Inference and its role in NS (General)
by xeno6696 
, Sonoran Desert, Monday, January 10, 2011, 11:38 (5065 days ago)
Not exactly the article's topic, but I will comment on it soon enough using it...-http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/01/08/phylogeny-induction-and-the-straight-rule-of-homology/
--
\"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.\"
Inference and its role in NS
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, January 10, 2011, 23:01 (5064 days ago) @ xeno6696
Not exactly the article's topic, but I will comment on it soon enough using it... > > http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/01/08/phylogeny-induction-and-the-straight-rule-of-hom... recent discussions about my position in terms of evolution by NS is illuminated a bit in this blogpost. -I follow this blogger because he is quite cautious in anything/everything he says; he is a philosopher of biology, so there's good reason for his cautiousness.-This post is about the role of inference in phylogeny. It discusses something called the "grue" problem. If you read the article, it explains this problem well. -It demonstrates quickly the practical and pragmatic nature of science. -It was only the philosophers of the day that were perplexed... the scientists simply absorbed the new information into their model and kept going. -This ties to two claims I make repeatedly:-1. Science is ONLY about model building. (Though scientists and the general public tend to forget this...) -2. Inference always inherits the problem of probabilities... meaning, that, science (using inference as its primary tool) is only every about probabilities, and that this means that though we would like them to be dogmatic, scientific "truths" are always approximations.
--
\"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.\"
Inference and its role in NS
by romansh 
, Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 01:16 (5064 days ago) @ xeno6696
I agree with your synopsis whole heartedly xeno.-So does it give us answers?-rom
Inference and its role in NS
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 02:41 (5063 days ago) @ romansh
I agree with your synopsis whole heartedly xeno. > > So does it give us answers? > > rom-Tentative answers. Always, always tentative. We must always fight the instinct to internalize to law. Science's triumph lies in its malleability.
--
\"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.\"
Inference and its role in NS
MATT: Our recent discussions about my position in terms of evolution by NS is illuminated a bit in this blogpost [concerning the role of inference in phylogeny]. [...] This ties to two claims I make repeatedly:-1.Science is ONLY about model building. [...] 2.Inference always inherits the problem of probabilities...meaning that science (using inference as its primary tool) is only ever about probabilities, and that this means that though we would like them to be dogmatic, scientific "truths" are always approximations.-I've never been 100% sure what you mean by model building. Is it the same as theory? If not, what is the difference?-I don't think any of us have actually disputed the claim that science is about probabilities rather than dogmatic "truths" when it comes to questions relating to the origin and nature of life and the universe. I would suggest, though, that technology proves there are some objective truths in science, unless we're going to attribute the functional efficiency of our cars, planes, computers etc. to sheer luck.-As regards theories relating to life and the universe, the problem I have with your approach is not the two claims you make above. It's the following combination of statements and circumstances: you say that "to me only knowledge counts", and "it is intrinsically unreasonable to put belief in something when it is not supported by positive evidence". You go on to accept the theory of evolution by NS (which is not knowledge), presumably on the basis of what you regard as positive evidence, but you criticize David for accepting the theory of design (which is not knowledge) on the basis of what he regards as positive evidence. Doesn't this mean that 1) for you it is not just knowledge that counts, and 2) you are the one who decides what is or isn't positive evidence? -As regards our old morality discussion under "The Gods ... All of Them!", in my post of 6 December I slated you for changing the subject whenever challenged and threatened to have you breathalysed if you missed the target again. Satyansh was so alarmed that he called for a time out. I told him that you and I actually had a lot of fun together, and you reassured him: "Trust me, dhw and I are chill cats...he's right, my school performance is keeping me preoccupied, and he's keeping me honest by paying more attention than I am. And letting me know it." -I thought that was a delightful way to end the discussion!
Inference and its role in NS
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 15:55 (5063 days ago) @ dhw
> As regards theories relating to life and the universe, the problem I have with your approach is not the two claims you make above. It's the following combination of statements and circumstances: you say that "to me only knowledge counts", and "it is intrinsically unreasonable to put belief in something when it is not supported by positive evidence". You go on to accept the theory of evolution by NS (which is not knowledge), presumably on the basis of what you regard as positive evidence, but you criticize David for accepting the theory of design (which is not knowledge) on the basis of what he regards as positive evidence. Doesn't this mean that 1) for you it is not just knowledge that counts, and 2) you are the one who decides what is or isn't positive evidence? -If I may interpose: Matt is primarily a mathematician at heart. Math is the only area of knowledge I know that can have exact proof of theorems. Natural selection is a conjecture. Logically to all of us it must occur. We see predation and competition. But how powerful is it,when compared to the adaptive Lemarkian mechanisms that are now being discovered under the term epigenetics. NS should be the final arbiter of rival combatants, but is only a passive part of the advance of evolution, creating nothing, only survivors. -Moral: mechanisms of creative variations is a positive effect. NS is passively positive, by eliminating the losers in the battles. It can operate only where there is competition within species, with other species, and with natural changes.
Inference and its role in NS
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 03:03 (5063 days ago) @ David Turell
> > As regards theories relating to life and the universe, the problem I have with your approach is not the two claims you make above. It's the following combination of statements and circumstances: you say that "to me only knowledge counts", and "it is intrinsically unreasonable to put belief in something when it is not supported by positive evidence". You go on to accept the theory of evolution by NS (which is not knowledge), presumably on the basis of what you regard as positive evidence, but you criticize David for accepting the theory of design (which is not knowledge) on the basis of what he regards as positive evidence. Doesn't this mean that 1) for you it is not just knowledge that counts, and 2) you are the one who decides what is or isn't positive evidence? > > If I may interpose: Matt is primarily a mathematician at heart. Math is the only area of knowledge I know that can have exact proof of theorems. Natural selection is a conjecture. Logically to all of us it must occur. We see predation and competition. But how powerful is it,when compared to the adaptive Lemarkian mechanisms that are now being discovered under the term epigenetics. NS should be the final arbiter of rival combatants, but is only a passive part of the advance of evolution, creating nothing, only survivors. > > Moral: mechanisms of creative variations is a positive effect. NS is passively positive, by eliminating the losers in the battles. It can operate only where there is competition within species, with other species, and with natural changes.-Well said. -And yes... my more mathematical nature shows here. I do have concrete areas for "knowing" and "not knowing." And by training I only proceed on the "knows." -Maybe someday I'll be able to wrap my head around "faith" or "negative inference..." as something other than oddities and curiosities. Perhaps I should read Pascal...-Math is also the only area of expertise where it's perfectly fine to leave a problem as "unsolved" with no real conjectures for 3 millenia... I forgive all those without the patience of saints!
