Darwinist ignorance, confusion & epigenetics (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, November 15, 2010, 21:54 (4904 days ago) @ David Turell

David,
> > 
> > The moral of the story is, that a seemingly minor change (dropping a number in the thousandths place resulted in a completely different scenario. 
> 
> 
> Sorry: I don't by any of your pie-in-the-sky theory. A buterfly in Brazil is never going buy you a liver. You need to back and study the histology and physiology of the liver and the kidney, next to the brain the most complex orgins in existence. The specified complexity of those two organs is beyond chance development. They appeared de novo in the Cambrian explosion, no precursers,and without butterflies. My point which is still unproven is evolution is coded into DNA from the begining, no butterflies needed. Epigenetics is present from the beginning of life. Life forms start out with self-protection, or life would not have survived.-Theory; I don't see where I offered one. The mathematics described by chaos has only been known now for about 40 years. -Your claim I responded to can be boiled directly to this:-"In no instance of life has there been an episode where an organ was able to be derived from simpler components." -My issue with your absolutism comes from the fact that you seem to really think that we have in our possession, a great deal of knowledge--bordering on the fantastical. While I've countered your claims with caution many times, maybe this is a good place to evaluate; A radical skeptic at work. I will provide 3 objections to each of your overall convictions--do with them what you will!-1. You claim that because the universe is so finely-tuned (back from the big bang) that this requires intelligence. -a.) This is problematic from a scientific perspective. A claim like this only holds water if we had good knowledge of where, exactly, our universe actually fits within the grander scope of things--because the two leading theories in physics mandate that a grander framework exists. For this proper (in every meaning of the word) to be more than a conjecture--which, in lack of knowledge is exactly where this claim stands--we really do need our 'theory of everything.' Until we have actual knowledge about our cosmos, any discussion of odds or 'fine-tuning' must wait. If--and this is a big if--our will is to that of truth instead of comfort or convenience.-b.) We lack a general model of intelligence; if we can't reason better about intelligence (and to assert we know more here than I claim contradicts modern psychology) than we don't have a good basis to be able to state with certainty, that our universe requires it. This is more problematic if you assert that the intelligence is something beyond which we have experienced; we have abandoned knowledge for metaphysics at this point! -c.) Philosophically, we have been searching with modern tools and techniques, for an extremely short time; we're just now beginning the job of first enumerating, and then deciphering biological complexity. Sorry; I'm a mathematician, not an astronomer!-2. It is not possible in any way that evolution can be a passive process. -a.) My first objection here is one purely of pragmatism; in what way are you justified in making this kind of claim? Are you no different than the pale atheist who declares "Zeus does not exist," purely because he's been to Mt. Olympus and has never seen him there? What level of play do you allow here if you're not being an absolutist?-b.) Again, you seem to be overly willing to make judgments, knowing full well that such judgments are subject to 'the evidence,' which is always "of the minute," and more importantly--subjectively interpreted. What's a better explanation for a whale's vestigial limbs are still there if there's no room for incremental processes? Give me a better explanation. -c.) (Running out of space.) Epigenetics described at present at wikipedia sticks to the point that they are what describes organismal changes that don't translate to DNA. How does your proposed process work then, as evolution requires the transferral of genetic material from parent to progeny?

--
\"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.\"