tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post2006283379225290760..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Retrotransposons are not FreeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29890897788569985682010-06-07T02:40:16.192-07:002010-06-07T02:40:16.192-07:00The 27th Comrade,
Thank you for your link to Fodo...The 27th Comrade,<br /><br />Thank you for your link to Fodor's debate. It is very enlightening.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82225353835269346092010-06-06T07:33:18.012-07:002010-06-06T07:33:18.012-07:00Here's what I hear Cornelius saying:
Point mu...Here's what I hear Cornelius saying:<br /><br />Point mutations are not dependent on DNA sequencing, whereas processes like those that produce retrotransposons, immune response, error-correction, etc, seem to be dependent on DNA sequences. So what, then, is the only conceivable way of calculating the probability of retrotransposons, immune responses, error-correction, etc? It would seem to be to divide the number of DNA sequences that condition such processes by the total number of DNA sequences that COULD have occurred, theretofore, by point mutations.<br /><br />So the problem is this: For all we know, that number may be so small as to be zero for all practical purposes. IOW, scientific plausibility isn't about subjective senses of metaphysical plausibility. It's about mathematical probability. <br /><br />But we can't calculate a mathematical probability for abiogenesis, macroevolution, etc. We don't even have a reason to suppose it's significantly different than zero. So we can't know, scientifically, that macroevolution is plausible. <br /><br />It's metaphysics that grounds the subjective sense of plausibility of macroevolutionists, not calculations based on observed or modeled natural frequencies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61339813811020872512010-06-05T17:06:00.188-07:002010-06-05T17:06:00.188-07:00Peter says:"It may mean evolution is more imp...Peter says:<i>"It may mean evolution is more improbable, but we already know that the probability of complex biological systems being generated randomly is zero, or a s close to zero as is measurable. </i><br /><br />Although it is perhaps worth noting that the random generation of complex biological systems is not predicted by evolutionary theory.Paul McBridehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09953009288824698018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65865208479634464102010-06-05T15:11:58.877-07:002010-06-05T15:11:58.877-07:00Cornelius,
I don't see the problem. There mus...Cornelius,<br /><br />I don't see the problem. There must be lots of dependancies in life: the ocean before fish, prey before preditors. Just because there is a dependancy doesn't prove anything one way or the other. It may mean evolution is more improbable, but we already know that the probability of complex biological systems being generated randomly is zero, or a s close to zero as is measurable. <br />.Peter Wadeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396555091658593382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7290772101487818592010-06-05T10:52:40.308-07:002010-06-05T10:52:40.308-07:00Cornelius,
this whole post was written as if the p...Cornelius,<br />this whole post was written as if the purpose of retrotransposons was to increase variation when in fact that is just a byproduct of their activity. guess what retrotransposons actually are? I'll give you a hint: in computers, what do you call a bit of code that jumps inside a system and tries to make more copies of itself (as retrotransposons do)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51505251525976504762010-06-05T04:05:13.888-07:002010-06-05T04:05:13.888-07:00I think you under-estimate how far we are willing ...I think you under-estimate how far we are willing to drag chance - especially in this our “infinite universe” - in order to make a fact out of our preferred theory. If it was about plausibility, this whole stuff would never have made it off the ground in the first place.<br />I’m waiting to see who falsifies my claim that it is a fact that we evolved bi-pedalism to reach for bats on cave roofs, without in the same instance rendering all such similar garbage useless. Of course, it cannot be any of our exclamation-mark-loving friends in the Darwin camp. Pardon me for being sceptical, but if your comment couldn’t be the result of a genetic algorithm, it is less-likely that <i>you</i> are. Or should we start going around with the creepy feeling in our heads that the design in the pro-Darwinn comments is only illusory, since I have a perfect explanation - “METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL” - that “insists” that the design <i>can be</i> from randomness-plus-culling therefore <i>it is</i>?<br /><br />Anyway, I’m here, Dr. Hunter, to point out to you a debate between the eminent Prof. Massimo Pigliucci and the eminent Prof. Jerry Fodor. It is important in a variety of ways, but <i>most of all</i> because I have never heard it so clearly confessed (directly by Prof. Fodor, and indirectly by Prof. Pigliucci) that the neo-Darwinian theory is accepted solely for its <i>metaphysical</i> comforts.<br /><br /><a href="http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-49897/TS-358827.mp3" rel="nofollow">MP3 (35MB)</a>, and it goes for 1h30m, I think. There also seems to be an <a href="http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/31325020" rel="nofollow">in-browser Flash version</a>.<br /><br />Now I shall return to the background from which I chuckle heartily at the self-deluded stories that are propping up this logically-trivial-because-logically-inconsistent tripe.The 27th Comradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08490992094734826485noreply@blogger.com