|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
 Posted - 10/25/2005 : 06:36:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The thing is that given that standard evoltionary theory and yours, Occam's Razor cut yours. Your idea incorporates so much more than evolution, things that there are no evidence for.
Then there's the phylogenic tree of mitochondria that suggests that you're wrong and evolution is right.
Not to mention all the science built over evolution. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
 |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2005 : 17:38:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks It's very easy to propose a "theory" to explain anything. Hey look, all life forms were programmed to evolve in a certain direction. Hey look, god created all life 6000 years ago. Hey look, aliens seeded life 60 billion years ago. Hey look, we're living in a Matrix(tm). Hey look...
These "theories" might indeed be compatible with what we observe. They are in fact compatible with anything we could observe. As far as scientific theories go, they are all useless.
The same goes for evolutionary theory as well then I suppose. It's nice and relatively simple, but that is no guarantee of correctness, especially seeing that reality almost always turns out to be more complex than we realized.
There is indeed no guarantee of correctness. There is, however, a guarantee that it might NOT be correct. I.e. it's the old issue of falsifiability. How would you falsify your proposition that everything has been preprogrammed?
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2005 : 18:20:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
I don't think that's in the constitution ;)
Neither is the right to wax philosophic on a skeptic's message board.quote:
??? I state that subnormal behaviour and genetics are correlated, and you conclude that I think there is insignificant gains with proper nurturing. Interesting ;).
No, I conclude that you're misinformed based upon the correlation you assert and the fact that among scientists who should know, the question of whether genes or environment play a bigger role in development is still largely open. Adult human height, for example, seems to be better correlated with nutrition status from conception up through the teen years than it is with the height of one's parents.quote:
Well I assume there is at least *some* evidence behind any speculation. Since the outworkings of my theory thus far seem indistinguishable from conventional theory, it stands to reason there is evidence behind my speculation as well.
The "outworkings" of your "theory" appear to be based largely upon standard evolutionary ideas, unto which you've jammed extra assumptions which have no evidence to support them. It's sorta like saying that the law of universal gravitation isF=(Gm1m2/d2)+hqt(ey3) where t is infinitely close to zero. It's a bunch of extra stuff which evaluates itself out of the equation once you actually apply it to something. If we cannot distinguish your theory from standard evolutionary theory based on the evidence, then everything your theory has which is extra gets tossed away as irrelevant.quote:
Wow, I must have a good theory. :)
Obviously, you realize the humor in that.quote:
Oh I get it alright. My point remains that for a gene which is being used for multiple purposes, selection pressure will ensure that it is reasonably well preserved through time for other preplanned future uses, if there are any.
No, I just showed you why what you've restated is not true. A function which creates no selective pressure will not be maintained. Especially if the selective pressures on the other function(s) of the gene change over time.quote:
The same goes for evolutionary theory as well then I suppose. It's nice and relatively simple, but that is no guarantee of correctness, especially seeing that reality almost always turns out to be more complex than we realized.
Evolutionary theory, in all its glory, is more complex than the proverbial rocket science. Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, which is just a summation of the theory, runs near 1,500 pages. That many pages, or more, are published every month about evolutionary theory, and we're nowhere close to done with it (yet it's the most well-supported theory in all of science).
And still, the discovery of Devonian Bunnies could undermine Common Descent, and thus put the hurt on evolution, almost overnight. Such is science. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2005 : 21:26:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks There is indeed no guarantee of correctness. There is, however, a guarantee that it might NOT be correct. I.e. it's the old issue of falsifiability. How would you falsify your proposition that everything has been preprogrammed?
Well if it were somehow established beyond doubt that the first living cells had hardly any genetic material, that would pretty much falsify my proposition. But as we know finding conclusive evidence of that nature is unlikely. There are no doubt other ways of investigation which might show that my proposal is unlikely, but that would be more involved and require much more thought.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2005 : 22:03:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W. No, I conclude that you're misinformed based upon the correlation you assert and the fact that among scientists who should know, the question of whether genes or environment play a bigger role in development is still largely open.
We're not talking about which has a *bigger* role, we're talking if genetics plays a significant role (which it does).
quote:
Adult human height, for example, seems to be better correlated with nutrition status from conception up through the teen years than it is with the height of one's parents.
I may be behind the news on this one, but I heard that height is a trait that has among the highest correlations with genetic inheritance (inferring that comparatively, nutritional factors are relatively less significant). I'm guessing that maternal twins separated at birth would attain roughly the same height in different nutritional environments. (Of course they would still would have shared the same gestational environment, so that is not entirely ruled out.)
quote:
If we cannot distinguish your theory from standard evolutionary theory based on the evidence, then everything your theory has which is extra gets tossed away as irrelevant.
I think the evidence will be found to favour my evolutionary model, but exactly how remains to be worked out.
For instance, most evolutionary theory assumes that prokaryotes preceeded eukaryotes (since they are simpler), and that eukaryotes are the result of a procaryote engulfing another (aerobic) prokaryote to form a mitotochondria. Then a nucleolus, golgi apparatus, etc, etc. were added on in time. But my theory proposes that the first cells were fully equipped with nuclear and mitochondrial and choloplast machinery, and the prokaryotes are the result of a (planned for) loss of much of that machinery.
Interestingly, http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/jeffares_poole.html
describes how eukaryotic cells may be more ancient than prokaryotes, but for reasons I don't agree with. Nevertheless the idea is there, that prokaryotes are derivative from eukaryotic-like cells.
That may not be the devonian bunny, but it is approaching a hair. ;)
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2005 : 00:42:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
... had hardly any genetic material, that would pretty much falsify my proposition...
