Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Flax: More Falsifications of Evolution and the Real Warfare Thesis

The headline says it all: “Environs Prompt Advantageous Gene Mutations as Plants Grow; Changes Passed to Progeny.” It could also have read: “Lamarck Was Correct, Evolution is False.” Of course this is not new news. For the umpteenth time we hear about the inheritance of acquired characteristics—the catch phrase most often associated with the pre Darwin naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck—which evolutionists desperately opposed for so many years until it could no longer be suppressed so now they say it was their idea all along. Yes there is indeed a battle against science, it’s just not the one evolutionists want you to believe.

For years scientists have observed that organisms intelligently respond to environmental threats and challenges. The usual examples, such as altitude acclimatization, are biological adjustments not observed to be passed on to offspring. But there are also plenty of examples that are passed on to the next generation. It is yet another falsification of a fundamental tenet of evolutionary theory which, in this case, holds that biological change is random with respect to need and helpful changes persist only via natural selection.

The latest paper deals with flax plants which, when grown under stressful conditions, modify their genome. The genomic changes help the plant to thrive under the new conditions, and the changes are passed on to the progeny.

The flax plant’s genomic changes are not just a lucky strike—the same precise additions, in the same precise location, occur when the experiment is repeated. For the changes are “the result of a targeted, highly specific, complex insertion event.” Sounds just like evolution doesn’t it.

Remember evolution is that clever idea that everything happened for no particular reason. Biology, and everything else for that matter, is a fluke. All biological variation arose from random events such as mutations. Yes all biological variation. With evolution there are no intelligent biological variations—no design, no teleology, no final causes. Just random events. Somehow this world arose on its own. Everything around us just happened to happen. As one paper explained:

Mutation is the central player in the Darwinian theory of evolution – it is the ultimate source of heritable variation, providing the necessary raw material for natural selection. In general, mutation is assumed to create heritable variation that is random and undirected.

What would we do without evolutionists?

Targeted, highly specific, complex insertion events that directly and instantly respond to environmental shifts is not exactly what today’s Epicureans had in mind. But that is not all. For the flax plant’s thousands of new DNA nucleotides are just that, new. At the very least evolutionists needed the DNA additions merely to be rearrangements of existing segments. That would still leave much unexplained, but as it is biology does not even leave evolution with that consolation. The plant creates a new DNA segment, as needed. As one evolutionist admitted:

the evidence for some kind of massive programmed rearrangement upon environmental induction in flax is unequivocal. Inheritance of acquired changes has been an anathema to evolutionary biologists ever since Darwin’s time, but that is because claims of Larmarckian inheritance were never accompanied by plausible mechanisms. However, in the case of flax at least, we may not be far from meeting this requirement.

Plausible mechanisms? You’ve got to be kidding. It is always humorous to hear evolutionists insist on “plausible mechanisms.” Trust me, the lack of mechanism is not why evolutionists vehemently oppose Larmarckian inheritance. If they required plausible mechanisms then by definition they wouldn’t be evolutionists.

Swift and precise adaptation to environmental shifts, such as observed in flax, is not evolution. Instead of evolution’s long, slow arduous process of random mutations that eventually, somehow against all odds, happen to find a helpful change, what biology reveals is instantaneous adjustment. Like shifting gears when you encounter a hill, biology adjusts designs in real-time. You can read more examples of such epigenetic change here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

As is typical evolutionists have resisted the science. As one report explains, due to the controversy surrounding the flax plant adaptability findings, “many scientists are hesitant to accept them as true.” Hesitant to accept scientific findings?

According to a paper, “The role of the environment in generating adaptive mutations is still a contentious subject.” For as one evolutionist admitted, “The really heretical thing to say is that the environment could be pushing the epigenetic information in a direction that is beneficial … that raises the hackles.” Evolutionists are at war with science.

The real Warfare Thesis

Ironically, while evolutionists have constructed a Warfare Thesis (which historians have explained is contrived) in an attempt to enlist the history of religion and science, these evolutionists actively engage in their own religious war against science. Once again, evolution is, if anything, hypocritical.

Darwin’s religiously-motivated theory was scientifically unlikely when he first proposed it, and since then it has become even worse. Evolution has repeatedly been contradicted by science. This has left evolutionists battling science every step of the way. Scientific results cause controversy and “raise the hackles,” because they refute the evolutionist’s religious mandates. And so evolutionist’s make a mockery of science as they invert findings to support their ridiculous dogma. Religion drives science, and it matters.

65 comments:

  1. Brilliant.

    In before the torrent of red herrings.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Where would we be without CH bringing the truth to us?

    .

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shocking new discovery!

    Durrant, Induction, Reversion and Epitrophism of Flax Genotrophs, Nature 1962.

    Evans et al., Associated Nuclear Changes in the Induction of Flax Genotrophs, Nature 1966.

    Cullis, Molecular aspects of the environmental induction of heritable changes in flax, Nature 1975.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hunter:

    Swift and precise adaptation to environmental shifts, such as observed in flax, is not evolution.

    That is correct.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Peter said...

    Where would we be without CH bringing the IDC clown circus to us?


    Fixed it for you Peter.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Zachriel said...

    Shocking new discovery!

    Durrant, Induction, Reversion and Epitrophism of Flax Genotrophs, Nature 1962.

    Evans et al., Associated Nuclear Changes in the Induction of Flax Genotrophs, Nature 1966.

    Cullis, Molecular aspects of the environmental induction of heritable changes in flax, Nature 1975.


    It is new to the Creationists. You have to remember that they don't do any actual research themselves, just sift through existing (and often outdated) literature looking for snippets to quote-mine. Sometimes they get a little behind in their reading.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is such a distortion of the truth that I have to conclude Cornelius is well aware of the deception he is perpetrating. But for the benefit of those poor souls who might stumble across this post and in their ignorance assume that Cornelius’ posts ISN’T complete dross…

    Lamarck was a biologist who drew up his own theory of how evolution happens (his theory actually pre-dates Darwin’s by decades). As such he was indeed an ‘evolutionist’ though he proposed that organisms pass on characteristics that it had acquired or developed throughout their life. This came to stand in direct opposition to Darwin’s ideas of natural selection.