--
\"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.\"
Inference and its role in NS
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 02:55 (5063 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: Our recent discussions about my position in terms of evolution by NS is illuminated a bit in this blogpost [concerning the role of inference in phylogeny]. [...] This ties to two claims I make repeatedly: > > 1.Science is ONLY about model building. [...] > 2.Inference always inherits the problem of probabilities...meaning that science (using inference as its primary tool) is only ever about probabilities, and that this means that though we would like them to be dogmatic, scientific "truths" are always approximations. > > I've never been 100% sure what you mean by model building. Is it the same as theory? If not, what is the difference? > -Sort of. A theory is systematized observation that manages to explain events consistently and with predictability. A theory is a model, only one that has been thoroughly tested. -> I don't think any of us have actually disputed the claim that science is about probabilities rather than dogmatic "truths" when it comes to questions relating to the origin and nature of life and the universe. I would suggest, though, that technology proves there are some objective truths in science, unless we're going to attribute the functional efficiency of our cars, planes, computers etc. to sheer luck. > -No... still not objective. Our theories involving solid body motion (cars and planes) and electricity (computers) are not immutable explanations, fixed for all time... I miscommunicated, perhaps... It's not sheer luck; it's explanations that fit observation the best. We've tested them enough to trust them. But objective--they are not. Prediction (to me) does not make objectivity. This cuts again to my assertion that there are very, very, few truths in the universe, and unfortunately many of them are tacit... and I just realized a word I never defined in my framework!-> As regards theories relating to life and the universe, the problem I have with your approach is not the two claims you make above. It's the following combination of statements and circumstances: you say that "to me only knowledge counts", and "it is intrinsically unreasonable to put belief in something when it is not supported by positive evidence". You go on to accept the theory of evolution by NS (which is not knowledge), presumably on the basis of what you regard as positive evidence, but you criticize David for accepting the theory of design (which is not knowledge) on the basis of what he regards as positive evidence. Doesn't this mean that 1) for you it is not just knowledge that counts, and 2) you are the one who decides what is or isn't positive evidence? > -Each of us as individuals are the ones who decides what is positive evidence or not, but David has iterated on more than one occasion to me that his view is not based on positive evidence, but on negative inference. He has admitted that his view is ultimately a leap of faith. -I feel you also misconstrue my meaning of accept. I accept NS it because there's nothing better. Not because it's knowledge. I won't believe it until the explanation has fully coalesced. Does this make sense? David and I don't debate much anymore (just throw articles we're interested in) because at least until I get around to reading his book, I don't think we have much to challenge each other on. He's got his cake, I have my uncertainty of cake. -> As regards our old morality discussion under "The Gods ... All of Them!", in my post of 6 December I slated you for changing the subject whenever challenged and threatened to have you breathalysed if you missed the target again. Satyansh was so alarmed that he called for a time out. I told him that you and I actually had a lot of fun together, and you reassured him: "Trust me, dhw and I are chill cats...he's right, my school performance is keeping me preoccupied, and he's keeping me honest by paying more attention than I am. And letting me know it." > > I thought that was a delightful way to end the discussion!-And I will let sleeping dogs lie!
--
\"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.\"
Inference and its role in NS
I asked Matt for the difference between a model and a theory. He says: "A theory is systematized observation that manages to explain events consistently and with predictability. A theory is a model, only one that has been thoroughly tested." -Two questions: 1)What is a model? A theory that has not been thoroughly tested? 2)The Big Bang and the Multiverse, for instance, are often called theories. Have they been thoroughly tested?-I suggested that technology proved there were some objective truths in science. You say we've tested our theories involving solid body motion and electricity enough to trust them, but they are not objective. "Prediction (to me) does not make objectivity." If predictions never fail to come true (cars, planes, computers etc. function), are confirmed billions of times over, and there's no available information to contradict the theory, I'd say that comes as near to objective truth as we can get. It's certainly more objective than the "very, very few (tacit) truths" you say do exist in the universe ... but see the epistemology thread for further discussion.-You agree that each of us as individuals decides what is positive evidence, and you say that David's view is not based on positive evidence but on negative inference. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can draw negative inferences from positive evidence: in the case of design, the positive evidence from an ID-er's viewpoint is that the complex machinery of reproduction, adaptation and innovation works, and all our experience tells us that complex mechanisms that work require prior planning. ("All knowledge we have is ultimately based on experience; an old teacher's adage: there is no better teacher" ... xeno6696, 12 January at 02.16). You may not agree that this is positive evidence, but that is up to the individual. The negative inference is that the positive evidence reduces the probability of chance being able to fashion the mechanism. That in fact is the point where I stick. David, however, goes one step further and concludes that there is a designer ... a view, which, as you say is a leap of faith. -This leads to your next crucial point: "I feel you also misconstrue my meaning of accept. I accept NS because there's nothing better. Not because it's knowledge. I won't BELIEVE it until the explanation has fully coalesced. Does this make sense?"-Not really. Belief requires faith, but "fully coalesced" to me = knowledge, and knowledge has to be the closest we can get to objective truth, which in matters relating to the origin and nature of life and the universe we will probably never acquire (unless, as David says, God himself explains it all). If you have knowledge, you don't need to believe ... you know. Initially I accepted your distinction between "accept" and believe", but in the light of subsequent posts I will withdraw my acceptance! If you don't believe something, you either disbelieve it or you have an open mind, and acceptance does not seem to me to imply open-mindedness. Personally, I BELIEVE that all forms of life are descended from the earliest forms (= evolution), and I BELIEVE that natural selection is the process by which creatures best adapted to their environment will survive. (I do not regard these beliefs as knowledge.) I remain open-minded as to how the mechanisms of life, adaptation and innovation came into being, and as to how innovations and speciation actually happen (also integral to the overall theory of evolution). Using my terms instead of "accept", what aspects of the theory do you believe, and on what aspects are you open-minded?-To complete this section on evolution, I do not "accept" your statement (on the epistemology thread) that: "Based on the success of predictions made on data, Natural Selection was chosen as the best explanation for the diversity of life" (was chosen...by whom?). Natural Selection ONLY explains why existing creatures survive. Diversity can only be explained by adaptation and innovation, and if there had been no adaptation and innovation, Natural Selection would only explain why the first bug survived or did not survive!
Inference and its role in NS
by romansh , Thursday, January 13, 2011, 06:32 (5062 days ago) @ dhw
I can't remember who said/intimated, that a scientific Law and Theory are synonymous it's just that a Law can said in pithy statement. These have lots of evidence to support statements, have stood the test of time and even remain Laws and theories when evidence has been found to show them as inacurate - eg Newton's Laws.-Hypothesis(es) are testable propositions, that have some evidence to support them but require a lot more corroborating evidence. -Models (for me) could be a description of some reality that are composed of theories and hypotheses that could be used for predictions or used to test the hypotheses.-Speculations have little or no evidence. But can be fun.-There is no need for belief in a scientist's world. Replicates and the concepts of precision and accuracy would be unnecessary otherwise.
Inference and its role in NS
My thanks to Romansh for some useful definitions and statements. There are just two I'd like to comment on:-ROMANSH: I can't remember who said/intimated, that a scientific Law and Theory are synonymous it's just that a Law can said in pithy statement. These have lots of evidence to support statements, have stood the test of time and even remain Laws and theories when evidence has been found to show them as inacurate - eg Newton's Laws.-There seems to be a great deal of controversy over what a scientific theory actually is, and also over what it should be, but as a non-scientist I don't understand why scientific theory should be differently defined from any other kind of theory ... i.e. a set of ideas which explains certain facets of reality but the truth of which has not been proved. If it had, would it not be fact instead of theory? On the other hand, when is a proven fact not a proven fact? (See quotes from the New Yorker article below.)-ROMANSH: There is no need for belief in a scientist's world. Replicates and the concepts of precision and accuracy would be unnecessary otherwise.-I don't see how scientists can operate without belief, and experience tells us that scientists, like everyone else, have difficulty drawing a line between belief and knowledge. Perhaps here too there is a gap between what science is and what science should be.-I hope you've read the article from the New Yorker to which David (12 January at 15.17) has drawn our attention under "The limitations of science". If not, here are two highly relevant quotes: "But now all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain. It's as if our facts were losing their truth: claims that have been enshrined in textbooks are suddenly unprovable. This phenomenon doesn't yet have an official name, but it's occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology." [...] "For many scientists, the effect is especially troubling because of what it exposes about the scientific process. If replication is what separates the rigor of science from the squishiness of pseudoscience, where do we put all these rigorously validated findings that can no longer be proved? Which results should we believe?"
