Unsatisfactory Scientific Explanations?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The point being an animal's laughter is not an intellectual response; it cannot be since they don't have a mind.

What is your working definition of a 'mind'?

 

[Loudmouth]

is it really possible that the grand unification theory must include biology?

Biology would be the result of the physics described in the GUT.

I have already shown you examples of how quantum mechanics is involved in biology. It is most prominent in the process of mutation, with the most accessible example being mutations caused by ionizing radiation which is completely quantum in nature. Other examples include molecular interactions, such as those described here:

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Nov 1;102(44):15803-8. Epub 2005 Oct 25.

Probing the active site tightness of DNA polymerase in subangstrom increments.

Kim TW, Delaney JC, Essigmann JM, Kool ET.

We describe the use of a series of gradually expanded thymine nucleobase analogs in probing steric effects in DNA polymerase efficiency and fidelity. In these nonpolar compounds, the base size was increased incrementally over a 1.0-A range by use of variably sized atoms (H, F, Cl, Br, and I) to replace the oxygen molecules of thymine. Kinetics studies with DNA Pol I (Klenow fragment, exonuclease-deficient) in vitro showed that replication efficiency opposite adenine increased through the series, reaching a peak at the chlorinated compound. Efficiency then dropped markedly as a steric tightness limit was apparently reached. Importantly, fidelity also followed this trend, with the fidelity maximum at dichlorotoluene, the largest compound that fits without apparent repulsion. The fidelity at this point approached that of wild-type thymine. Surprisingly, the maximum fidelity and efficiency was found at a base pair size significantly larger than the natural size. Parallel bypass and mutagenesis experiments were then carried out in vivo with a bacterial assay for replication. The cellular results were virtually the same as those seen in solution. The results provide direct evidence for the importance of a tight steric fit on DNA replication fidelity. In addition, the results suggest that even high-fidelity replicative enzymes have more steric room than necessary, possibly to allow for an evolutionarily advantageous mutation rate.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16249340
​

 

[whois]

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.

first of all, why doubt that he said it?
his name is on the paper, i'm sure he read it.

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.

and that's exactly the point.
this stuff hasn't been observed.
IOW, the concept of common descent HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN, it's an assumption.

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?

according to the modern synthesis, it's by accumulating gradual changes.
smith directly discounts that.
in fact, his hypothesis seems to support PE, but goes a step further by stating it was accomplished by a few major changes instead of accumulation.
this implies that macro evolution is a different animal than micro evolution.
they are 2 distinct processes

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.

this is probably why he said it's a basis for further research, instead of some kind of tested hypothesis.
he does list the similarities of these transitions in the conclusion, especially in regards to the promise of further research.

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 my guess that HGT (or some form of it) is responsible for these transitions, some of them anyway.
but here again, HGT can hardly be called gradual, nor can it be strictly accumulating.

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."

i have an article from th NY times that you might like to read. (see upload)
gould says of this article:
that there were some "good and responsible commentaries in the general press" and he specifically mentions an article by Boyce Rensberger in the New York Times.
Gould discusses the episode in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (pp. 981-986).

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

that's the point, there are no missing fossils, because the changes were major changes, not accumulating ones.

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...
How is that relevant?

yes, it SEEMS obvious.
but what if it isn't.
what if common ancestry isn't true?
see, this is the entire reason for needing empirical evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

and that's exactly the point.
this stuff hasn't been observed.
IOW, the concept of common descent HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN, it's an assumption.

Common ancestry between humans and other primates has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt using observations in genetics.

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

99.9% of the 200,000 ERV's in the human genome are found at exactly the same loci in the chimp genome. We also find the same ERV in more distantly related primates.

 

[[serious]]

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.

I'm quite familiar with it. Starfish are deuterostomes, as are vertebrates, whereas arthropods are not. The deuterostome ancestor would not be an arthropod of any kind. The arthropod ancestor would not have been a deuterostome of any kind. Both arthropods and deuterostomes arose the split in bilateria that resulted in both groups.