    Eventually it was discovered that in embryos, the cells that go on to create sperm and egg split off from the others. They form their own lineage. Your body can develop features (eg., hit the gym and build your muscles) but it will not be passed on through your sperm or eggs. This dramatically vindicated Darwin and dealt a fatal blow to Lamarckism, which was, soon after, considered a discredited theory.

    However, there are rare oddies, such as the ones mentioned in the OP and by Zachriel. There are a couple of cases who do seem to provide prima facie support for Lamarckism after all. Does this mean Darwinism was wrong? No. The existence of a few freak cases does not overturn the original observation that sperm and egg form their own lineage.

    “…now [Evolutionists] say [the inheritance of acquired characteristics] was their idea all along.”

    From the context it sounds like you mean ‘evolutionists’ to mean ‘Darwinists’ (as you often do). In which case this is a flat-out lie. The inheritance of acquired characteristics is not a Darwinian idea. It is a Lamarckian one and no-one is claiming otherwise.

    Of course, you could actually be using the word ‘evolutionists’ to refer to anyone who accepts evolution. In which case you would be correct. Lamarck WAS an evolutionist. He just had his own theory of how evolution worked…

    This post is just YET ANOTHER example of Cornelius’ favourite tactic – to find new discoveries and declare that because ToE has not predicted them, they contradict or even falsify it. It is a cowardly tactic from someone who knows their personal cherished beliefs are totally insufficient, and so they spend their time trying desperately to throw anything their can find to hand against the status quo – the theory that utterly puts their own to shame.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Flax plants modify their genome to adapt to their environment.

    Another illustration of the elegant and efficient designs in living organisms.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's becoming harder to deny. Let's hope that this paper isn't cast aside like the previous ones. Well done.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tedford the idiot said...

    Flax plants modify their genome to adapt to their environment.

    Another illustration of the elegant and efficient designs in living organisms.


    Where 'design' means formed and shaped by interactive, adaptive natural processes. Just like the Colorado river designed all the intricacies of the Grand Canyon, evolution designed living forms that have the ability to adapt and respond to their environment.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ritchie: "As such he was indeed an ‘evolutionist’ though he proposed that organisms pass on characteristics that it had acquired or developed throughout their life."

    So he was an ‘evolutionist’ but not an evolutionist; and we find that both Cornelius and yourself are completely correct in your statements. You're far better than the strained rebuttal you put forth.

    "The existence of a few freak cases does not overturn the original observation that sperm and egg form their own lineage."

    Phlogistons and Magnesium. Just a reminder of our previous discussion that it only takes one counterexample to throw a theory down the well.

    "This post is just YET ANOTHER example of Cornelius’ favourite tactic ..."

    And that may indeed be the case, I'm too fresh here to say. Of course it could be a great deal of misunderstanding generated by the ever slippery term ‘evolution’ which seems to be used by all sides as a general catch-all for Atheism rather than any particular reference to a given bit of scientific navel-gazing. It's as common as it is unconscienable.

    Now I'm not boned up on the particular topic in the OP, but if this is simply a splice from elsewhere done deterministically than I disagree with the notion that this is any problem or refutation beyond the general epigenetics issue.

    However if this is a rapid mutator, much like the immune system, then this starts raising the head of saltation. And good for it as such mechanisms are needed if you want to make a credible argument at the systems level. Which again should remind of our last discussion. However, if that's the case, then the required universal nature of gradualism is out. It only remains then whether we're honest about that or whether we take the line: "Gradualism is dead. Long live Gradualism!"

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jquip said...

    Of course it could be a great deal of misunderstanding generated by the ever slippery term ‘evolution’ which seems to be used by all sides as a general catch-all for Atheism rather than any particular reference to a given bit of scientific navel-gazing.


    "evolution is a term used by all sides to mean atheism"

    Another deliberate falsehood by you, but I'm sure you're just doing it as a 'bog standard' rhetorical device, right?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jquip -

    "So he was an ‘evolutionist’ but not an evolutionist; and we find that both Cornelius and yourself are completely correct in your statements. You're far better than the strained rebuttal you put forth."
    AND
    "Of course it could be a great deal of misunderstanding generated by the ever slippery term ‘evolution’ which seems to be used by all sides as a general catch-all for Atheism rather than any particular reference to a given bit of scientific navel-gazing."

    That is precisely the problem.

    Evolution, as a word, simply means progressive change. One can study, for example, the evolution of Ford cars.

    As a biological term it refers to the change in inherited traits of biological organisms.

    One may then wonder HOW biological evolution occurs. By what mechanisms does this change come about? There have been several theories, including Lamarckism, mutationism and Evolution via Natural Selection - or 'Darwinism'.

    Over time the other theories have been all but discredited and it is Evolution via Natural Selection which has stood the test of time of 150 years of accumulated data. As such, 'evolution' is now practically shorthand for 'the theory of evolution via natural selection'.

    In scientific circles there is rarely confusion. The differences are understood, and in any case, 'Darwinists' or 'evolutionists' rarely identify themselves as such. They just call themselves 'biologists'. Confusion generally occurs when you add in people who are determined to discredit the theory because it contradicts their pet preconceptions without actually understanding it thoroughly. Cornelius Hunter, though doubtless familiar with ToE, always views it through an incredibly distorted slant. Like always studying something while looking through coloured glasses.

    "it only takes one counterexample to throw a theory down the well."

    Potentially true. But that counterexample must demonstrate that your theory is untenable. That is not the case here. Does a helium balloon disprove the theory of gravity?

    A good scientific theory generates more and more research. There's always more to discover. And every so often you find a piece of data which is surprising, unexpected, unpredicted. Does this mean your theory was wrong? Not if you can account for it. Which you wouldn't have done in advance before you knew such anomalous data existed. Scientific theories are always being tweaked and refined according to new data. That is the strength of science. ToE is no different. But Cornelius routinely uses these new discoveries as evidence that ToE is 'flawed, riddled with holes and falsified'.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thorton: "Another deliberate falsehood by you, but I'm sure you're just doing it as a 'bog standard' rhetorical device, right?"