Inference and its role in NS
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, January 14, 2011, 03:59 (5061 days ago) @ dhw
My thanks to Romansh for some useful definitions and statements. There are just two I'd like to comment on: > > ROMANSH: I can't remember who said/intimated, that a scientific Law and Theory are synonymous it's just that a Law can said in pithy statement. These have lots of evidence to support statements, have stood the test of time and even remain Laws and theories when evidence has been found to show them as inacurate - eg Newton's Laws. > > There seems to be a great deal of controversy over what a scientific theory actually is, and also over what it should be, but as a non-scientist I don't understand why scientific theory should be differently defined from any other kind of theory ... i.e. a set of ideas which explains certain facets of reality but the truth of which has not been proved. If it had, would it not be fact instead of theory? On the other hand, when is a proven fact not a proven fact? (See quotes from the New Yorker article below.) > -Because a scientific theory is NOT what you describe here. The definition used by scientists and philosophers alike is what I've said several times today: A hypothesis that has been tested repeatedly with the same result. A theory as defined by scientists--is not a conjecture, but an explanation that has been repeatedly verified. What the general public is typically confused by, is the media's use of "theory" as hypothesis. A hypothesis is what you describe above, not a theory. Gravity is still considered a theory (though there is some laws attached to it.) Evolution is a theory. The Big Bang is a theory. -What the general public doesn't get is the transitory nature of a theory. A theory is literally--the best explanation that anyone has come up with that describes the greatest portion of the data. (Not all.) Hence why David accepts (not belives in) the theory of evolution. He takes aim at portions that he finds inept or incomplete. --> ROMANSH: There is no need for belief in a scientist's world. Replicates and the concepts of precision and accuracy would be unnecessary otherwise. > > I don't see how scientists can operate without belief, and experience tells us that scientists, like everyone else, have difficulty drawing a line between belief and knowledge. Perhaps here too there is a gap between what science is and what science should be. > -My response to Romansh here is similar. -> I hope you've read the article from the New Yorker to which David (12 January at 15.17) has drawn our attention under "The limitations of science". If not, here are two highly relevant quotes: > > "But now all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain. It's as if our facts were losing their truth: claims that have been enshrined in textbooks are suddenly unprovable. This phenomenon doesn't yet have an official name, but it's occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology." [...] > > "For many scientists, the effect is especially troubling because of what it exposes about the scientific process. If replication is what separates the rigor of science from the squishiness of pseudoscience, where do we put all these rigorously validated findings that can no longer be proved? Which results should we believe?"-Again, the public seems incapable of handling the necessarily transitory nature of scientific explanations. We put statistical faith in science, but science is not now (and has never been) about finding final answers to questions. Only naivete leads us down this path.
--
\"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.\"
Inference and its role in NS
dhw: I don't understand why scientific theory should be differently defined from any other kind of theory ... i.e. a set of ideas which explains certain facets of reality but the truth of which has not been proved. MATT: a scientific theory is NOT what you describe here [which is what I'm complaining about] but is "an explanation that has been repeatedly verified".-You distinguish between this and a hypothesis, which you say corresponds to my definition and is NOT a theory. You go on to define theory as "literally ... the best explanation that anyone has come up with that describes the greatest portion of the data. (Not all.)" So if we set the big bang theory against, say, the theory of an endlessly expanding and contracting universe, or a universe that has existed for ever, or a multiverse, not only does someone have to have the authority to say which is the best, but by your definition, only one of them can be a theory and the rest, presumably, must be hypotheses. Who decides? Your response to Romansh suggests to me that a hypothesis is the early stages of a theory, and I would simply add that the distinction between the two is blurred.-You say "what the public doesn't get is the transitory nature of a theory", and you have consistently emphasized that science is "not about finding final answers to questions." I agree and have already questioned "finality" on the epistemology thread, in response to your definition of "transferable knowledge" as "a final state of information", but I would say that science IS about finding answers to questions. If, as you say, a scientific theory is an explanation or answer that has been repeatedly verified (which means demonstrated to be true), but is only transitory, then clearly the verification process is faulty, and the explanation has not been proved. Let me, then, repeat my layman's definition of a theory: "a set of ideas which explains certain facets of reality but the truth of which has not been proved." This sounds to me just like your definition of a scientific theory.-While you castigate the ignorant public for its naivete, I would suggest that it's scientists themselves ... not all, of course ... who foster the notion that their theories carry the weight of scientific authority: they have after all been "repeatedly verified". So it's only when their transitoriness, fallibility, inaccuracy etc. are actually exposed that suddenly the term theory reverts to its normal layman's meaning. In other words, I'm suggesting that scientific theory is the same as ordinary theory, and if the public doesn't "get its transitory nature", that is because it frequently suits the experts on one particular theoretical bandwagon to ignore or even in some extreme cases cover up the transitoriness until it becomes too obvious to hide.
Inference and its role in NS
by romansh , Saturday, January 15, 2011, 18:32 (5059 days ago) @ dhw
David I think you misunderstand what Matt/xeno and perhaps what I are trying to say.-Take Newton's laws - we know them to be fundamentally wrong. They don't explain quantum phenomena and some macro objects i large gravitational fields - eg Mercury's orbit around the sun. But here on Earth, Newton's laws remain a really good approximation for our day daily lives.-That's point one, point two science is a process not an end point. This is NOT a weakness but a huge strength. I would argue any agnostic should understand. Whether they do or not is another matter. Just because science discards certain theories, eg luminiferous aether, when new evidence comes along, is an example of science not being dognmatic. (Scientists are not immune to being dogmatic).-So in short I think Matt is right in his assessment, but I might have chosen different words.
Inference and its role in NS
ROMANSH: I think you misunderstand what Matt/xeno and perhaps what I are trying to say.-Perhaps. Or perhaps you misunderstand me. Matt tells me that a scientific theory is one that has been repeatedly demonstrated to be true (verified) but will most likely turn out to be untrue (which apparently is different from its being an explanation whose truth has not been proved). In the meantime, farmers, doctors, teachers, governments may have acted upon these scientific theories (after all, they have been "repeatedly verified") ... sometimes with disastrous results ... but as science is an ongoing process, this according to both of you should NOT (your emphasis) be seen as a weakness but as a "huge strength". And according to Matt the public are to be blamed for their naivete in swallowing what the experts tell them, because they should know that science is not about coming up with final answers.-I have no dispute with you over the ongoing process. That's how it is, and that's how it has to be: as in all walks of life, we learn from experience. The gist of my complaint is hinted at in your closing parenthesis: "Scientists are not immune to being dogmatic". You can't separate science from scientists, scientists are as fallible as the rest of us, and they are as responsible as the rest of us for what they say and do. (I'd like to think that most scientists would agree.) The fact that the process is ongoing is both a weakness and a strength, and I would have thought this was obvious not only to agnostics but to theists and atheists as well! Advances, e.g. in technology and medicine, are triumphs for scientists; blunders over misinformation are disasters for scientists, and sometimes for the rest of us too, so let us praise scientists for what they get right, and damn them for what they get wrong.