Whoever told you that other nonsense has no idea what they are talking about, and you should take a closer look at anything else they said too

 

[whois]

I'm quite familiar with it. Starfish are deuterostomes, as are vertebrates, whereas arthropods are not. The deuterostome ancestor would not be an arthropod of any kind. The arthropod ancestor would not have been a deuterostome of any kind. Both arthropods and deuterostomes arose the split in bilateria that resulted in both groups.

Whoever told you that other nonsense has no idea what they are talking about, and you should take a closer look at anything else they said too

the following upload is where i got the "comes from" bit.
in evolutionary speak you can replace "comes from" with "had a common ancestor".

also, see the link in post 389 for this so called "other nonsense".
this very topic is what furmious and i have been discussing for the last few posts.

 

[whois]

Common ancestry between humans and other primates has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt using observations in genetics.

i would call the following "reasonable doubt"
www.scricciolo.com/classificazione/sequence6.htm

 

[stevevw]

i wouldn't go quite that far, but i do know the placebo effect is a fact, and it's been verified over and over in medical literature

Yes but the articles I posted are examples of how scientific tests are finding some affect from the mind and matter. Its only early days and I know that there are many people who fob it off as pseudo science. But the fact is that the science will determine the truth in the end. An interesting part is that quantum physics and consciousness may be connected. Tests have found that brain activity happens at a micro level even beyond what we can see through conventional equipment. If everything begins at the quantum state then the mind may also have some connection with the quantum world. It may be that something in out consciousness which operates beyond the classical physics can connect and influence things at a quantum level. They are finding that some animals operate in the quantum realm such as birds and their migratory abilities. So who knows what we will find in the future.

whatever you do, don't tell dawkins.
this man will turn into a raving lunatic, more than what is typically usual.

Yeah I know, he doesn't like anyone talking about that sort of stuff. But he has been resistant to a lot of new discoveries even in his own field of biology. Hes stuck in a bit of a time warp.

 

[stevevw]

Verified and checked by whom? The original PEAR studies under Robert Jahn in Princeton, on which the Global Consciousness Project is founded, were shown to be flawed in many ways, and failed replication under stricter criteria three times - one of which was by the PEAR researchers themselves (i.e. they couldn't replicate their own findings when they tightened up the study). The GCP is open to similar criticisms; the usual progression with these studies is that interesting results are claimed on first pass, but with each subsequent pass in response to criticism, the tighter the controls and blinding, and the more careful and objective the data and analysis, the smaller the apparent effects become, until they merge into background noise.

If you cast your net widely enough looking for something sufficiently poorly defined, you'll almost certainly see something that looks like what you're after; but don't hold your breath for anything useful to come out of it. Feynman's Principle springs to mind: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
There have been many studies done on the efficacy of prayer, and again, the better the design, controls, and blinding, the smaller the effect. A meta-analysis of 14 intercessory prayer studies found no effect overall.

So I guess it will depend on the studies and the way they do them. I disagree that the results are all false. These tests are done with sensitive equipment in 100s of locations. They have been going for years and still are. I think there's enough evidence out there one way or another to suggest that this is an area of potential that may find that there is something at work besides the physical and material world. Even if it is to do with the quantum physics it may still be something that operates beyond the classical physics that defies the way our macro reality works. The fact is you can't dismiss everything that has been found. We have seen some pretty amazing things that have defied logic. We have always put it down to coincidence, or some other natural explanation. But still they persist and defy our logic and no one can come up with an explanation.

There is a lot more support out there from other scientific sources as well. They come from various peer reviewed papers which are supporting a similar thing. A lot of study is being done in the quantum physics which is showing some interesting results. It seems funny when peer reviewed work is used to support something like evolution it is taken as being good. But if it supports something that some disagree with or moves off the consensus opinion it suddenly becomes questionable and suspect. There have been 100s of tests and experiments done in this field and I would say they are using pretty good methods to verify what they find. It can't all be dismissed as rubbish.