    Hypotheticals are bog standard rhetorical devices. If you wish to claim they are also deliberate falsehoods? Knock yourself out, Kid.

    Ritchie: "As such, 'evolution' is now practically shorthand for 'the theory of evolution via natural selection'."

    And so used in a loose sense or amongst the lay, or on a blog we're all still perfectly aware of what was meant. Yet you hit the rafters with a strained semantic quibble. This is beneath you.

    Forgive me for sounding a bit like a scold. We do need to introduce more precision into these discussions and your objection would be entirely apropos, and perhaps too gentle, if we were discussing a formal paper. For example, if we've a theory that posits universal gradualism and another that does not, say Punc Equib, then they may both be false. However, no more than one of them can possibly be correct. Just putting a blanket 'Darwinian' or 'TENS' over things in a formal paper may be proper but there needs to exist justification for doing so.

    "Does a helium balloon disprove the theory of gravity?"

    If we say that the given theory generates the hypothesis that the balloon would fall? Absolutely. Rise and fall? Then the theory is entirely nonsensical. Rise or fall? Then the theory is being applied somewhere it has no merit. To predict everything is to predict nothing at all.

    "Not if you can account for it."

    No. If your theory could have accounted for it then it would have made a prediction, a hypothesis, in advance. If you're doing things as you ought then the predicted outcome was a requirement of the model and so changing things requires changing the axioms that led to the given failure. Once those are changed you have a different theory. There's a pretty good reason we call it the Copernican model after keeping epicycles and simply "accounting" for a different point of reference. What you're trying to sell is that we should still be calling what we know, today, the 'Ptolemaic' model of the solar system.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thornton,

    Just like the Colorado river designed all the intricacies of the Grand Canyon, evolution designed living forms that have the ability to adapt and respond to their environment.

    You make me laugh. I'm not just writing that, I'm actually laughing. Okay, I'm done laughing, now I'm just smiling.

    Intricacies? You take a symbolic language that describes three-dimensionally folding proteins assembled by specialized machines into self-repairing, self-replicating machines nested within larger self-replicating machines, and you compare all of it to a riverbed carved out by water?

    This really is all over your head, isn't it? You just want someone to pick on for your amusement, and this is a convenient bandwagon for you to jump on. It's a chance for you to feel smart.

    That's okay. I'm just here for my amusement. Thank you for contributing.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jquip said...

    Thorton: "Another deliberate falsehood by you, but I'm sure you're just doing it as a 'bog standard' rhetorical device, right?"

    Hypotheticals are bog standard rhetorical devices.


    Except you didn't present it as a hypothetical. You presented it as a statement of fact.

    Do you own the strawman concession in your neighborhood? In the time you've been posting I've yet to see you supply an accurate, honest representation of the position of any pro-science person here. Most people consider that sort of twisting/misrepresentation you consistently do to be lying. Maybe you have some other name for it to help hide the stench.

    ReplyDelete
  18. badwiring said...

    Intricacies? You take a symbolic language that describes three-dimensionally folding proteins assembled by specialized machines into self-repairing, self-replicating machines nested within larger self-replicating machines, and you compare all of it to a riverbed carved out by water?


    DNA isn't a symbolic language.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I must admit that I find the claim that mutations are random with respect to fitness to be a bit dubious. For example, we know that the environment can set off regulatory cascades in organisms. Mobile genetic elements, which can have fairly precise insertion sites, could very well be actived in such cascades. These could then, for example, act to increase of decrease gene expression at sites near it's insertion. These insertions could very well be heritable.

    Cornelius:

    Swift and precise adaptation to environmental shifts, such as observed in flax, is not evolution.

    Then what is it? If it's still due to "natural" changes, then it is still evolution.

    Instead of evolution’s long, slow arduous process of random mutations that eventually, somehow against all odds, happen to find a helpful change, what biology reveals is instantaneous adjustment.

    We have known for quite some time that simple mutations with minor (and sometimes major) phenotypic effects happen, so this is a complete non sequitur.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thorton: "Except you didn't present it as a hypothetical. You presented it as a statement of fact."

    I could just go for the cheap shot and state that, as you seem to be a True Believer™ in evolution, that it's perfectly obvious why "Or it could be..." and "it seems like..." would be interpreted by yourself as factual claims. But I'm far more curious as to what form of statement you would consider a hypothetical.

    Hawks: "I must admit that I find the claim that mutations are random with respect to fitness to be a bit dubious."

    I can't imagine why this would be curious at all. What you're talking about is initiating cascades on the basis of the environment. Even if we talk about stressor induced increases in mutation rates it's still the same. If it's a mutation its direction is random even if there exists a mechanism -- no matter how derived -- to alter the stability of a segment or the whole of the given genome in question.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jquip,

    Even if we talk about stressor induced increases in mutation rates it's still the same. If it's a mutation its direction is random even if there exists a mechanism -- no matter how derived -- to alter the stability of a segment or the whole of the given genome in question.

    You're going to have to run that by me again. A particular environmental stimulus that sets of a highly predictable cascade resulting in a highly predictable mutation is completely random?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jquip said...

    Thorton: "Except you didn't present it as a hypothetical. You presented it as a statement of fact."

    I could just go for the cheap shot and state that, as you seem to be a True Believer™ in evolution, that it's perfectly obvious why "Or it could be..." and "it seems like..." would be interpreted by yourself as factual claims. But I'm far more curious as to what form of statement you would consider a hypothetical.


    It seem like Jquip is an armchair philosopher clown just out for a troll.

    It seems like Jquip was caught molesting his neighbor's dachshund.

    It seems like Jquip was caught stealing money from his workplace.

    You'd have no problems with any of those claims being posted on the discussion boards you visit, right? After all, according to you they're only 'hypotheticals'.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hawks: "You're going to have to run that by me again. A particular environmental stimulus that sets of a highly predictable cascade resulting in a highly predictable mutation is completely random?"