Inference and its role in NS
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, January 16, 2011, 16:51 (5058 days ago) @ dhw
ROMANSH: I think you misunderstand what Matt/xeno and perhaps what I are trying to say. > > Perhaps. Or perhaps you misunderstand me. Matt tells me that a scientific theory is one that has been repeatedly demonstrated to be true (verified) but will most likely turn out to be untrue (which apparently is different from its being an explanation whose truth has not been proved). In the meantime, farmers, doctors, teachers, governments may have acted upon these scientific theories (after all, they have been "repeatedly verified") ... sometimes with disastrous results ... but as science is an ongoing process, this according to both of you should NOT (your emphasis) be seen as a weakness but as a "huge strength". And according to Matt the public are to be blamed for their naivete in swallowing what the experts tell them, because they should know that science is not about coming up with final answers. > -And that line I marked in red is absolutely NOT what I was trying to say. -What I was attempting to say, is that no scientific theory is sacrosanct. If and when a better explanation for something arrives, if it does its job well, it will displace the old explanation. (It might take an entire passionate generation to die first.) Romansh's demonstration of Newton is perfect--NASA uses Newton's mathematical equations to launch rockets. It turns out his explanation was completely off as to the cause of gravity, -> I have no dispute with you over the ongoing process. That's how it is, and that's how it has to be: as in all walks of life, we learn from experience. The gist of my complaint is hinted at in your closing parenthesis: "Scientists are not immune to being dogmatic". You can't separate science from scientists, scientists are as fallible as the rest of us, and they are as responsible as the rest of us for what they say and do. (I'd like to think that most scientists would agree.) The fact that the process is ongoing is both a weakness and a strength, and I would have thought this was obvious not only to agnostics but to theists and atheists as well! Advances, e.g. in technology and medicine, are triumphs for scientists; blunders over misinformation are disasters for scientists, and sometimes for the rest of us too, so let us praise scientists for what they get right, and damn them for what they get wrong.-Nietzsche laughs at scientists in "Beyond Good and Evil," more specifically Kant who asserted that the role of scientists should be to be as objective and dispassionate as possible. If you choose a field to study, it is precisely because you're passionate about it. Human beings are not good at doing things they are not passionate about. It is always important to remember the power of psychology over everything else... even if it is "wishy-washy."
--
\"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.\"
Inference and its role in NS
Matt has kindly set out the rules by which the philosophy of science decides which theories are "the best", although passionate scientists (and all scientists should be passionate) may defend their own "pet theories", in which case presumably they don't know or don't accept the rules.-Similarly the philosophy of science lays out a clear framework that distinguishes between hypothesis, theory and law, but again unfortunately a lot of scientists don't know this framework and "muddy the water". -A system of fixed scientific criteria and definitions either not known or not recognized by some passionate scientists (and all scientists should be passionate) doesn't sound too convincing to me. Nor does "the best theory" carry much weight unless we're thinking in terms of scientific Oscars. What exactly are we supposed to do with a best theory that might be wrong? Perhaps instead of using the big bang versus the expanding/contracting universe as your example, you might consider climate change.-As for distinguishing between hypothesis and theory (I'd put "law" in a different category), I would not and did not define theory as an "arbitrary and untested explanation". But let's leave it at that.-I had paraphrased your definition of a scientific theory as one that has been repeatedly verified but will most likely turn out to be untrue, and you have objected to the "untrue" bit. I'd based that on your statements concerning the naïve public's inability to handle the TRANSITORY nature of scientific explanations, and the fact that science is not about finding FINAL answers. My apologies for the misinterpretation. I'm delighted that you appear to accept the rest of my post, to the effect that science and scientists cannot be separated, scientific blunders are not to be excused or ignored under the banner of "transitoriness", that the "naïve" public should not be blamed for taking the word of experts whose theories have been "repeatedly verified", and that the transitoriness of scientific theory is a weakness as well as a strength. I assume you accept these arguments because you have quoted them and responded (just a little cryptically) that Nietzsche laughs at scientists and at Kant, and we all need to be passionate about what we do.
Inference and its role in NS
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, January 17, 2011, 20:37 (5057 days ago) @ dhw
As an addendum: in regards to "truth," my own position is that we can never be ultimately sure if we have 'gotten to the bottom' of some endeavor; thus 'truth' is ever a moving target. The displacement of newtonian physics by relativity is the story of all science. -The key is that things generally do get more "trustworthy" over time. Science corrects itself. This point should beunderlined...-As a whole, this has been exactly how the body of science has proceeded; you seem to suggest my discussion as outlaid by the philosophy of science is only of theoretical importance. I just happen to be quite passionate about it, and my radical skepticism drives me to question deeply. Other (more professional) philosophers perform the same function. But we are few, radical skeptics and general doubters...-But it is also as much observation as by theory: one must simply have the patience to read from the beginning.
--
\"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.\"
Inference and its role in NS
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, January 16, 2011, 16:41 (5058 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, allow me to try and clean this up. Scrap what I said before and we'll try a revision. -A theory is an explanation of one or more hypotheses. -A hypothesis is some claim made within a theory that can be tested and falsified. A "verified" theory is one where there is little room to doubt the conclusions of its various hypotheses. -Maybe a good rule of thumb is that a theory organizes and explains a broad range of disparate hypotheses into a more coherent explanation. A good theory has hypotheses that have been rigorously tested.-I'll try to use your examples next... -The best theory is the one that explains the most data, and has vigorously applied Occam to eliminate extraneous assumptions. The other two "alternatives" to the Big Bang are theories in that they too, explain scientific data, only they both do not describe what we've seen in the evidence. The WMAP background eliminates an infinite universe, only because an infinite universe (at this time) is an assumption--there's currently no known way to test this statement against reality. So it is a theory, it simply isn't a better one. -The more interesting one which combines all three, really, is the expanding/contracting universe model. The Big Bang really explains a much smaller piece of the puzzle; it gets us from the beginning of our observable universe to the present. But it doesn't help us much for describing what happened before (some physicists claim nothing at all) or what will happen in the future. So the collapsing/expanding model tries to fill this void by saying the universe is a cycle of expansion and crunches. This model allows you to infer an infinite universe (but not Einstein's vision for one) and picks up the Big Bang as the mechanical means for the birth and distribution of matter in our current observable universe. However, we've only seen evidence for one Big Bang, and it may or may not be possible to detect older ones. Thus, it is not the "best" theory. -The rules for deciding which theory is best is clearly laid out for anyone who knows the scientific method. This doesn't stop passionate people from debating and defending their pet theories. And scientists are nothing if not passionate! But passion doesn't change the rules of the game. Philosophers of science are there to remind everyone of this. - > ...Your response to Romansh suggests to me that a hypothesis is the early stages of a theory, and I would simply add that the distinction between the two is blurred.-The philosophy of science is a very clearly laid out framework that explains the differences between hypothesis, theory, law, etc. Not every scientist gets this training--when I was a biochem major this class was NOT even suggested, and this feeds the problem with scientists also muddying the water; it's not through malicious intent, only a lack of knowledge about the theoretical underpinnings of their endeavor. Even Dawkins occasionally seems to forget the underpinnings of his own method. -But to stay on point, there is a clear distinction between hypothesis and theory--they mean very precise and technical things--and only education can try to demystify the common usage of the word "theory" as some arbitrary and untested explanation.-[EDITED] (Removed the extra "clearly" two paragraphs prior.)
--
\"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.\"
Inference and its role in NS
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, January 14, 2011, 03:40 (5061 days ago) @ romansh
I can't remember who said/intimated, that a scientific Law and Theory are synonymous it's just that a Law can said in pithy statement. These have lots of evidence to support statements, have stood the test of time and even remain Laws and theories when evidence has been found to show them as inacurate - eg Newton's Laws. > > Hypothesis(es) are testable propositions, that have some evidence to support them but require a lot more corroborating evidence. > -Not quite... a hypothesis is a prediction of correlation. It is based upon the evidence, but the hypothesis must be tested in order to become something more. -A rigorously tested hypothesis becomes theory. -> Models (for me) could be a description of some reality that are composed of theories and hypotheses that could be used for predictions or used to test the hypotheses. > -See my recent post to dhw in "Epistemological framework." All theories are models. All hypotheses are predictions based on experiment. All theories require well tested hypotheses. -> Speculations have little or no evidence. But can be fun. > > There is no need for belief in a scientist's world. Replicates and the concepts of precision and accuracy would be unnecessary otherwise.-No need only if you assert that scientists aren't human. Scientists must believe in their methods; if they're going to create new paradigms, they must also believe in themselves more than what conventional wisdom dictates... no...-as long as humans are involved, "beliefs" are central-as paradoxical as this may sound.
