Darwinist ignorance, confusion & epigenetics (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, November 16, 2010, 05:24 (5121 days ago) @ xeno6696

The moral of the story is, that a seemingly minor change (dropping a number in the thousandths place resulted in a completely different scenario. 
> 
> Theory; I don't see where I offered one. The mathematics described by chaos has only been known now for about 40 years.-I know that and I've read the lay books on it. You use chaos theory to support the idea that chance mutation and Natural Selection (CM&NS) can create very complex organs. That is a theory in itself. 
> 
> 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." -Not true. Somehow, 'no' liver became a very simple liver in the first arthropod ancestor in the Cambrian. Later the lobster had a somewhat more complex liver, and eventuqally there is ours with secretory, digestive and clearance mechanisms. Same with kidneys. But not itty step by itty step. The fossil records show leaps, punctuations a la Gould.
> 
> 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. 
> 1. You claim that because the universe is so finely-tuned (back from the big bang) that this requires intelligence. -Why not? chance vs. intelligence. I'll pick intelligence every time. How do you know, what is the clue, that it is all chance? Your absoluteism againt mine.
 
> 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.-Really? Mandate? Not string theory and not multiverse theory. The only thing we know is this universe 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.' Fine tuning doesn't have to wait.- We can all see it. It is the underlying cause for its appearance that is the issue. Chance or intelligence. Do you have a third choice?
> 
> 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.- I am intelligent, you are intelligent. It is like pornography. I know it when I see it. What definition are you straining for?
> 
> 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. -Exactly. Give science 50 years uncovering all the asecrets in the genome and Darwin will be dead. I have full faith in that statement.
> 
> 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? What level of play do you allow here if you're not being an absolutist? -It is easy to make that an absolutist statement. Chance mutation is passive. According to Darwin any 'advance' comes from chance genome changes. Nothing about that part alone mandates progress, however that is defined in evolution. Now NS accepts what it is given and there are survivers, and not always the best ones. Perhaps the lucky iones. 
> 
> 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. -I don't have to. there was step-wize progress, but the fossil record says in jumps. How do you define increment?
> 
> 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? -Wiki is wrong. Just peek in my book at Reznick's guppies. Inherited changes. More recent work (Reznick is still at it but the guppies are so 1990, to use valley-girl speak) expands greatly on the inheritability of epigenetics. And not just through methylation. -I think you have a much greater knowledge of math and philosophy than I, but somehow you seem to accept the changing scene as tied to the minute. Patterns of development are very obvious to me. Over 10 years ago I expected all of this epigenetic manipulation within cells to fit immediate needs, and in organisms for quick change against sudden dangers. Its in the book. to me it is obvious. I am not tied to this minute. I can logically extrapolate.