    Now I'm confused... I mean that if it is a regular mechanism, cascade, expression, etc. then it is not a mutation of a mechanism; it *is* the mechanism. If that mechanism kicks of mobile elements that get themselves off everywhere at random locations then yes, I think it's correct to call the alterations mutations.

    Thorton: "You'd have no problems with any of those claims being posted on the discussion boards you visit, right?"

    Only the one with the dachsund as that is always improper. The correct claim there is "XYZ. Also, my opponent copulates with goats." But never dachsunds.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Jquip said...

    Only the one with the dachsund as that is always improper.


    We weren't discussing proper or improper. We were discussing 'hypothetical', remember?

    Do you have ADD? You do seem to have trouble following a conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thorton: "Do you have ADD? You do seem to have trouble following a conversation."

    According to you "it seems like..." is a statement of fact. And no opponent ever gets jiggy with dachsunds so that is never a proper factual claim.

    Do you have ADD? You do seem to have trouble following a conversation.

    ... Is what some fellow might say about your obvious confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Jquip said...

    Thorton: "Do you have ADD? You do seem to have trouble following a conversation."

    According to you "it seems like..." is a statement of fact. And no opponent ever gets jiggy with dachsunds so that is never a proper factual claim.


    It seems like you do. It seems like you like molesting any small furry animal unlucky enough to cross your path. Just like it seems you practice coprophagia, based on verified reports.

    All 'hypotheticals' mind you.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thorton: "It seems like you like molesting any small furry animal unlucky enough to cross your path."

    I see you've met my ex-wife.

    "Just like it seems you practice coprophagia, based on verified reports."

    It seems I'm half-German, yes. But as I'm adopted the reports are far from verified.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Jquip,

    Now I'm confused... I mean that if it is a regular mechanism, cascade, expression, etc. then it is not a mutation of a mechanism; it *is* the mechanism. If that mechanism kicks of mobile elements that get themselves off everywhere at random locations then yes, I think it's correct to call the alterations mutations.

    Eh?

    ReplyDelete
  29. HaeksL "Eh?"

    "That's what ehe said."

    No more wine; I'm going to bed,

    ReplyDelete
  30. Jquip:

    "Thorton: "It seems like you like molesting any small furry animal unlucky enough to cross your path."
    ---

    I see you've met my ex-wife.

    Thorton: "Just like it seems you practice coprophagia, based on verified reports."
    ---

    It seems I'm half-German, yes. But as I'm adopted the reports are far from verified.
    ===

    Below is an interesting bit of advice even if the majority of the book's content isn't prescribed to.

    Proverbs 26:4-5

    The Message (MSG)

    4 "Don't respond to the stupidity of a fool;
    you'll only look foolish yourself."

    5 "Answer a fool in simple terms
    so he doesn't get a swelled head."
    ===

    On another note, the degenerative sockpuppet[and she has many] you are sparing with is a sort of bizarre anomaly. Many have speculated that she is a failed US government genetics experiment for fighting global terrorism gone terribly wrong. It's speculated that DNA samples from Penn Jillette and Rosie O'Donnel were combined in a petri dish, then during early fetal development some rogue Bisphenol-A , Nonylphenol and Perchlorate molecules were added to the ever growing ooze to molest the entity to becomming a superweapon against terroism. Instead what developed escaped the lab and has unleashed it's resentment and fury on the innocent among humankind.

    It's claim to superior intellect is proven false as by the fact it was found to be employed by the local J.C. as a mop pushing Janitor running graveyard shift and occasionally rifling thru the rubbish bin of some biology philosopher for any tidbits of dogma which satisfied it's murderous hatred of those deemed responsible for it's failed creation.

    Either that or judging from the massive amounts of wasted time it spends posting on all combat forums, it's clear that it lives of numerous government entitlement programs, in which case it is indeed getting back at the government and Mr & Mrs John Q-Taxpayer as a sort of perverted revenge. The even sicker thing is the 2 dozen or so flunky Thorton Wannabes who tag along behind it's behind.

    ReplyDelete
  31. DNA isn't a symbolic language.
    Nice attempt to deflect notice from having just compared the complexity of life to rock. That's still hanging out there.
    Now you're going to tell us that DNA does not use a series of molecules to abstractly describe proteins. What do you think is in DNA, literal pictures of proteins?
    When Darwin formulated his theory we didn't know very much about cells or anything at all about DNA. The idea gained traction because of the ignorance of the time. And now, to support it, you must continue ignoring everything we've learned about life since 1859. Cells are just blobs and living things can be shaped like water erodes rocks. If you can't catch up to the 21st century, at least shoot for the 20th.

    ReplyDelete
  32. badwiring said...

    T: DNA isn't a symbolic language.

    Nice attempt to deflect notice from having just compared the complexity of life to rock. That's still hanging out there.
    Now you're going to tell us that DNA does not use a series of molecules to abstractly describe proteins. What do you think is in DNA, literal pictures of proteins?


    It's the front end of a very complicated self-sustaining chemical reaction, the end result of which is a protein. There is zero abstraction involved in the process at any level, NONE.

    Are sodium and chlorine atoms 'abstract' representations because they combine to form table salt?

    If you can't catch up to the 21st century, at least shoot for the 20th.

    So, are you offering to tutor me in science?

    Maybe you could start by giving me the ID explanation for the physical and temporal distribution of the fossil record.

    Then give me the ID explanation for shared common vestigial features across different species, and the appearance of atavisms.

    I'm all ears, start explaining.

    ReplyDelete
  33. jquip -

    "Forgive me for sounding a bit like a scold. We do need to introduce more precision into these discussions and your objection would be entirely apropos, and perhaps too gentle, if we were discussing a formal paper."

    We are on the blogsite of a man who regularly confuses his terms. 'Evolutionist', 'Darwinist', 'Atheist' and 'biologist' are used relatively interchangably here, and many confusions arise because Cornelius does not use them carefully. In day to day life yes people do say one but mean another, and as long as we all what what we mean then it's harmless enough. But to straighten out Cornelius' corkscrew logic we really need to be clear.

