific justification for this?

 

[Gracchus]

take a look at your friendly nieghborhood tree of life.
you need to ask evolutionists why they make these connections.
there certainly isn't any empirical evidence of it.

Except of course, the morphological, embryological, paleontological, biochemical, and genetic evidence, which you have never looked at and wouldn't be able to see, because faith filters out facts, and faith overpowers the rational mind.

 

[whois]

Except of course, the morphological, embryological, paleontological, biochemical, and genetic evidence, which you have never looked at and wouldn't be able to see, because faith filters out facts, and faith overpowers the rational mind.

maybe you can provide them.

there HAS to be a reason smith says there is no empirical evidence for the major transitions of evolution.
smith wouldn't say such a thing if it actually existed.

 

[Gracchus]

I see no signs growing complexity.

Except of course, the morphological, embryological, paleontological, biochemical, and genetic evidence, which you have never looked at and wouldn't be able to see, because faith filters out facts, and faith overpowers the rational mind.

maybe you can provide them.

Is there a non-religious college near you, or a university? I would point you to the library.

there HAS to be a reason smith says there is no empirical evidence for the major transitions of evolution.

smith wouldn't say such a thing if it actually existed.

“Our thesis is that the increase” (of complexity) “has depended on a small number of major transitions* in the way in which genetic information is transmitted between generations.”

*emphasis mine

The Major Transitions in Evolution (Paperback) by John Maynard Smith, Eörs Szathmáry (From the preamble.)

I don't remember that he said any such thing. It looks to me that he didn't say such a thing. It's been a while since I read that book, and I can't find my copy. I may have to buy a new one.

 

[whois]

Is there a non-religious college near you, or a university? I would point you to the library.

so, you say there is evidence, but yet cannot provide it?

“Our thesis is that the increase” (of complexity) “has depended on a small number of major transitions* in the way in which genetic information is transmitted between generations.”

*emphasis mine

The Major Transitions in Evolution (Paperback) by John Maynard Smith, Eörs Szathmáry (From the preamble.)

I don't remember that he said any such thing. It looks to me that he didn't say such a thing. It's been a while since I read that book, and I can't find my copy. I may have to buy a new one.

i will save you the trouble:
www.researchgate.net/publication/15314671_The_Major_Evolutionary_Transitions

as you can see, he DID say such a thing.

also, "a small number of major transitions" doesn't comport well with "accumulating small gradual changes".
are you going to actually say you don't see a problem here?

 

[lesliedellow]

faith, or belief, maybe?

if it is so natural, then why do evolutionists become thoroughly unglued over it?
can you provide ANY scientific justification for this?

Developmental psychologists could provide scientific justification for it; or at least for a propensity to read purpose into the world. Besides which, I am an evolutionist, and I don't become unglued over it.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2008/nov/25/religion-children-god-belief

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

faith, or belief, maybe?

I suppose it depends on your definitions of faith & belief; can faith and belief be entirely below conscious awareness?

It's worth remembering that placebo/nocebo effects are not a direct result of an appeal to conscious awareness, they are subliminal. Placebo effects have been demonstrated even when the individuals are aware that they are taking a placebo; and the subjective efficacy of painkillers is enhanced by colourful packaging even when the individuals are aware that both plain and colourful packaging contain identical formulations.

if it is so natural, then why do evolutionists become thoroughly unglued over it?

Do they? like whom, in particular?

...can you provide ANY scientific justification for this?

I can't provide any scientific justification for why evolutionists become unglued over it, because I don't think they do.

I'm no expert in evolutionary psychology, so I can give only you a simplified example:

Creatures that are not at the top of the food chain, that tend to interpret a rustle in the grass as something innocuous, like the wind, may well die if they're wrong. Creatures that interpret it as a predator will survive if they're wrong, but have a better chance of survival if they're right. So there is an evolutionary selection pressure favouring creatures that tend to make false positive assessments of danger (e.g. predators). Predators are living intentional agents, so it follows that selection pressure will favour creatures that tend to make false positive assessments of alive, intentional agency.

