Darwinist ignorance, confusion & epigenetics (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, November 17, 2010, 02:18 (5120 days ago) @ David Turell

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. 
> > -In my sense--and as much as I am mercurial--all I meant was to point out was that an entire class of phenomenon that were declared outside of science suddenly came within reach because of Mandelbrot and Lorenz; just because we lack the vocabulary now to describe something relegated to the unknowable is no reason to make a judgment. -> Not true. Somehow, 'no' liver became a very simple liver ...
> > -Again, I need to read some Gould, unless the Google of "Punctuated Equilibrium" is sufficient?-
> 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.
> -Heh; except that my only absolute claim is that I claim to know nothing--philosophers have been unable to crack that nut for nearly 2500 years! -> > 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.
> -But if you remember you recent article you directed us towards; they flat out say that if those suppositions are correct, it directly suggests a multiverse, otherwise, there is no other way---> 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?
> > -Questions like this are intrinsically nonbinary!-
> I am intelligent, you are intelligent. It is like pornography. I know it when I see it. What definition are you straining for?
> > -The one that puts logic like that in its place. The pornography claim was ludicrous at its best...-
> Exactly. Give science 50 years uncovering all the asecrets in the genome and Darwin will be dead. I have full faith in that statement.
> > -I'm not so particular of Darwin per se... I can see the appeal in a completely nondeterministic universe as suggested by quantum mechanics.-> > 2. It is not possible in any way that evolution can be a passive process. 
> > -> 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. 
> > -Yes, but you assert that this never happens--at all. I can't abide by that. Maybe not to the point of causing all changes, but really? Nothing?-> > 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?
> > -I will say this again; in this line of argumentation you're a creationist. The fossil record gives us only snapshots. This is absolute. An 'increment' would be a single generation. -> 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. 
> -Trust me... as soon as I get done with the Iliad an my Gnostic scriptures, I shall devour your book rapidly!-> 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.-From what I can see--and please don't take offense--I feel that I am an observer in an extremely long process of discovery. Morally, it took Western Civilization nearly two thousand years before it realized it didn't need God to explain its morality. Knowing that it took this long leads me to the conclusion that ANY conclusion in light of the history of man is arrogant if taken to the point of conviction... So it amuses me when I meet people who seem to think that they have enough knowledge when the history of philosophy has demonstrated that the only absolute is that hindsight is 20/20!

--
\"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.\"