I'm not sure I understand your proposition, but it seems to be that (1) the first cells had an intelligently designed set of genes, (2) the design was such that their evolution, through exposure to environmental factors over eons, would strategically result in various lifeforms including Man... if I understand you correctly, I don't see why that would falsify your proposition, possibly unless you're insistent upon some timeframe (e.g. 10 million years, but I'm not sure why that number is significant, either.)
If an intelligent designer was "omnicient" enough to foresee all of the changes of the planet's environment (geographical, geological, chemical, cosmic radiation, etc.) and how they would effect cells, the subsequent mutations, and how all of these mutations would effect each other over millions of years, there's nothing to say that the smallest number of chromasomes necessary to reproduce a life-like structure couldn't then rapidly mutate, or evolve into whatever "base starting point" you choose. Gould says randomness plays a big part in evolution of higher species (aside from just natural selection) and maybe that principle could naturally and smoothly extend back to some carbon-based molecules floating around, as set in motion by an intelligent designer (not that I believe that.)
How does a prion fit into this, out of curiosity? It's alive, right? Or is it a "toxin" of sorts which science over-generally defines as "alive"?
|
Ron White |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2005 : 03:03:37 [Permalink]
|
| Viruses must be important, as they're the material cousins of the soul. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2005 : 05:47:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think the evidence will be found to favour my evolutionary model, but exactly how remains to be worked out.
My, my we are either the witness to one of the greatest minds of our time blessing us with a theory that will revolutionize most of the natural sciences or we have another individual with delusions of grandeur.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2005 : 06:59:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite... there's nothing to say that the smallest number of chromasomes necessary to reproduce a life-like structure couldn't then rapidly mutate, or evolve into whatever "base starting point" you choose.
That's a thing I'm not sure of, exactly how much programming and machinery must be there at the start. I mean, compared to a mature human, a human embryo might be seen to not have as much "information" content, but obviously it has to have a critical amount, the 'core' programming which may unfold out to other programs in time which taken as a whole 'seem' to have more information content than the original embrionic cell.
Similarly I see the distinct possibility that the first cell had 'seemingly' less information as the human embryo cell, but how much less I'm not sure. I sometimes think that the genius of the original programming transcends our ability to mental conjure, but at least we can try.
quote:
How does a prion fit into this, out of curiosity? It's alive, right? Or is it a "toxin" of sorts which science over-generally defines as "alive"?
To me a prion is no more alive than a virus or a jumping gene. That is, not alive. However, like viruses, prionic proteins would have been planned for, and each I believe plays a critical part in the evolutionary process. (Despite the fact that some have gone too far off course and become quite nasty.)
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2005 : 07:08:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
Viruses must be important, as they're the material cousins of the soul.
Hmmm, viruses invade, replicate and then split the scene essentially unchanged. The soul however originates from within and evolves to a considerable degree before the death of the body frees it.
A growing embryo within the mother would be more akin to the growing soul than is a virus. A virus may be more descriptive of the pure divine spirit which invades the human being early in life.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2005 : 07:10:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
I think the evidence will be found to favour my evolutionary model, but exactly how remains to be worked out.
My, my we are either the witness to one of the greatest minds of our time blessing us with a theory that will revolutionize most of the natural sciences or we have another individual with delusions of grandeur.
Hehe, rather I'm just another dummy who thinks he happens to be right. Not that I need to be, however. ;)
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2005 : 07:53:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks There is indeed no guarantee of correctness. There is, however, a guarantee that it might NOT be correct. I.e. it's the old issue of falsifiability. How would you falsify your proposition that everything has been preprogrammed?
Well if it were somehow established beyond doubt that the first living cells had hardly any genetic material, that would pretty much falsify my proposition. But as we know finding conclusive evidence of that nature is unlikely. There are no doubt other ways of investigation which might show that my proposal is unlikely, but that would be more involved and require much more thought.
Given your premise for falsification, would you agree that "halfway there" would also constitute a falsification?
I mean, if we trace man's (or an other animal's) phylogenic tree backward, and see that the earlier forms had significantly smaller genome? Would that be sufficient for falsification? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2005 : 10:54:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse Given your premise for falsification, would you agree that "halfway there" would also constitute a falsification?
I mean, if we trace man's (or an other animal's) phylogenic tree backward, and see that the earlier forms had significantly smaller genome? Would that be sufficient for falsification?
Imo, a first-life genome which is half the size of the current human genome is not implausible and would not come close to falsification. I imagine that if snapshots were taken of the various stages of organism leading from first cell directly up to the human, the genome size would vary up and down, up and down. Besides, the vast majority of our DNA does not even code for genes, and we have little idea what that 'junk' DNA is for. In other words, the mere size of the genome, even the number of genes themselves, may not mean that much, at least after a critical minimum. What that critical minimum is, however, I am unsure of. But it would be much bigger than say a bacteria's genome.
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2005 : 13:16:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Hehe, rather I'm just another dummy who thinks he happens to be right. Not that I need to be, however. ;)
Actually you're obviously real smart, and you're right about a lot... you're probably "at least partly" right about BlackLight Power, for example. But this one seems to be your personally-preferential "little twist" on evolution, as DaveW suggested with that big equation. I think DaveW forgot to include the Sales Tax in it, but aside from that, at least the equation's testable. The problem is that your theory appears neither remotely verifiable nor falsifiable to this point in the thread, even though it might be right... but if you mention a werewolf, I need a little of those things before I buy holy water and silver bullets. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2005 : 13:52:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Hehe, rather I'm just another dummy who thinks he happens to be right. Not that I need to be, however.
What I don't get, markie, is why you trust yourself so completely. You seem unable to hold a shred of doubt concerning the truth of your own convictions despite being unable to support them again and again. The question isn't so much why should we believe you, but why do you even believe you?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