The majority of human (hominin) evolution has been in savannah environments where individuals were at risk of predation by large carnivores (and from other hominin groups). This suggests they were under the same selection pressure to tend to make false positive attributions of live, intentional agency. The cognitive complexity of hominins enabled them to create explicit abstractions and classify elements of their environment accordingly. Unexplained events could be categorised by type and territory, and - as a result of the tendency towards attribution of agency - would be associated with categories of unknown intentional agents - sprites, spirits, gods, etc. Mundane superstitions developed in parallel, e.g. touching wood is an appeal to, or appeasement of, tree spirits; and have continued to develop through simple ideas of association, such as, like cures like, walking under a ladder foreshadows the gallows, black cats are unlucky through association with witches, etc.

When larger, settled, societies formed, with their greater need for control and organisation, status and power hierarchies established and codified rules in the name of greater powers that could not be deceived, watched you always, and knew your every action. Any actions of authority could be justified by invoking these deities.

It's interesting that, even today, people will behave more honestly when there is an image of a pair of eyes in their area than when the image is of something else.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

there HAS to be a reason smith says there is no empirical evidence for the major transitions of evolution.
smith wouldn't say such a thing if it actually existed.
...
as you can see, he DID say such a thing.

From what I can see, he said there is no empirical evidence that evolutionary lineages increase in complexity with time. That isn't what you claim he says. I'm not sure who actually wrote the subheading to that article, because the article itself seems to assume the opposite, and goes on to suggest mechanisms and ideas that may explain the major evolutionary transitions - transitions which no evolutionary biologist denies; they're pretty obvious.

There are, incidentally, at least two theoretical reasons why complexity of an evolutionary lineage might be expected to increase over time, one of which was not apparent at the time that article was written. One is a statistical reason - when an organism has minimal complexity, there are obviously more ways for it to become more complex than more simple (it can't become simpler). Slightly more complex organisms can be radically more efficient, so one expects a proliferation of simple but not minimally simple organisms. As some organisms become more complex, the balance changes, and they can evolve to become either more complex or simpler. However, with increasing complexity, the ways to become more complex also increase, so the potential for increasing complexity diminishes at a slower rate. The expected result is a large number of organisms of low (but not minimal) complexity, with the numbers of creatures diminishing rapidly with increasing complexity - which is exactly what we see in the world.

Another reason is also statistical, but at the much lower level of statistical mechanics (thermodynamics); systems with low entropy & high available energy density tend to towards configurations that maximize their energy dissipation and increase in entropy. Complex subsystems dissipate energy, increasing entropy more effectively than simpler ones, so one should expect a tendency in favour of the development of the most complex configurations that can be supported by a given system, which will maximize the rate of dissipation of energy and the increase in entropy.

 

[whois]

I suppose it depends on your definitions of faith & belief; can faith and belief be entirely below conscious awareness?

well, it just seems odd to me that this effect even exists.
also, it must be pointed out that this effect isn't widespread, the majority of the people aren't affected by it.

It's worth remembering that placebo/nocebo effects are not a direct result of an appeal to conscious awareness, they are subliminal. Placebo effects have been demonstrated even when the individuals are aware that they are taking a placebo;

no, i wasn't aware of the nocebo effect.
it seems the nocebo effect would be even more intriguing because it would appear to involve the will instead of faith or belief.
i could be that both of these are connected somehow (will, faith/ belief).
whatever the case, it appears there is indeed such a thing as "mind over matter", the ability of the mind to alter reality.
it doesn't take much of a leap to connect this with quantum physics somehow.
after all, it appears that reality can be affected by the observer, and the placebo/ nocebo effect certainly supports that.
going even deeper, we can make the connection between the mind and the physical universe itself.
it appears that both are connected somehow, and not just a purely "observed/ observer" role

I can't provide any scientific justification for why evolutionists become unglued over it, because I don't think they do.

just belch the word god at the next evolution meeting, and find out for yourself.

 

[whois]

From what I can see, he said there is no empirical evidence that evolutionary lineages increase in complexity with time. That isn't what you claim he says. I'm not sure who actually wrote the subheading to that article, because the article itself seems to assume the opposite, and goes on to suggest mechanisms and ideas that may explain the major evolutionary transitions - transitions which no evolutionary biologist denies; they're pretty obvious.

what exactly do you think he means when he says "evolutionary lineages"?
this man is basically talking about macro evolution here, he must be.
he cannot be talking about microevolution , because THAT has been observed.

also, he proposes a method by which this can be achieved.
he bases this method on the similarities he has noticed.
in the conclusion he says this is a basis for further research, not a verified process.
also take note that he says this complexity is achieve by a few major transitions, not by accumulating gradual changes.
this seems to confirm PE, and the gaps in the fossil record.
IOW, these gaps are real, they aren't a matter of "missing fossils"
also, these gaps dominate the record.