    "If your theory could have accounted for it then it would have made a prediction, a hypothesis, in advance."

    Not so. Science is constantly throwing up new data - surprising data, data we might not have predicted. This does not invalidate our current theories.

    For example, the heliocentric theory was in vogue when Neptune was discovered. It's orbit was charted - but it was discovered that it did not have the orbit the heliocentric theory would predict. It wobbled at a certain point in its orbit.

    This was a surprising discovery - one that was not predicted by the heliocentric theory. Shoud we have thrown it out immediately?

    We did not. We investigated and discovered Pluto, whose gravitational pull accounted for the 'wobble' in Neptune's orbit.

    The bottom line is that surprising, unpredicted data are discovered all the time. We do not abandon scientific theories for failing to predict them. We test to see if our theories can accommodate them, and ammend our theories to include the new discoveries. That is how science grows - it responds to new information.

    A single fact may indeed bring the best of theories crashing down. But that single fact has to invalidate the entire theory. That fact has to make the theory impossible. We have to be unable to account for the fact, no matter what 'tweaks' we make to the theory.

    Not that Cornelius accepts this, of course. He takes every new discovery as indisputable proof that ToE is WRONG. Which is just silly.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It's the front end of a very complicated self-sustaining chemical reaction, the end result of which is a protein. There is zero abstraction involved in the process at any level, NONE.

    DNA contains molecules which represent the proteins that are created. The genes for various proteins do not resemble the proteins themselves, just as the word "cat" does not resemble an actual cat. That's what abstraction is.
    You lack even the most fundamental grasp needed for me to continue communicating with you. Your constant presence and rapid, thoughtless responses suggest that you inhabit forums merely for the conflict. Your lack of understanding will never inhibit you. You think you're on solid footing because you think you're agreeing with the right people.
    I only bother to point this out for the benefit of onlookers who are invited to see through you.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Eocene: "Proverbs 26:4-5"

    Also those bits regarding wine and choice of humor. But then I do claim I am a fool also. Thanks, mate; and good morning.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ritchie: "But to straighten out Cornelius' corkscrew logic we really need to be clear."

    And if that is indeed the case then I'll hit the rafters with you. If not then I'll stand by my statements.

    "Shoud we have thrown it out immediately?"

    Yes, quite. I take your example of 'did not predict' as meaning that the theory was silent on the matter. There are two possibilities here: 1. Our set of axioms are incomplete. 2. One or more of the axioms are wrong.

    In the second case it wasn't predicted because we couldn't get there from here. To keep this as short as possible: this is the point Cornelius was on about in regards to Descartes with the Venn diagrams a few days back. That should cover that, I hope.

    It's the other case that's interesting. Conceptually, if we only need add an axiom to account for things then the old theory is completely entailed by the new one. And here, in doing further work, only those bits of research that rely on the new axiom should be put under the name of the new theory. All research that does not ought aim for Occam's parsimony and go under the name of the old theory. That's simply a point of being responsible and engaging things as they ought be. But at no time should we be under the misimpression that the old theory was correct either.

    And there I got ahead of myself. Back to the Venn diagrams. If we're going commando with hypothesis non fingo then we're in Bacon's universe. All notions of theories that derive from that process are sketched out by 'some' or 'what we have measured so far.' This is a very dry and conservative approach to things -- most folks prefer 'sterile', Kuhn and Popper also I believe -- but this cannot be thrown down the well for not speaking to something it never had a pretense to speak about.

    That's really not the issue however as we wouldn't have a theory in the proper sense of things. Just pure modelling. Theories proper are universal claims over their domain. Explicitly or implicitly they cart about the baggage claim of "For all [whatever]..." It is precisely this universality within the domain that admits us to make predictions with them; no matter whether or not the predictions hold.

    Now go back up to the point where we conceptually added a single axiom to get our new theory. Is it possible for the one to completely entail the other if they speak to the same domain and both claim that they are universal over that domain? Everything follows from there. And relying on the Venn diagrams as shorthand didn't end up making it short. ::sigh::

    "We do not abandon scientific theories for failing to predict them."

    Yes, when the new data is outside the domain the theory speaks to.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thorton:"It's the front end of a very complicated self-sustaining chemical reaction, the end result of which is a protein. There is zero abstraction involved in the process at any level, NONE. "

    If it were, the proteins would be ramdom or all the same according with the relative concentration of the reactants. Instead is protein is an ordered sequence. This is an abstract concept, there is no ramdom chemical reaction that makes ordered sequence and never the final products are independant of the concentration of the reactants.

    ReplyDelete
  38. badwiring said...

    It's the front end of a very complicated self-sustaining chemical reaction, the end result of which is a protein. There is zero abstraction involved in the process at any level, NONE.

    DNA contains molecules which represent the proteins that are created. The genes for various proteins do not resemble the proteins themselves, just as the word "cat" does not resemble an actual cat. That's what abstraction is.


    My word but you're a dense one! DNA molecules don't represent proteins. DNA molecules are a physical part of the protein producing reaction. Just like the water in an ice cube tray doesn't abstractly 'represent' an ice cube, it's the physical material that becomes an ice cube.

    Your 'CAT' analogy is just plain stupid. In abstract coded communication the sender and receiver have to agree on a common encoding / decoding scheme. The encoded mental construct of a cat is transferred to a physical media by the choice of arbitrarily chosen symbols. It doesn't have to be CAT. It could be GATO or &&&& as long as the sender and receive agree. Once the physical transfer of the symbols takes place, the receiver using the agreed upon scheme decodes the arbitrary symbols back into a mental construct.

    NONE of that happens in the DNA--> protein reaction. There is no mental construct to physical encoding. There are no arbitrary symbols. There is no physical to mental abstract decoding at the receiving end. There is no abstraction ANYWHERE in the entire process.

    Sorry if you don't understand either communications theory or biology, but your ignorance won't make your ID claims magically be true.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Blas said...

    Thorton:"It's the front end of a very complicated self-sustaining chemical reaction, the end result of which is a protein. There is zero abstraction involved in the process at any level, NONE. "

    If it were, the proteins would be ramdom or all the same according with the relative concentration of the reactants.


