tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post2968105805365782211..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Guess the Evidence for Early EvolutionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47073518335661103882014-03-24T16:13:12.277-07:002014-03-24T16:13:12.277-07:00natschuster: If we need to preventy horizontal gen...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>If we need to preventy horizontal gene transfer, why do bacteria need special things to do horizontal gene transfer? </i><br /><br />There's a tradeoff between fidelity and flexibility. Generally, an organism persists by making copies of itself, but if it is too rigid in reproduction, then it can't adapt over time. Some of these adaptations include trading genes with related organisms, and increased rates of mutation when under stress. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72116712534088220632014-03-24T13:04:11.702-07:002014-03-24T13:04:11.702-07:00If we need to preventy horizontal gene transfer, w...If we need to preventy horizontal gene transfer, why do bacteria need special things to do horizontal gene transfer?natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86008806406578199752014-03-24T05:02:22.068-07:002014-03-24T05:02:22.068-07:00natschuster: But we don't see nowadays what we...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>But we don't see nowadays what we are hypothesizing about in the past. </i><br /><br />Yet dinosaurs roamed the Earth. <br /><br /><b>natschuster</b>: <i>So we can't really say that we have a known mechanism for all this stuff. </i><br /><br />From what we know, it takes a mechanism to *prevent* horizontal transfers. But there is a lot we don't know.<br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25462084944677318332014-03-23T19:09:44.705-07:002014-03-23T19:09:44.705-07:00But we don't see nowadays what we are hypothes...But we don't see nowadays what we are hypothesizing about in the past. So we can't really say that we have a known mechanism for all this stuff. We have to make up stuff. The present doesn't inform the past, like its suppose to.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5090598485993944462014-03-23T16:56:01.099-07:002014-03-23T16:56:01.099-07:00natschuster: So, theoretically speaking, early lif...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>So, theoretically speaking, early life was different, hypothetically? </i><br /><br />Of course life was different. What part of "evolution" don't you get? <br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJlmYh27MHgZachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47539962276881755752014-03-23T15:32:45.569-07:002014-03-23T15:32:45.569-07:00So, theoretically speaking, early life was differe...So, theoretically speaking, early life was different, hypothetically? This is why I don't find evolution intellectually satisfying. It requires so may epicycles and apologetics. It certainly doesn't seem parsimonious to me. natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71907735268231285692014-03-23T06:18:34.064-07:002014-03-23T06:18:34.064-07:00Eugen: "Chance is a word void of sense; nothi...<b>Eugen</b>: "<i>Chance is a word void of sense; nothing can exist without a cause.</i>"<br /><br />It refers to a distribution of results, in particular the lack of correlation between independent variables. However, it is not, in itself, a cause.<br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59605687126076709572014-03-22T19:07:00.819-07:002014-03-22T19:07:00.819-07:00Chance is a word void of sense; nothing can exist ...Chance is a word void of sense; nothing can exist without a cause.<br /><br />VoltaireEugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69140539428711738232014-03-22T19:04:53.749-07:002014-03-22T19:04:53.749-07:00natschuster: Doesn't horizontal gene transfer ...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>Doesn't horizontal gene transfer in bacteria depend on complex mechanisms like plasmids, pilliums and such? </i><br /><br />The trick for early life isn't horizontal transfer, but preventing it. The membrane has to be permeable to nutrients, but not permeable to invasions. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78778707734327826902014-03-22T17:48:15.384-07:002014-03-22T17:48:15.384-07:00Zachriel:
Doesn't horizontal gene transfer in...Zachriel:<br /><br />Doesn't horizontal gene transfer in bacteria depend on complex mechanisms like plasmids, pilliums and such? Did these things exist in early life? Or was there another mechanism. Or do we need another hypothetical mechanism. natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3672702665146466322014-03-22T15:04:51.322-07:002014-03-22T15:04:51.322-07:00And it gets even better.
Rather than write a com...And it gets even better. <br /><br />Rather than write a comment in which he discloses his view on science for the purpose of criticism, Cornelius wrote a comment in which he chastises CRU members for not disclosing data for the purpose of criticism. <br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/03/professor-proposes-dystopia-where.html?showComment=1395511646066#c3314503766865203421Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79914318578067224842014-03-22T10:53:42.789-07:002014-03-22T10:53:42.789-07:00Argh! Still " comment approval" system,...Argh! Still " comment approval" system, too bad.....I 'll check-in in few weeks. Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73024909036666708352014-03-22T10:50:57.644-07:002014-03-22T10:50:57.644-07:00Ecliptic aligned with
dipoles in the heaven.