There are, incidentally, at least two theoretical reasons why complexity of an evolutionary lineage might be expected to increase over time, one of which was not apparent at the time that article was written. One is a statistical reason - when an organism has minimal complexity, there are obviously more ways for it to become more complex than more simple (it can't become simpler). Slightly more complex organisms can be radically more efficient, so one expects a proliferation of simple but not minimally simple organisms. As some organisms become more complex, the balance changes, and they can evolve to become either more complex or simpler. However, with increasing complexity, the ways to become more complex also increase, so the potential for increasing complexity diminishes at a slower rate. The expected result is a large number of organisms of low (but not minimal) complexity, with the numbers of creatures diminishing rapidly with increasing complexity - which is exactly what we see in the world.

smith explains that complexity isn't well defined, and he used examples in lieu of a definition.
apparently, complexity on the genetic scale, is measured by the number of traits a particular gene can code for.

Another reason is also statistical, but at the much lower level of statistical mechanics (thermodynamics); systems with low entropy & high available energy density tend to towards configurations that maximize their energy dissipation and increase in entropy. Complex subsystems dissipate energy, increasing entropy more effectively than simpler ones, so one should expect a tendency in favour of the development of the most complex configurations that can be supported by a given system, which will maximize the rate of dissipation of energy and the increase in entropy.

i don't know, i question statistics for 2 reasons:
1. you pretty well have to know what is being measured to be sure of the data.
2. correlation doesn't imply causation.

let's not forget what twain said:
"there are 3 types of lies, little white lies, damnable lies, and statistics".

yes, statistics can be a valuable tool, but you need to know for certain what you are looking at.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...it must be pointed out that this effect isn't widespread, the majority of the people aren't affected by it.

Says who, Beecher?

whatever the case, it appears there is indeed such a thing as "mind over matter", the ability of the mind to alter reality.
it doesn't take much of a leap to connect this with quantum physics somehow.
after all, it appears that reality can be affected by the observer, and the placebo/ nocebo effect certainly supports that.
going even deeper, we can make the connection between the mind and the physical universe itself.
it appears that both are connected somehow, and not just a purely "observed/ observer" role

No. It is certainly true that brain activity can control the muscles and the muscles can affect external matter, but there is - for reasons I've already explained - no mysterious mind-over-matter effect. The placebo and nocebo effects both work via the interaction of perceptions (both conscious and subliminal) and expectations to ultimately affect the autonomic nervous system. This can influence the body and brain in many ways, from the release of endorphins in the brain, to the stimulation or suppression of immune function. It can affect arousal, anxiety, relaxation, heart rate, digestion, breathing, and other organ functions. These effects are sufficient to account for the placebo & nocebo effects. In the majority of cases, they are just a case of reported well-being, that is people say they feel better (or worse). In a minority of cases, detectable physiological responses can be measured, and these are mediated via the sympathetic and parasympatheic nervous systems. No need for any mystical influences, or quantum woo. Sorry to disappoint you.

just belch the word god at the next evolution meeting, and find out for yourself.

You need to distinguish between opinion on the origin of a belief and the factual accuracy of that belief. Evolutionists are generally sanguine about the former and antipathetic to the latter.

 

[whois]

quantum woo?
you mean like something can be here, but not here, that kind of woo?
or how something can be both a particle and a wave, that kind of woo?
or the events of today can affect the past, that kind of woo?
you know, i can honestly see why einstien questioned quantum physics.
if this kind of stuff can exist in the universe, then i see no reason why it cannot exist in the life sciences.
is it really possible that the grand unification theory must include biology?