--
\"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.\"
Inference and its role in NS
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, January 14, 2011, 03:48 (5061 days ago) @ romansh
I can't remember who said/intimated, that a scientific Law and Theory are synonymous it's just that a Law can said in pithy statement. These have lots of evidence to support statements, have stood the test of time and even remain Laws and theories when evidence has been found to show them as inacurate - eg Newton's Laws. > -Law and Theory are not synonymous. A law must have a mathematical description attached; the law of gravity on earth (9.8m/s) or Boyle's law. -Theory is an explanation that has been well tested and is agreed to fit the data. Evolution is a theory and not a law for precisely the reasons stated above.
--
\"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.\"
Inference and its role in NS
by romansh , Saturday, January 15, 2011, 02:47 (5060 days ago) @ xeno6696
I can't remember who said/intimated, that a scientific Law and Theory are synonymous it's just that a Law can said in pithy statement. These have lots of evidence to support statements, have stood the test of time and even remain Laws and theories when evidence has been found to show them as inacurate - eg Newton's Laws. > > > > Law and Theory are not synonymous. A law must have a mathematical description attached; the law of gravity on earth (9.8m/s) or Boyle's law. > > Theory is an explanation that has been well tested and is agreed to fit the data. Evolution is a theory and not a law for precisely the reasons stated above.-Well I did, in part, have my tongue in cheek when I said they were synonymous. But of course if your definition is more accurate than mine fair enough. My tongue is again firmly in cheek.-But I do understand, if we don't know how explain a law in mathematical terms, it must be a theory.-Law of gravity on Earth? Come now. Newton's law does not explicitly mention acceleration, and please - as a physicist please get your units correct. Otherwise it may lead me to question your authority on definitions. (Tongue again firmly in cheek). >Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.-xeno I'm not sure I understand the statement below. >My response to Romansh here is similar.-rom
Inference and its role in NS
by David Turell , Sunday, January 16, 2011, 00:29 (5059 days ago) @ xeno6696
> This post is about the role of inference in phylogeny. It discusses something called the "grue" problem. If you read the article, it explains this problem well. > 1. Science is ONLY about model building. (Though scientists and the general public tend to forget this...) > > 2. Inference always inherits the problem of probabilities... meaning, that, science (using inference as its primary tool) is only every about probabilities, and that this means that though we would like them to be dogmatic, scientific "truths" are always approximations.-Another probability about NS is that competition may be a minor issue and land, air or sea 'space', when available, may allow for rapid diversification of species which is as the fossil record indicates. Dinosaurs died out and small mammals rapidly diversified:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11063939
Inference and its role in NS
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, January 16, 2011, 17:48 (5058 days ago) @ David Turell
> > This post is about the role of inference in phylogeny. It discusses something called the "grue" problem. If you read the article, it explains this problem well. > > 1. Science is ONLY about model building. (Though scientists and the general public tend to forget this...) > > > > 2. Inference always inherits the problem of probabilities... meaning, that, science (using inference as its primary tool) is only every about probabilities, and that this means that though we would like them to be dogmatic, scientific "truths" are always approximations. > > Another probability about NS is that competition may be a minor issue and land, air or sea 'space', when available, may allow for rapid diversification of species which is as the fossil record indicates. Dinosaurs died out and small mammals rapidly diversified: > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11063939-I can't believe this is news...-There's an evolution simulator I've run in the past, and when an organism first jumps into an environment where it can flourish, it takes over rapidly. Differentiation then becomes an issue within the groups as resources become scarce; this usually leaves to dietary changes and/or exploration of new environments. Which makes sense--even among human beings we try to avoid combat (competition) as a first response and try other alternatives first. -This is a great article, but I honestly thought that this idea was clearly intuitive and well-explored...
--
\"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.\"
Inference and its role in NS
by David Turell , Sunday, January 16, 2011, 21:04 (5058 days ago) @ xeno6696
> > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11063939 > > There's an evolution simulator I've run in the past, and when an organism first jumps into an environment where it can flourish, it takes over rapidly. Differentiation then becomes an issue within the groups as resources become scarce; this usually leaves to dietary changes and/or exploration of new environments. Which makes sense--even among human beings we try to avoid combat (competition) as a first response and try other alternatives first. > > This is a great article, but I honestly thought that this idea was clearly intuitive and well-explored...-Your description above fits punctuated equilibrium, which is Gould's point of view not Darwin's. Obviously, there are several types of competition: for lebensraum with other organisms allowing rapid advance and differentiation when space is made available, and then with crowding, intraspecies competition as well as interspecies competition. The competition drives differentiation. The winners are chosen through the competition and Darwin calls it natural selection. NS is totally passsive. The genome drives the differentiation. That is why the epigenetic discoveries are so important. It removes the other passive aspect of Darwin's theory: waiting for chance mutations.
Inference and its role in NS
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 19, 2011, 02:07 (5056 days ago) @ David Turell
> > > > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11063939 > > > > There's an evolution simulator I've run in the past, and when an organism first jumps into an environment where it can flourish, it takes over rapidly. Differentiation then becomes an issue within the groups as resources become scarce; this usually leaves to dietary changes and/or exploration of new environments. Which makes sense--even among human beings we try to avoid combat (competition) as a first response and try other alternatives first. > > > > This is a great article, but I honestly thought that this idea was clearly intuitive and well-explored... > > Your description above fits punctuated equilibrium, which is Gould's point of view not Darwin's. Obviously, there are several types of competition: for lebensraum with other organisms allowing rapid advance and differentiation when space is made available, and then with crowding, intraspecies competition as well as interspecies competition. The competition drives differentiation. The winners are chosen through the competition and Darwin calls it natural selection. NS is totally passsive. The genome drives the differentiation. That is why the epigenetic discoveries are so important. It removes the other passive aspect of Darwin's theory: waiting for chance mutations.-In your book do you clearly delineate between Gould and Darwin? Because though I ran the simulation program myself, it was textbook stuff for me in undergrad. When I hear someone attacking "darwinism" (even though I know you don't mean it this way) to me it always means evolution writ large; I never went beyond the chemical levels, but it seems to me that Gould just filled in some gaps but admitted he didn't have any evidence...
--
\"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.\"
Inference and its role in NS
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 19, 2011, 05:30 (5056 days ago) @ xeno6696
> In your book do you clearly delineate between Gould and Darwin? Because though I ran the simulation program myself, it was textbook stuff for me in undergrad. When I hear someone attacking "darwinism" (even though I know you don't mean it this way) to me it always means evolution writ large; I never went beyond the chemical levels, but it seems to me that Gould just filled in some gaps but admitted he didn't have any evidence...-I clearly described Gould and Eldridge's idea of punctuated equilibrium as some thing quite different.