Go t...Ecliptic aligned with<br />dipoles in the heaven.<br /><br />Go to bed man!<br />It is past eleven.<br /><br /><br />(also trying to send message to Velik :D )Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15002907108248933642014-03-22T08:27:55.105-07:002014-03-22T08:27:55.105-07:00Scott: Would [Instrumentalism] be an accurate desc...Scott: Would [Instrumentalism] be an accurate description of your position? If not, please indicate where your position differs, in detail. <br /><br />CH: [No responce]<br /><br />Even when handed a reference to a specific definition by which he could compare and contrast, Cornelious simply refuses to elaborate on what he means by science. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58909926045758081792014-03-21T19:08:20.593-07:002014-03-21T19:08:20.593-07:00Haa, ha.Haa, ha.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63452965698440783422014-03-21T18:04:42.481-07:002014-03-21T18:04:42.481-07:00CH:If evolution makes false predictions, doesn'...CH:If evolution makes false predictions, doesn't that mean something? Do we really need to get into the demarcation problem to understand this?<br /><br />Of course it does. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. The point of discourse is, what do false predictions mean? What do they tell us? <br /><br />As I illustrated in another comment on this thread, predictions are not merely false. They are false in very specific ways. And the particular way they are false tells us something about reality, not merely that they are false. Furthermore, observations are themselves theory laden. The observation can be false, be cause it too is based on an explanation about how the world works, in reality. <br /><br />On the other hand, you seem to think science is essentially prophecy, as predictions are merely something to be observed or not observed. But then science stops being about anything but what we will experience. This is an impoverished view of science. <br /><br />IOW, it appears that predictions being false means significantly more to me that it does to you. <br /><br />Of course, if you believe progress on this front is impossible or find the very idea of it objectionable, it would come as no surprise that you would essentially be an instrumentalist when it comes to evolutionary theory. <br /><br />From the Wikipedia entry on Instrumentalism<br /><br /><i>In the philosophy of science, instrumentalism is the view that a scientific theory is a useful instrument in understanding the world. A concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality.<br /><br />Instrumentalism avoids the debate between anti-realism and philosophical or scientific realism. It may be better characterized as non-realism. Instrumentalism shifts the basis of evaluation away from whether or not phenomena observed actually exist, and towards an analysis of whether the results and evaluation fit with observed phenomena.</i><br /><br />Would this be an accurate description of your position? If not, please indicate where your position differs, in detail. <br /><br />For example, to claim that the question “Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth” is meaningless is to claim it’s meaningless to ask if Earth actually goes around the Sun, or that it’s just a useful fiction to explain sunrises, sunsets, etc.<br /><br />Which, I’d point out, is one of the general purpose means by which one could deny anything, including that dinosaurs are actually the explanation of fossils. <br /><br /><i>One could suggests It's meaningless to ask if dinosaurs were real or just a useful fiction to explain fossils. </i><br /><br />Sound familiar?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60403846788570645502014-03-21T18:04:19.075-07:002014-03-21T18:04:19.075-07:00CH: But isn't this obscuring the obvious?
So...CH: But isn't this obscuring the obvious? <br /><br />So, you haven’t disclosed what you mean by science because it’s obvious?<br /><br />CH: I have been in public debates where the evolutionists have literally dismissed scientific problems with a wave of the hand. One said "those are all fallacies." No, they are well known problems. <br /><br />As I’ve pointed out, all theories are incomplete and contain errors to some degree. It’s unclear why you think this obviously wouldn’t be the case. Care to enlighten us as why? (Be careful, in doing so you would give us insight as to what you mean by “science”)<br /><br />Problems lead to solutions, which lead to even better problems, which lead to even better solutions, etc. On the other hand, you seem to think that any and all problems must be the end of the road for a theory. Again, care to enlighten us as to why? (Here’s a hint: the idea Popper was a naive falsificationist is a common misrepresentation)<br /><br />What we would expect is a replacement theory that not only explains the same observations just as well, but explains even more observations. This includes observations that indicated the original theory was problematic in the first place. <br /><br />For example, the OPERA experiment resulted in false predictions (observations of neutrinos moving faster than the speed of light). Did we just decide to throw in the towel on GR (which also is incomplete and contains errors to some degree)? No, the observations were not just wrong, they were wrong in a very specific way which led to even a better problem. Specifically, a replacement theory would need not only have the same explanatory power as GR, but also explain why neutrinos broke the speed limit <b>in just the OPERA experiment</b>. However, no such explanation was found. What we discovered instead was a loose ethernet cable and a timer ticking at the wrong rate. <br /><br />Furthermore, contrary to what you imply, we want to find errors in our theories. That’s how we make progress. For example, we propose specific evolutionary histories for the explicit purpose of being found in error. The very idea that they can be found in error forms the the basis for which human knowledge can grow. <br /><br />If we predicted a car, but observed a truck instead, does that falsify a theory based on a four wheel self-propelled vehicle? Of course not. By finding this error, the theory just became more accurate. Nor would being surprised because we had hypothetically never seen an El Camino before.<br /><br />IOW, these particular objections are indeed represent fallacies. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6636435338317416572014-03-21T17:05:30.260-07:002014-03-21T17:05:30.260-07:00Pedant: Please point out crippling incongruities.