 

[Ratjaws]

Huge wall of text, but wanted to pull out one point here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laughter_in_animals

Serious,

The article you referenced concerning laughter in animals states:
"Laughter in animals other than humans describes animal behavior which resembles human laughter."
"Numerous species demonstrate vocalizations similar to human laughter."
"show laughter-like vocalizations in response to physical contact, such as wrestling, play chasing, or tickling."
"...the similarity in forms of laughter among humans and apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans) when tickled."
"expressed joy"
"exhibiting similar responses"
"Although the research was unable to prove rats have a sense of humor, it did indicate that they can laugh and express joy"

You see it makes my point over and over again by using words such as "resembles", "similar to" and "laughter-like".

The point being an animal's laughter is not an intellectual response; it cannot be since they don't have a mind. Their vocalizations are in response to sense stimuli. As I've stated before humans also respond to their senses but they also go beyond by thinking before response. Notice I said they do not respond to incongruency. For instance I just heard a guy in the audience ask Carol Burnett "I heard your legs were insured for 1 million dollars... have you ever thought of insuring your mouth?" ...to which Carol responded "it would take more than a million to do that!" Laughter occured at both the question and response because the audience understood (saw with their mind) the silliness of insuring legs and the consequent lack of correspondence between her legs and size of her mouth. While a person's response in laughter involves the senses it does not stop there, rather it requires a mind to discern the incompatibility of different ideas. Animals may make similar sounds as humans nevertheless they are incapable of forming concepts and expressing ideas as human persons do.


I also challenge the idea animals "express joy." On the contrary they respond to sensual pleasure as we do but joy is much deeper than bodily emotion. We can experience joy from the thought of a loved one for instance and not just their touch or voice. In fact even their presence apart from any sense contact can bring about an experience of joy as has been demonstrated by deaf and dumb persons.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

what exactly do you think he means when he says "evolutionary lineages"?
this man is basically talking about macro evolution here, he must be.
he cannot be talking about microevolution , because THAT has been observed.

Assuming he actually wrote that subtitle, about which I have some doubt, he's saying that increase in complexity over time hasn't been observed in evolutionary lineages. Make of that what you will. Given that we do have comprehensive circumstantial evidence of increase in complexity (the evolutionary lineages themselves!), I assume he means we haven't actually observed it happening - which, in the case of paleontological lineages is a statement of the obvious. However, since evolutionary change, including speciation, has been observed both in the wild and in the lab - it's probably more a question of whether anyone has actually attempted to measure any increase in complexity, and how that could be done; e.g. what are the criteria?

...also take note that he says this complexity is achieve by a few major transitions, not by accumulating gradual changes.
this seems to confirm PE, and the gaps in the fossil record.

I think the general consensus is that there is typically an accumulation of gradual changes, to more or less overall effect - that is visible in the fossil record, but the reasons behind the major transitions he identifies (I have my doubts about the first couple and the last one as being in the same class as the others, but, whatever) are debatable. There are many ways that such transitions can be accounted for within the TOE. Personally, I'm comfortable with some version of punctuated equilibrium - I have my doubts about the criteria for equilibrium, but it's a plausible explanation. It's certainly not a problem for evolutionary theory - as Gould himself said:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

IOW, these gaps are real, they aren't a matter of "missing fossils"
also, these gaps dominate the record.

Missing fossils leave real gaps; I don't see your point.

i don't know, i question statistics for 2 reasons:
1. you pretty well have to know what is being measured to be sure of the data.

You don't need a sophisticated definition of complexity to see that it increases from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, or from single-celled organisms to multicelled organisms, or from sessile invertebrates to vertebrates...

2. correlation doesn't imply causation.

How is that relevant?

let's not forget what twain said:
"there are 3 types of lies, little white lies, damnable lies, and statistics".

It's true that you can use statistics to mislead people who don't understand the subject, but statistical mechanics is not a propaganda or marketing tool - it accounts for the thermodynamics of everyday life; gas pressure, heat transfer, evaporation, the arrow of time itself...

yes, statistics can be a valuable tool, but you need to know for certain what you are looking at.

Yes, and? have you spotted a hole in the explanation?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

quantum woo?
you mean like something can be here, but not here, that kind of woo?
or how something can be both a particle and a wave, that kind of woo?
or the events of today can affect the past, that kind of woo?

No, I mean the speculative fantasies of people who think they can make a valid association between two disparate fields solely on the basis that they find both of them surprising and unintuitive and understand nothing of either. I'm talking about pseudoscience.