Consciousness, information, and living systems.
Empirical databases comprising many hundreds of millions of random events confirm that information can be introduced into, or extracted from, otherwise random physical processes solely through the agencies of human intention and subjective resonance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17560345
The need for a physical basis of cognitive process: Comment on “Consciousness in the universe. A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory” by Hameroff and Penrose
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001553
Global Consciousness: The Mind-Blowing Effects Of Mass Meditation
The fact is that each computer in the network is programmed to exhibit a series of 0s and 1s. Therefore, it can’t make an error on its own unless something electrically significant, like a tangible thought, interacts with its processing capability.
http://www.collective-evolution.com...-the-mind-blowing-effects-of-mass-meditation/

The Global consciousness project is collecting data from how our minds may be tuned into events that happen throughout the world. It seems when there are major events there is a definite spike in the readings before the events happen. We all know that we experiencing some connection with others. Call it coincident or intuition. But we feel this connection and can know of something happening before it does. This happens a lot and I believe we have this connection which works on a level beyond the physical realm.Its a bit like twins being able to sense each others pain or know what each other are thinking. Tests have been producing unexplained results for some time. They may turn out to have a logical explanation. But I wouldn't dismiss any possibility as that will only restrict the possibilities.

 

[[serious]]

the following upload is where i got the "comes from" bit.
in evolutionary speak you can replace "comes from" with "had a common ancestor".

"Comes from" is VERY different than "has a common ancestor" I have a common ancestor with my cousin, but neither of us came from the other. Likewise, starfish did not come from centipedes nor centipedes come from starfish.

The image that you for some reason zipped and attached rather than linking to likewise shows starfish as deuterostomes and arthropods, centipedes included, as protostomes. The last common ancestor would have been an early member of bilateria, not a starfish or a centipede.

As far as post numbers, I'm on mobile, so a link would be better.

 

[Loudmouth]

i would call the following "reasonable doubt"
www.scricciolo.com/classificazione/sequence6.htm

How does it cast doubt on the evidence I have presented? None of the data I am using comes from any of those studies.

 

[whois]

"Comes from" is VERY different than "has a common ancestor" I have a common ancestor with my cousin, but neither of us came from the other. Likewise, starfish did not come from centipedes nor centipedes come from starfish.

The image that you for some reason zipped and attached rather than linking to likewise shows starfish as deuterostomes and arthropods, centipedes included, as protostomes. The last common ancestor would have been an early member of bilateria, not a starfish or a centipede.

As far as post numbers, I'm on mobile, so a link would be better.

regardless of the word salad, the fact remains that there is no empirical evidence of the common ancestry depicted by the examples i presented.

 

[whois]

How does it cast doubt on the evidence I have presented? None of the data I am using comes from any of those studies.

it's a question of method.

 

[Loudmouth]

it's a question of method.

None of the data I have presented to you was gathered using that method.

 

[Ratjaws]

What is your working definition of a 'mind'?

I would define a mind as the Immaterial principle (spiritual) of the body that has 4 faculties (powers) namely: the intellect, will, memory and imagination.

 

[Ratjaws]

i've often thought along similar lines in regards to life itself.
it isn't the molecules that are alive, but the configuration of these molecules allows life to manifest itself in our reality.

that's why i keep saying it's going to take a fundamental breakthrough to achieve it.

yes, it was me, and yes, i also agree that man will not come up with this idea but it will be modeled directly on the brain itself.
i believe the best mankind can hope for is the mind/machine interface.
IOW, he will not be able to improve on the brain, but merely extend its capabilities.
once this interface has been achieved, the metaphysical will become a reality.
it will completely change our way of life, and how we think about things.