...<b>Pedant:</b> <i>Please point out crippling incongruities.</i><br /><br /><b>Hunter:</b> <i>Um, ok. ArgRS phylogeny, regarding which even evolutionists admit “one cannot confidently state at this point whether ArgRS exhibits any canonical pattern.” I’m sure you are now reevaluating your position.</i><br /><br />If I had a position, and you provided a reason to reevaluate it, I would. But you just keep repeating vague assertions, and now you provide an unsourced quote devoid of context.<br /><br />If you really had any solid evidence for your claims, you would have provided it. <br />Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28930705338365232572014-03-21T13:32:07.532-07:002014-03-21T13:32:07.532-07:00natschuster: But why would that stop the polymeras...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>But why would that stop the polymerase from undergoing horizontal gene transfer? </i><br /><br />The evidence suggests that the evolution of primordial life was characterized by horizontal mechanisms. That would include RNA polymerase, and there is evidence supporting horizontal transfer in some lineages. <br /><br />Rapid evolution to a local peak is expected. Once on a peak, things tend to become locked in place. Once cells reached a certain level of integration, then it became increasingly difficult for foreign strains to integrate. Different cellular systems reached this state before others. At some point after the divergence of the domains, evolution proceeded primarily through vertical inheritance. Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4628635251168648072014-03-21T11:58:41.383-07:002014-03-21T11:58:41.383-07:00But why would that stop the polymerase from underg...But why would that stop the polymerase from undergoing horizontal gene transfer? natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49488187970772431192014-03-21T09:57:22.472-07:002014-03-21T09:57:22.472-07:00The theory is that aaRSs came later, replacing rib...The theory is that aaRSs came later, replacing ribozymic precursors. <br /> Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61235895351872974562014-03-21T09:38:42.117-07:002014-03-21T09:38:42.117-07:00Blas: chance is a mechanism.
No, but various mech...<b>Blas</b>: <i>chance is a mechanism.</i><br /><br />No, but various mechanisms may have a chance component. For instance, the timing of cometary impacts are random with respect to the needs of earthlings. <br /> Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1883993139150499572014-03-21T05:00:57.492-07:002014-03-21T05:00:57.492-07:00So yes, chance is a mechanism.So yes, chance is a mechanism.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83966263274814063372014-03-21T04:45:49.422-07:002014-03-21T04:45:49.422-07:00Wht was it only the AARS thaty under went horizont...Wht was it only the AARS thaty under went horizontal gene transfer? Why not the RNA Polymerase? See, this is why I don't find evolution intellectually satisfying. There is always an apologetic to explain away the weird stuff.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57891850726212282832014-03-21T04:07:27.975-07:002014-03-21T04:07:27.975-07:00Cornelius Hunter: If evolution makes false predict...<b>Cornelius Hunter</b>: <i>If evolution makes false predictions, doesn't that mean something? </i><br /><br />Sure. It could mean the theory has to be modified or discarded. However, this may not happen immediately, and may wait until the observations are otherwise explained. Perhaps there's a problem with the findings, which might be strengthened by independent means. A new theory or corollary could be proposed, which throws it back for further testing. Meanwhile, it becomes Newton's Theory of Gravity (except that unexplained Mercury anomaly thingy). <br /><br /><b>Cornelius Hunter</b>: <i>Yes, and most of the planetary motions conform to geocentrism. </i><br /><br />All planetary motions conform to geocentrism. They also conform to Jovian-centrism, and Cornelius Hunter-centrism. <br /><br /><b>Cornelius Hunter</b>: <i>Nothing like this has ever been observed.</i><br /><br />One doesn't observe "the distant evolutionary past". <br /><br /><b>Cornelius Hunter</b>: <i>"Not only do the phylogenies fail to yield the canonical pattern in a number of cases, but also they typically violate the accepted taxonomic structure within the organismal domains." </i><br /><br />Much better. So the paper points out that there is a pattern, and that there are exceptions that stand out against this pattern. <br /><br /><b>Cornelius Hunter</b>: <i>That would be post-LUCA. </i><br /><br />Right. So the paper points out that there is a pattern, and that there are exceptions that stand out against this pattern, and that the exceptions primarily occur in the "the distant evolutionary past". <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.com