Two sides of the irreducible complexity argument: dhw Pt1 (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 16:56 (5539 days ago) @ David Turell

For David & dhw,-dhw:
Before I continue let me just say that the past... however many months I've been at this forum have been an absolute blast! It is such a different experience than previous web-locales... Never once have I seen a flame war erupt... ad-hominems are "zero," and there is an atmosphere of respect that most other places I've been to just lack. Excellent work amigo!!-> dhw:> So that's what I mean that evolution only seems to happen when it has to. It is this particular segment of evolution that David (and you?) seem to be at odds with.[/i]
> 
> I don't think that at all. I think that evolution can happen both and without environmental challenges: from epigenetics, from random mutation, and during mitosis as mistakes. Whatever is first presented to nature is what gets sorted out by selection. Remember the first part is passive, the second part (selection), active And the direction of Darwin's evolution is supposed to be directionless. The dinosaurs were a 250 million year detour and there were others like the trillobites, another 1/4 million year detour.
> -There is a drastic difference in perspective between us here... I do not consider natural selection to be "active." For the most part, selection works like a butcher's knife, (or a recession, as it were.) The gristle and fat gets cut down continuously leaving behind only those parts that are truly necessary. But changes in environmental conditions are random. -
> Matt:> My point of contention with David on this issue is on being able to determine whether the mutations are random or not. I don't think you can.
> 
> I think they all are random, except the epigenetic ones. Those appeared to be mediated within the cells. If, on the other hand, you meant to say that it may be impossible to sort out epigenetic from the others then I agree.-
That's more or less my point... for your point to be scientifically valid we would have to be able to tell that difference somehow. Otherwise--we're still in the box of philosophy. (Not to say that philosophy isn't important!)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"