    Blas, why did you lie about what your university taught about evolution? Do you think you make Jesus happy when you lie?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Jquip:

    No. If your theory could have accounted for it then it would have made a prediction, a hypothesis, in advance. If you're doing things as you ought then the predicted outcome was a requirement of the model and so changing things requires changing the axioms that led to the given failure. Once those are changed you have a different theory.
    ...
    Yes, quite. I take your example of 'did not predict' as meaning that the theory was silent on the matter. There are two possibilities here: 1. Our set of axioms are incomplete. 2. One or more of the axioms are wrong.



    What are these axioms you are talking about? In real life, based on a set of assumptions, a theory would make some sort of probabilistic prediction. The assumptions used for the prediction are not axioms, but need to be well-supported hypotheses (that might also use other assumptions to make it's predictions) or simple observations (if there is such a thing as an observation that is not theory-laden). The important thing to realise is that theories use these assumptions when making predictions. So, why would a theory be wrong just because an assumption used when making a prediction turns out to be wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hawks: "In real life, based on a set of assumptions, ..."

    Largely, axioms are assumptions and it's not out of line to consider them synonymous. We can test those directly or the necessary consequences that follow from a set of them.

    "So, why would a theory be wrong just because an assumption used when making a prediction turns out to be wrong?"

    Because all scientific theories are defined by the assumptions they make. It's set of axioms. If any axiom is wrong then the theory is. If any necessary consequence of those axioms is wrong then one of the axioms must be.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Jquip:

    "Also those bits regarding wine and choice of humor. But then I do claim I am a fool also. Thanks, mate; and good morning."
    ===

    Hey nothing wrong with wine, beer, spirits, or humor. It's the excesses of any or combination taken to an extreme which cause for stumbling. Other than that enjoy them in moderation and be safe! *wink*

    ReplyDelete
  43. Thorton:" There are no arbitrary symbols."

    Can´t you understand that the relation between each codon and the aminoacid is an arbitrary one?

    "There is no physical to mental abstract"

    So science proved the existance of non physical world?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Blas said...

    Thorton:" There are no arbitrary symbols."

    Can´t you understand that the relation between each codon and the aminoacid is an arbitrary one


    Go look up the definition of arbitrary, then tell us why you lied about what your university taught.

    "There is no physical to mental abstract"

    So science proved the existance of non physical world?


    Science proved you lied when you said your university taught you "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a law that proves ToE true.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Necessarily, "random change" acted on by the elusive "natural selection" predicts anything, therefore it predicts nothing. Yet, it can account for everything. It isn't science.

    ReplyDelete
  46. rpvicars: Necessarily, "random change" acted on by the elusive "natural selection" predicts anything, therefore it predicts nothing.

    I think there is a lot of confusion about random and predictability. I have an example: radioactive decay. You cannot predict the exact time of decay of a single atomic nucleus; you can only associate a probability to this event. This event is random, like the mutation. But if you ask me a prediction of the activity of a mass of radioactive material, I assure you that it can be very precise. So the presence of a random element is not synonym for unpredictability.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Cornelius,

    "Evolution" and "Evolutionist" are terms too vague for who and what you are trying to describe here. You are really singling out neo-Darwinians who deny teleology.

    The phenomenon described here is called "Transposition" and Barbara McClintock discovered it in the 1940's. She won a Nobel Prize for her discovery of Mobile Genetic Elements in 1983. None of this is new.

    Biologists who earn their living doing research generally know about this. Neo Darwinists and Creationists both seem to have not gotten the memo.

    I hold both the creationist camp and neo darwinist camp equally responsible for ignoring science on this issue. Creationists because they deny the possibility of common descent or anything beyond "micro" evolution; Darwinists because they are married to an anti-teleological view which turns out to be anti-scientific.

    The simple fact that organisms do this takes a wrecking ball to neo-Darwinism and it shows that organisms evolve teleologically.

    The best book to date on this subject just came out this month, it's called Evolution: A View from the 21st Century by James Shapiro. Shapiro has long championed a "third way" that is contrary to both Darwinism and traditional creationism. I just finished the book and it is excellent:

    http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-View-Century-James-Shapiro/dp/0132780933/ref=cm_rdp_product

    The worst thing that can happen to scientism and atheism is for people to find out how evolution really works. Real science does not support the materialistic, random-accident view of evolution. Evolution is an algorithmic process that is directed by the organism itself in response the the environment. And yes, there is a Lamarckian component to it.

    Many creationists' knee-jerk reaction to this will be to say "OK but this does not produce new species." Yes, actually it does. Shapiro's book documents this in detail.

    Real-world evolution is a wonder to behold and there's much to be learned about God's world by studying it.

    Sincerely,

    Perry Marshall

    ReplyDelete
  48. Jquip:

    Because all scientific theories are defined by the assumptions they make. It's set of axioms. If any axiom is wrong then the theory is. If any necessary consequence of those axioms is wrong then one of the axioms must be.

    As Duhem and Quine showed, hypotheses and theories are on their own incapaple of making predictions. Emprirical tests require the hypothesis to use one or more background assumptions. So, a scientific prediction take the form of: if hypothesis H and assumption A then observation O. Therefore, if an assmption turns out to be wrong, it does not follow that the hypothesis is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Hawks: "As Duhem and Quine showed, hypotheses and theories are on their own incapaple of making predictions."

    In a pure philosophical infinite regress to brains in jars, yes. (Duhem, anyways) I'm making presumptions to keep things as short as possible but I'm not stating anything differently than Duhem otherwise:

    "... what he learns is that at least one of the hypotheses constituting this group is unacceptable and ought to be modified; but the experiment does not designate which one should be changed." -- Duhem

    Duhem is talking in extraordinarily broad fashion while I'm assuming that the experimental setup, apparatus, and devices are no under question. Simply to avoid what the Tortoise said to Achilles. (Or vice versa, I can never keep that one straight.)