Inference and its role in NS
DAVID: Another probability about NS is that competition may be a minor issue and land, air or sea 'space', when available, may allow for rapid diversification of species which is as the fossil record indicates. Dinosaurs died out and small mammals rapidly diversified:-http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11063939-How would availability of living space lead to diversification? Where do the new organs, the new species come from? The article gives a vivid example:-"When birds evolved the ability to fly, that opened up a vast range of new possibilities not available to other animals. Suddenly the skies were quite literally the limit, triggering a new evolutionary burst."-There is little doubt that this is what happened. But "birds evolved the ability to fly" is simply glossed over as if it didn't present the theory of evolution with an almighty problem. How did the ability to fly "evolve"? Similarly we're told that "the extinction of dinosaurs left areas of living space open, giving mammals their lucky break." How did this lead to diversification, to new species? When resources become scarce, as Matt points out, humans also try alternatives to combat. But even in their new environments, they are still humans. -David seems to see epigenetics as the answer ... certainly a more satisfactory solution than chance mutations ... but is there any evidence that epigenetic changes (a) produce new organs, (b) produce new species, and (c) are anything but short-term? (This is a genuine question, not a criticism.)
Inference and its role in NS
by David Turell , Monday, January 17, 2011, 15:41 (5057 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Monday, January 17, 2011, 15:47
> David seems to see epigenetics as the answer ... certainly a more satisfactory solution than chance mutations ... but is there any evidence that epigenetic changes (a) produce new organs, (b) produce new species, and (c) are anything but short-term? (This is a genuine question, not a criticism.)-The best example I've seen is Reznick's study of guppies. Small guppies changed their size when presented to danger in a two year period, rapid by any theory. Large guppies did the same. Small to large, large to small. Same species but an 'immediate' adaptation. Does a series of 'dangers' or challenges finally cause the epigenetic 'rapid response team' genetics to drive the species to a new species? That is the 64 dollar question. Current research is looking at methods of rapid change, methylation, recombination,etc., not requiring mutation. These seem to cause only small adaptations, not a jump in species type. I'm not aware of other Reznick-like studies.-Of greater importance is that the genomic researchers have no idea why one series of amino acids is functional and when altered is not. It appears that most mutations lab-created are deleterious. Lab research trying to mimic evolution doesn't work. With 20 amino acids that are essential, available,and all used in various sequences, and with functional segments using 100 amino acids or more, the odds (according to one reviewer) are 10^170 against finding a new functional segment de novo.
Inference and its role in NS
I asked David if there was any evidence that epigenetic changes (a) produce new organs, (b) produce new species, and (c) are anything but short-term? DAVID: The best example I've seen is Reznick's study of guppies. Small guppies changed their size when presented to danger in a two year period, rapid by any theory. Large guppies did the same. Small to large, large to small. Same species but an 'immediate' adaptation. Does a series of 'dangers' or challenges finally cause the epigenetic 'rapid response team' genetics to drive the species to a new species? That is the 64 dollar question. Current research is looking at methods of rapid change, methylation, recombination,etc., not requiring mutation. These seem to cause only small adaptations, not a jump in species type. I'm not aware of other Reznick-like studies.-Of greater importance is that the genomic researchers have no idea why one series of amino acids is functional and when altered is not. It appears that most mutations lab-created are deleterious. Lab research trying to mimic evolution doesn't work. With 20 amino acids that are essential, available, and all used in various sequences, and with functional segments using 100 amino acids or more, the odds (according to one reviewer) are 10^170 against finding a new functional segment de novo.-Many thanks for this comprehensive answer. In so many discussions, I find it galling that scientists continue to talk of evolution by natural selection, as if adaptation and innovation ... without which there would be no diversification and nothing to select from ... could be taken for granted. This is a linguistic device used, among others, by Dawkins, who claims that NS "explains the whole of life". It sounds as if epigenetics may account for adaptations(though giving something a name does not make it any the less complex or mysterious), but innovations and speciation remain a puzzle, unless we swallow the somewhat indigestible random mutations theory.
Inference and its role in NS
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 19, 2011, 02:13 (5056 days ago) @ dhw
dhw > Of greater importance is that the genomic researchers have no idea why one series of amino acids is functional and when altered is not. It appears that most mutations lab-created are deleterious. Lab research trying to mimic evolution doesn't work. With 20 amino acids that are essential, available, and all used in various sequences, and with functional segments using 100 amino acids or more, the odds (according to one reviewer) are 10^170 against finding a new functional segment de novo.[/i] > > Many thanks for this comprehensive answer. In so many discussions, I find it galling that scientists continue to talk of evolution by natural selection, as if adaptation and innovation ... without which there would be no diversification and nothing to select from ... could be taken for granted. This is a linguistic device used, among others, by Dawkins, who claims that NS "explains the whole of life". It sounds as if epigenetics may account for adaptations(though giving something a name does not make it any the less complex or mysterious), but innovations and speciation remain a puzzle, unless we swallow the somewhat indigestible random mutations theory.-Evolution in this case (Dawkins) is inference based on evidence. You tripped into my "inference is not knowledge" dogma once again... (Just trying to point out instances where your thinking parallel's my own skepticism... I still don't think we're that different....)
--
\"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.\"
Inference and its role in NS
MATT: Evolution is this case (Dawkins) is inference based on evidence. You tripped into my "inference is not knowledge" dogma once again...(Just trying to point out instances where your thinking parallels my own skepticism...I still don't think we're that different...)-Evolution and NS are not synonymous (see below), and I think you're being kind to Dawkins, who says that NS "explains the whole of life", which to my mind is not even an inference, let alone based on evidence. But I agree that inference is not knowledge, I do share your scepticism (even if I insist on spelling it the English way!), and we're not that different. On the epistemological thread, I'm confident we shall eventually come to an understanding, but the difference between us is that I tend to think more concretely than you do. On this thread, relating to evolution, both of us "accept" the basic theory, but there is one major difference between us, which is your focus on NS at the expense of adaptation and innovation. As far as the consciousness thread is concerned, I'm far more open to speculation than you are, but the reasons for that may perhaps come out later in our epistemological discussion.
Inference and its role in NS
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, January 20, 2011, 02:58 (5055 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: Evolution is this case (Dawkins) is inference based on evidence. You tripped into my "inference is not knowledge" dogma once again...(Just trying to point out instances where your thinking parallels my own skepticism...I still don't think we're that different...) > > Evolution and NS are not synonymous (see below), and I think you're being kind to Dawkins, who says that NS "explains the whole of life", which to my mind is not even an inference, let alone based on evidence. But I agree that inference is not knowledge, I do share your scepticism (even if I insist on spelling it the English way!), and we're not that different. On the epistemological thread, I'm confident we shall eventually come to an understanding, but the difference between us is that I tend to think more concretely than you do. On this thread, relating to evolution, both of us "accept" the basic theory, but there is one major difference between us, which is your focus on NS at the expense of adaptation and innovation. As far as the consciousness thread is concerned, I'm far more open to speculation than you are, but the reasons for that may perhaps come out later in our epistemological discussion.-Again, not having read any Dawkins--but having been a full-blown atheist previously--I assume that he for example, looks at the evidence of horse evolution, cut across about 14 skeletons at the Smithsonian, and concludes that there was a progression from horse 1 to horse 14; and that the explanation for each specimen was that it was under pressure of natural selection to reach the form it took. -When you look at palentological evidence at large, a similar story is told for many creatures. When you look at bacterial resistance, this is evidence on a micro scale for macro change. -I gloss over some details, but this is a fair representation of what I identify forms the whole of atheist ideology concerning evolution. -When you compare this explanation versus any others concerning how life has taken the form it does today--I find it a pretty convincing argument. So at this point generalizing to all of life is a natural next step. (Epistemology aside.) -Evolution and natural selection are seen as synonymous, but to writers (such as Massimo Pigliucci) he makes a distinction between what evolution was to Darwin compared to what evolution is to Evolutionary biologists today. Natural selection still plays a firm role. I don't have the time to read his book again, but the book "Denying Evolution" covers a great many of the objections you raise here, and at least offers a modern view on the current state of evolutionary biology. He does cover Gould, but in his view Gould still doesn't displace Natural Selection, only modifies it. He does tackle things such as the eye. It's just been about 6 years since I've read it and I do not recall his arguments around that.-If you're interested I suppose I could go dig up the relevant material and post it.