whois,
I cannot say along with you that "...it isn't the molecules that are alive, but the configuration of these molecules allows life to manifest itself...". Human beings have life not because of how molecules organize but because of the form that organizes. The "configuration of molecules" you speak of here is a manifestion or result of the form within the matter we call our body. We are alive because our soul (form) causes our body material to take on life and we are, contrary to some Christian thinking, incomplete without that body even though the soul can in principle exist apart from the body. After death and until the resurrection we will be incomplete. We are a body soul/composite and so as you say, our intellect cannot manifest itself apart from our brain. Notice I used the term manifest here... since I also believe the intellect will still function apart from the body, we will remain alive, but without our body we will not have use of our senses; so until the resurrection we cannot know any thing new, at least not until our soul and body are recombined by God or unless God infuses new knowledge within us.

I'm sorry but don't understand what you mean by "...once this interface has been achieved, the metaphysical will become a reality." What is this "metaphysical" you speak of? Also how can you say man "will not be able to improve on the brain, but merely extend its capabilities."? To extend is to improve. I assume the interface you speak of will do the extension much as a missing limb is replaced by a prosthetic? This is an improvement in the sense that one replaces what is missing. I don't believe as some do that we can replace good parts of the body with mechanical or electronic (computerized) parts in order to improve. I believe this is immoral, that is to try to change the nature of what a person is. I suggest surgery such as breast augmentation borders on immoral, if not is, since the so-called improvement is for vanity's sake. I believe all good medicine and consequently scientific research must be directed toward bringing back to order what has become disordered. Therefore, procured abortion is immoral since it is not meant to repair or prevent some existing disorder (I say this to the exclusion of an ectopic pregnancy where the child implants in the wrong place and will kill the mother, as well as itself, unless medical procedure intervenes to stop the pregnancy). We must be very careful here with not just how far we go with scientific manipulation of the human person but why we even do so. From moral theology I know the means, end and intent must be good in order for an act to be morally good. A good end cannot justify a bad means nor a good means justify a bad end. Finally, as I stated before even if both means and end are good a bad intention cannot therefore be justified.

 

[[serious]]

regardless of the word salad, the fact remains that there is no empirical evidence of the common ancestry depicted by the examples i presented.

How can we get to presenting evidence when you refuse to even define your terms?

You either need to start using standard meanings of words or you need to start defining terms.

 

[whois]

None of the data I have presented to you was gathered using that method.

okay, what is the name of the method you used, and can you provide links to peer reviewed papers that use this method.
also, i would especially like to see peer reviewed sources for your specific example.

 

[Loudmouth]

okay, what is the name of the method you used, and can you provide links to peer reviewed papers that use this method.
also, i would especially like to see peer reviewed sources for your specific example.

Human genome paper:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409860a0.html

Chimp genome paper:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

Both used Sanger sequencing and pyrosequencing. Once the genomes were sequenced, they compared the sequence in silico (using computers). They didn't use hybridization.

 

[whois]

ratjaws,

I cannot say along with you that "...it isn't the molecules that are alive, but the configuration of these molecules allows life to manifest itself...".

there is something you must remember about my posts.
some of what i say is purely conjecture, and that i do not necessarily believe it.
the above is an example of this.

I'm sorry but don't understand what you mean by "...once this interface has been achieved, the metaphysical will become a reality." What is this "metaphysical" you speak of?

telepathy for one.
with such a perfected device, our thoughts will no longer be private.
this device, in combination with such things as 3D printing, will allow you to bring your thoughts into the physical realm. IOW you will be able to "think things into existence".

"will not be able to improve on the brain, but merely extend its capabilities."?

i guess this is sort of along the lines of a lever extending the capabilities of muscle.
for example, a lever will not allow you to daydream, this would be adding something new.

I believe this is immoral, that is to try to change the nature of what a person is.

and it wouldn't, the nature of man will not be affected by this new technology.
only his brainpower would be affected, and would be by extension, or amplification, it wouldn't add anything new. IOW it wouldn't allow him to do something that is currently impossible.