    Now Quine... Let's just say that Quine was more about why you should believe in his beliefs and not change that belief when those beliefs were invalidated. Also valid when we're talking about politics, basic social interactions, and getting along with the majority cultural philosophy/religion. But it's not quite the same thing as going about tossing false-theories down the well.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Germanicus:" So the presence of a random element is not synonym for unpredictability."

    The problem for evolutionist is the opposite, they say evolution, or better Natural Selection is not ramdom, but it is unpredictable. Do you have an example of unpredictble and non ramdom?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Thorton said...
    Blas said...

    Thorton:" There are no arbitrary symbols."

    Can´t you understand that the relation between each codon and the aminoacid is an arbitrary one

    Go look up the definition of arbitrary, then tell us why you lied about what your university taught.

    "There is no physical to mental abstract"

    So science proved the existance of non physical world?

    Science proved you lied when you said your university taught you "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a law that proves ToE true.

    Poor darwinist, they do not have any arguments other to blame others.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Blas: The problem for evolutionist is the opposite, they say evolution, or better Natural Selection is not ramdom, but it is unpredictable.

    I have understood that Natural Selection is the not random component. About the outcome of a process based on populations, it will be of stochastic nature, if this is the sense of “unpredictable” used here.

    Blas: Do you have an example of unpredictble and non ramdom?

    The first think is about Chaos Theory. Phenomena that are described with deterministic laws can produce chaotic systems (e.g. is "butterfly effect" in weather predictions) making prevision at long time impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Germanicus...I'm not sure I follow your atomic nuleus analogy. But I'm not saying random is synonymous with unpredictability. Any biological logical prediction will be correct sometime if your mechanism is naturally selected randomness. Also, for the same reason, when looking back, it can explain anything. It is extremely "powerful" because is doesn't really define anything.

    ReplyDelete
  54. In Chaos Theory the rule comes before the random, and the random isn't random it is dynamic--there are so many forces operating simultaneously that the outcome is unpredictable. But if we had a means of monitoring all the forces it would be predictable (and it is in a macro-sense). The difference with the Darwinian mechanism is that randomness is the rule.

    ReplyDelete
  55. rpvicars: "The difference with the Darwinian mechanism is that randomness is the rule."

    I don't want to step on any toes here as you two have a good thing going. But I'm going to do so anyways and then check back out.

    There's no necessary reason to state that evolutionary processes are random rather than unpredictable. If you take that olde tyme view that natural laws are deterministic then evolutionary processes are also deterministic. Just unpredictable; which only means that we're incapable of modelling them.

    If you take the random view of things then you must give up natural laws in favor of stochastic virtual particles. Which allows, perhaps, it to be modelled due predictability despite randomness. In so doing however you admit statistical outliers into the mix such that easing into the gas pedal might accelerate your car towards Mecca at 9 G's. Of course, if we knew why such distributions could occur then we'd know the reasons behind such outliers and no longer be stochastic.

    There are evolutionary theories that rely on each of those cases.

    ReplyDelete
  56. rpvicars: there are so many forces operating simultaneously that the outcome is unpredictable.

    The chaotic behavior in Chaos Theory is a characteristic of certain dynamic systems and is not caused by the number of forces or how accurate we know them. Also assuming a very accurate description of the forces acting on these systems, minimal differences in the starting conditions will produce very different outcomes. Please read in Wikipedia "Chaos Theory" to a better understanding of it.
    My answer was to Blas, if I was aware of not random systems that could give unpredictable results.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Germanicus ... you are right. Sorry for the chaff, I misread the question you were answering so I believed you were implying there is randomness in Chaos Theory. I guess you could say I agreeing awkwardly.

    Jquip ... thanks for the info.

    Yet in either case (random or unpredictable) my original thought remains... The Darwinian mechanism can predict anything, and explain everything, except its own details (the rules that it operates by are elusive--or unpredictable, or random). That is why the Flax adaptation is such a big deal--it removes the elusiveness of the cause of genetic mutation and makes "natural selection" the control mechanism. This has some pretty big implications...

    ReplyDelete
  58. It should no longer astonish me that atheists and evolutionists cannot differentiate between "disagreement" and "deception". Those of us who reject evolutionism on rational, scientific and theological grounds are portrayed as willingly deceptive and outright liars.

    Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps it is because the attackers are unwilling or unable to break with their own religious faith in evolutionism to honestly examine the evidence presented. I cannot count the unsubstantiated LIES that are told about Creationists and ID proponents. When someone says the ludicrous, "You have to remember that they don't do any actual research themselves, just sift through existing (and often outdated) literature looking for snippets to quote-mine. Sometimes they get a little behind in their reading", I can tell that he or she is only thinking what Dawkins et al says to think, because this kind of dishonest, outrageous statement is based on emotion, not fact.

    Before mouthing off against ID and Creationism, how about actually investigating the claims? And I don't mean reading one or two old books, either, or the enthusiastic but inept sites parroting outdated material and proclaiming those exceptions as the rule. No, if you're interested in true scientific attitudes, check out the real material. And follow where the evidence leads.

    ReplyDelete
  59. rpvicars: Yet in either case (random or unpredictable) my original thought remains...

    It is very difficult to follow your argumentation as the use of the terms (unpredictability, random, etc.) is not precise. You claim that they are not synonym, however you still use it in an interchangeable way. Nevertheless, coming to your main claim:

    rpvicars: Necessarily, "random change" acted on by the elusive "natural selection" predicts anything, therefore it predicts nothing. Yet, it can account for everything. It isn't science.

    It is not clear for me how the presence in the theory of stochastic elements (this seems to me your main point to justify your claim) is tied to the presumed impossibility of the theory to make specific previsions. My point was simple that like in many other fields of science it is not uncommon to include stochastic (random) elements. What is in your opinion the main reason why this is not an allowed methodology in evolution (I assume that you use “Darwinism” as synonym of evolutionary theory in modern meaning).