--
\"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.\"
Inference and its role in NS
MATT assumes that that the explanation for each specimen of horse "was that it was under pressure of natural selection to reach the form it took."-Straight away, you link the changes in form to natural selection, but NS does not change the form of any creature. The pressure may have been exerted by changes in the environment, and certainly those specimens that adapted best survived, but NS ONLY accounts for their survival ... not for the ability to adapt, let alone to innovate. MATT: When you compare this explanation versus any others concerning how life has taken the form it does today--I find it a pretty convincing argument. So at this point generalizing to all of life is a natural next step. (Epistemology aside.) Evolution and natural selection are seen as synonymous...-Stop there, because this is the point at issue. Evolution would be impossible without adaptation and innovation, which provide the diversification from which Nature selects. Maybe these mechanisms are interlinked ... maybe environmental pressures actually cause innovations, or maybe they're caused by accidental mutations, or maybe cells have an inventive intelligence of their own (David thinks they have been programmed by a UI). No-one would claim that NS itself requires design ... it is a straightforward process which, as David says, is basically a tautology: whatever survives is suited to survival. But it is these all-important mechanisms that enable evolution to move on. Stating this fact is not a denial of evolution; it is a criticism of those who try to oversimplify the process by kidding themselves and others that NS explains "the whole of life". -The complete sentence in Dawkins (The God Delusion, p. 116) reads: "Natural selection not only explains the whole of life; it also raises our consciousness to the power of science to explain how organized complexity can emerge from simple beginnings without any deliberate guidance."-Simplicity is relative. We still haven't figured out how these so-called "simple beginnings" began (the origin of life). And if you can explain to me how natural selection PRODUCES ... as opposed to PRESERVES ... adaptations and innovations (organized complexity), I will jump off my fence.
Inference and its role in NS
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, January 21, 2011, 14:14 (5053 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw; -I am in agreement that natural selection is generally a passive process. However I think we both might be arguing over semantics. if we agree that natural selection is the filter--then we really only care about what the output of the filter is. -Input: organism Output: organism that passed through natural selection.-When I learned biology, I learned that natural selection encompasses changing environments, organisms moving to new environments, and competition over resources or species.-So according to theory, organisms only undergo changes under stimuli to change.-What we call a horse now, we have 14 snapshots of its development. In what I learned, while natural selection is not the organism changing itself, its the conditions that put the organism into that situation--the cause. If we can agree on something here we can dive into Dawkins' mind regarding his inference (as best I can.)
--
\"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.\"
Inference and its role in NS
MATT: I am in agreement that natural selection is generally a passive process. However I think we both might be arguing over semantics. If we agree that natural selection is the filter--then we really only care about what the output of the filter is.-This is a new dimension to our discussions: who says the output is the only thing we really care about? You have missed the point of both the theist and the atheist agendas! So let me spell it out for you. The dispute is over whether the complexities of life's physical mechanisms are too great to have arisen by chance. Natural selection is irrelevant to the design argument ... it's a perfectly logical process whereby what survives is that which is most suited to survival (hence your 14 stages of horse). It would be unreasonable to deny this. By making out that evolution and NS are synonymous, the atheist can therefore argue that any questioning of evolution is unreasonable. What Dawkins calls "organized complexity" is not created by NS, but by mechanisms for replication, adaptation and innovation, without which evolution could not take place and Nature would have no variations to select from. These mechanisms have so far proved to be too complex for us to understand, let alone reproduce, and so theists claim that they have been designed. If you reject the possibility of design, you have no choice but to put your faith in the ability of chance to create the mechanisms ... but the idea of "faith in chance" is anathema to your atheist: hence the strategy of trying to make NS (which has no bearing on the design argument) synonymous with evolution. Ah Matt, what happened to my fellow sceptic's scepticism?
Inference and its role in NS
by David Turell , Saturday, January 22, 2011, 15:03 (5052 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: I am in agreement that natural selection is generally a passive process. However I think we both might be arguing over semantics. If we agree that natural selection is the filter--then we really only care about what the output of the filter is. > > This is a new dimension to our discussions: who says the output is the only thing we really care about? You have missed the point of both the theist and the atheist agendas! So let me spell it out for you. The dispute is over whether the complexities of life's physical mechanisms are too great to have arisen by chance. Natural selection is irrelevant to the design argument ... it's a perfectly logical process whereby what survives is that which is most suited to survival (hence your 14 stages of horse). It would be unreasonable to deny this. By making out that evolution and NS are synonymous, the atheist can therefore argue that any questioning of evolution is unreasonable. What Dawkins calls "organized complexity" is not created by NS, but by mechanisms for replication, adaptation and innovation, without which evolution could not take place and Nature would have no variations to select from. These mechanisms have so far proved to be too complex for us to understand, let alone reproduce, and so theists claim that they have been designed. If you reject the possibility of design, you have no choice but to put your faith in the ability of chance to create the mechanisms ... but the idea of "faith in chance" is anathema to your atheist: hence the strategy of trying to make NS (which has no bearing on the design argument) synonymous with evolution. Ah Matt, what happened to my fellow sceptic's scepticism?-The commentary above needs to be repeated over and over. It is the very clearest summary I've seen of the debating points between design and atheism.-That said, the use of the horse example is of especial interest: note that the horse has been bred back down to original size. This means the coding for advancing evolution is present in the final form of an organism, and can be reversed by selective breeding back to the beginning. This suggests to me that an argument can be made that the code for advancing evolution is present from the beginning of evolution, since the morphogenic pattern controls in the genome are fully maintained going forward or backwards.
Inference and its role in NS
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 22, 2011, 19:01 (5052 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: I am in agreement that natural selection is generally a passive process. However I think we both might be arguing over semantics. If we agree that natural selection is the filter--then we really only care about what the output of the filter is. > > This is a new dimension to our discussions: who says the output is the only thing we really care about? You have missed the point of both the theist and the atheist agendas! So let me spell it out for you. The dispute is over whether the complexities of life's physical mechanisms are too great to have arisen by chance. Natural selection is irrelevant to the design argument ... it's a perfectly logical process whereby what survives is that which is most suited to survival (hence your 14 stages of horse). It would be unreasonable to deny this. By making out that evolution and NS are synonymous, the atheist can therefore argue that any questioning of evolution is unreasonable. What Dawkins calls "organized complexity" is not created by NS, but by mechanisms for replication, adaptation and innovation, without which evolution could not take place and Nature would have no variations to select from. These mechanisms have so far proved to be too complex for us to understand, let alone reproduce, and so theists claim that they have been designed. If you reject the possibility of design, you have no choice but to put your faith in the ability of chance to create the mechanisms ... but the idea of "faith in chance" is anathema to your atheist: hence the strategy of trying to make NS (which has no bearing on the design argument) synonymous with evolution. Ah Matt, what happened to my fellow sceptic's scepticism?-lol... I always think "scepter" when I see the British spelling "sceptic."-Remember; I'm trying to offer arguments I remember coupled with what we're reasoning about Dawkins' views--which again--I haven't read. -I don't see this is rewording evolution; natural selection is the process that culls organisms that were unable to respond to some change. -"Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers." (Wikipedia)-Traits becoming more or less common. In other words, evolution is natural selection. Without natural selection, we have no theory of evolution.-It's in the language of biologists; an event that begins the process is called "selective pressure." While the organism is under pressure, it must find a way to adapt, behaviourally or molecularly. From beginning to end, "Natural Selection" is the process by which the organism moves from its original state to some state in the future. Rereading some sections of some of my books, I'm less inclined now to agree that natural selection is passive. -You are arguing I think, that the actual changes that an organism undergoes is a separate issue from that of natural selection, however, an organism must be under pressure of selection before it can perform the process of changing. -Therefore, since no change happens without selective pressure, natural selection explains the whole of why organisms change. -My attachment here is: Only at a very high and unrefined level. We're still not at the stage of knowledge yet.