    ReplyDelete
  60. Germanicus...I use "Darwinism" to avoid the symantical baggage in use of the word "evolution" (as evident above). Also, I'm not saying it isn't allowed in evolution, rather in the Darwinian mechanism, whether random or unpredictable, any mutation is possible and given enough time, even probable (therefore it predicts anything). As for natural selection, it can explain tooth size, neck length, parasitic host viability--everything that exists, exists within nature, so all one has to do is come up with a reason why any feature would be advantageous. Because both "steps" are so vague, it is difficult to use them to predict what will happen, and easy to fit anything into them. I find it difficult to associate determinig how things fit into this vaguely defined systems with science. Sorry for dragging this conversation out. I appreciate the civil interaction.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Jquip:

    In a pure philosophical infinite regress to brains in jars, yes. (Duhem, anyways) I'm making presumptions to keep things as short as possible but I'm not stating anything differently than Duhem otherwise:

    Yes, you are.

    "... what he learns is that at least one of the hypotheses constituting this group is unacceptable and ought to be modified; but the experiment does not designate which one should be changed." -- Duhem

    And an assumption we use when testing a hypothesis is itself a hypothesis we are justified in accepting. What Duhem is saying above means that you don't know if it is your hypothesis or one of it's background assumptions that is wrong.

    Duhem is talking in extraordinarily broad fashion while I'm assuming that the experimental setup, apparatus, and devices are no under question. Simply to avoid what the Tortoise said to Achilles. (Or vice versa, I can never keep that one straight.)

    That, on it's own, is wrong. And these are hardly the only assumptions one uses when testing one's hypotheses.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Hawks: "Yes, you are."

    Also, you copulate with goats.

    "... or one of it's background assumptions that is wrong."

    Oh good grief. Not 'assumptions,' not 'background assumptions,' and we're not going to semantically backslide into 'Hopeful Airborne Pasta Monsters.' They are called axioms. If your hypotheses descends from a set of axioms as a consequence of them then the failure of the hypotheses shows that the set of axioms are incorrect. If your hypotheses does not descend from a set of axioms then it is, itself, the axiom. A failure in this case does not reflect on the quality of your tawdry 'background assumptions' as there are none that are relevant. Duhem spells this all out very clearly about the domain he cared about; physics.

    Duhem went further and mentioned the experimental apparatus used; itself an artifact of construction under -- likely different -- theories. This also is true. However, from there he goes off on a bender into the infinite Sophist descent that Aristotle dealt with a mere 2 millennia ago.

    All of this is 101 junk that has precisely nothing to do with Duhem beyond that we're speaking of him.

    The only interesting portion of Duhem is the notion that we should not falsify theories and that there can be no crucial experiments -- that we can take two theories with contradictory predictions and decide which one is false. He predicates this on the notion that, in Sophist Descent, that we can never state that the instrument itself is not in error.

    Thus cats live happily with dogs and nothing gets falsified. Duhem does make some cogent points on Holism in this regard within physics but he takes it too far. Quine expands it to everything, justly, but then takes it to even greater excess. And then we get this name-dropping notion of their work that we can falsify nothing and that's the end of that.

    Which is utter bollocks. Because if we cannot state with assurance that the experimental construction and instrumentation are correct in, of, and by themselves then we're not testing the hypotheses we're purporting to test. We're testing the instruments -- and only the instruments no matter what bleating we may make about the affair.

    For if we can never falsify anything because, well Holism you know, then we have the corollary that we can never show that the results were coherent to the hypotheses we *were* purporting to test either. And thus we can run around as vapid monkeys doing everything, never being able to state anything about it all, and entirely unsure that we ever did it in the first place. Which keeps going until we're brains in jars picking cucumbers out of the navels we only think we have.

    The problem of induction didn't start with Quine, Duhem, Hume, and goes all the way back to Aristotle at the least. As do the solutions. If you want to ride that hobby horse into impeaching the ability to know anything then knock yourself out. But in doing you have to give up the notion that an experiment can show anything at all.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Jquip:

    Oh good grief. Not 'assumptions,' not 'background assumptions,' and we're not going to semantically backslide into 'Hopeful Airborne Pasta Monsters.' They are called axioms. If your hypotheses descends from a set of axioms as a consequence of them then the failure of the hypotheses shows that the set of axioms are incorrect. If your hypotheses does not descend from a set of axioms then it is, itself, the axiom. A failure in this case does not reflect on the quality of your tawdry 'background assumptions' as there are none that are relevant. Duhem spells this all out very clearly about the domain he cared about; physics.

    zzzzz. For someone who thinks that axioms and assumptions are the same thing, you sure like to differentiate between them when it suits you. YOU are the one who thinks that theories should be discarded just because some of it's background assumptions are wonky.

    Then Jquip did some more word salad and also said:

    For if we can never falsify anything because, well Holism you know, then we have the corollary that we can never show that the results were coherent to the hypotheses we *were* purporting to test either.

    And that is the reason why theories can't be tested in isolation but have to be compared to another one.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Hawks: "... you sure like to differentiate between them when it suits you."

    To avoid semantic games? Certainly.

    "YOU are the one who thinks that theories should be discarded just because some of it's background assumptions are wonky."

    Quite. Duhem also stated the same and then spoke about the difficulties specific to physics. Surely you've read on this before name-dropping things?

    "Then Jquip did some more word salad ..."

    There's this fellow, Richard Hughes, that made an Appeal to Authority in argument and claimed that this Authority proved his point. Nothing wrong with that so long as everyone agrees on the Authority and what the Authority said. However, what his Authority stated was directly the opposite of what Hughes claimed of him. When confronted on this? He denied it. When provided with the quotes from his authority? He claimed he read it in the original German.

    But his favorite manner of acknowledging defeat was to claim that he suffered Sudden Onset English Incomprehension and then throwing word soups and salads everywhere.

    To your credit you didn't claim you read it in the original French.

    "And that is the reason why theories can't be tested in isolation but have to be compared to another one."

    This is entirely wrong. But let's go with that. Under that assumption then, and keeping with the topic around here, what theory are we comparing Evolution to?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Jquip:

    Quite.

    And one of those would be the existence of a planet we previously didn't know existed.

    Under that assumption then, and keeping with the topic around here, what theory are we comparing Evolution to?

    Anything useful it can be compared to. Let's go with spontaneous generation.

    ReplyDelete