--
\"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.\"
Inference and its role in NS
MATT: I don't see this is rewording evolution; natural selection is the process that culls organisms that were unable to respond to some change..."Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers." (Wikipedia) Traits becoming more or less common. In other words, evolution is natural selection. Without natural selection, we have no theory of evolution.-You can't have fish and chips without fish, but that doesn't mean that fish is fish and chips! All the phases of evolution, of which NS is one, are interlinked. Why, then, did you look for a definition of natural selection (not a problem) and not for one of evolution? Here is the Encarta definition: "the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life." Longman: "the scientific idea that plants and animals develop and change gradually over a long period of time." Chambers: "the cumulative changes in the characteristics of living organisms or populations of organisms from generation to generation, resulting in the development of new types of organisms over long periods of time." What is common to all these definitions is development and change, and these are not PRODUCED by natural selection but by adaptation and innovation. NS only preserves these changes and developments.-MATT: It's in the language of biologists; an event that begins the process is called "selective pressure." While the organism is under pressure, it must find a way to adapt, behaviourally or molecularly. -If an organism is already perfectly adapted, it doesn't need to change. What you call "adapt molecularly" is the point at issue, because without that mechanism (plus the mechanism that produces innovations such as sex), there can be no evolution. What you have is therefore three stages, two of which speak for themselves: 1) if organisms don't adapt to the conditions they will die (selective pressure); 2) some organisms adapt/change/innovate; 3) those that have changed appropriately survive (natural selection). Phase 2 is the one that causes us all the problems. MATT: Therefore, since no change happens without selective pressure, natural selection explains the whole of why organisms change. "Selective pressure" explains why organisms NEED to change, and NS explains why certain organisms survive and others don't. Neither explains HOW organisms change. If the theory of evolution as defined above is true (I think it is, though "gradually" is a controversial description), we need to understand its physical mechanisms, which you seem to regard as somehow irrelevant. Evolution could not take place without them, and crucially for our discussions, it is their complexity (not the automatic process of NS) that underlies the dispute between theists and atheists, as I tried to explain in my post of 22 January at 10.21.
Inference and its role in NS
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, January 24, 2011, 04:05 (5051 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, I really wish I could add diagrams to my posts here... > MATT: It's in the language of biologists; an event that begins the process is called "selective pressure." While the organism is under pressure, it must find a way to adapt, behaviourally or molecularly. > > If an organism is already perfectly adapted, it doesn't need to change. What you call "adapt molecularly" is the point at issue, because without that mechanism (plus the mechanism that produces innovations such as sex), there can be no evolution. What you have is therefore three stages, two of which speak for themselves: 1) if organisms don't adapt to the conditions they will die (selective pressure); 2) some organisms adapt/change/innovate; 3) those that have changed appropriately survive (natural selection). Phase 2 is the one that causes us all the problems. > -At core, is selective pressure. I understand evolution to be destructive as well as constructive; selective pressure is the cause that moves an organism to continue to survive or become extinct.-We need to consider what Dawkins is saying here. For natural selection to explain the "whole of life," we need to define what it is that it is selecting for. Ultimately we know that it is genes that are being selected for. I will have to dig up the name of the experiment done in the 1980's, but the experimenters deliberately knocked out a bacteria's natural ability to digest lactose. They then cultured these bacteria and reintroduced them into a lactose-rich media. What ended up happening was that the bacteria appropriated machinery that performed some other function, and used that (inefficiently) to again be able to ingest lactose. In this case the selective pressure was lactose, and the selection was for the new gene. -As far as natural selection is concerned, it does not matter whether or not we know exactly how the bacteria did what it did. We know its beginning state, its end state, and that the mechanism of change was in co-opting a different gene. -Modifying "what are we selecting for" the answer becomes clear: Selective pressure operates against only the genetic material that came before that date. The mechanism for change relies solely upon the collective history of the organism. Natural Selection explains both why organisms live and die out, and why we have the diversity we have today. Natural Selection works against existing genes to accomplish all of this. I think this is complete as I can be in regards to the Dawkins/Pigliucci formulation, without stepping into their heads. -So I think your #2 above is answered as it can be. In the Dawkins view, your question gets pushed all the way back to abiogenesis, because life is defined as a recursive function that consistently relies upon its prior states. Explanations such as the exact mechanisms that created eyes or sex are seen as only filling in the details of what is explained by what I discussed above. -I agree that it's the corner-cases that raise red flags. I unfortunately will have to wait for biologists to answer these questions more completely.
--
\"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.\"
Inference and its role in NS
by David Turell , Monday, January 24, 2011, 05:20 (5051 days ago) @ xeno6696
MATT: It's in the language of biologists; an event that begins the process is called "selective pressure." While the organism is under pressure, it must find a way to adapt, behaviourally or molecularly. -'Selective pressure' is just another way of saying 'natural selection'. As we now know environmental or other pressures cause epigenetic modifications which become inherited. > > At core, is selective pressure. I understand evolution to be destructive as well as constructive; selective pressure is the cause that moves an organism to continue to survive or become extinct.- Just another way of saying natural selection. > > We need to consider what Dawkins is saying here. For natural selection to explain the "whole of life," we need to define what it is that it is selecting for. Ultimately we know that it is genes that are being selected for. I will have to dig up the name of the experiment done in the 1980's, but the experimenters deliberately knocked out a bacteria's natural ability to digest lactose. They then cultured these bacteria and reintroduced them into a lactose-rich media. What ended up happening was that the bacteria appropriated machinery that performed some other function, and used that (inefficiently) to again be able to ingest lactose. In this case the selective pressure was lactose, and the selection was for the new gene. -A very well-know study, new genetics, same species. Microevolultion, and it doesn't prove macroevolution. > > Modifying "what are we selecting for" the answer becomes clear: Selective pressure operates against only the genetic material that came before that date. The mechanism for change relies solely upon the collective history of the organism. Natural Selection explains both why organisms live and die out, and why we have the diversity we have today. Natural Selection works against existing genes to accomplish all of this. -Or works for the gene structure.- > So I think your #2 above is answered as it can be. In the Dawkins view, your question gets pushed all the way back to abiogenesis, because life is defined as a recursive function that consistently relies upon its prior states. Explanations such as the exact mechanisms that created eyes or sex are seen as only filling in the details of what is explained by what I discussed above. -Agreed
Inference and its role in NS
dhw: 1) if organisms don't adapt to the conditions they will die (selective pressure); 2) some organisms adapt/change/innovate; 3) those that have changed appropriately survive (natural selection). Phase 2 is the one that causes us all the problems. -I shan't quote all of your response, because I agree with most of what you say, and indeed it echoes and illustrates the above schema. The difference between us is encapsulated in two statements of yours and one of David's:-MATT: As far as natural selection is concerned, it does not matter whether or not we know exactly how the bacteria did what it did.-DAVID: New genetics, same species. Microevolution, and it doesn't prove macroevolution.-MATT: In the Dawkins view, your question gets pushed all the way back to abiogenesis...-The crux of the matter is why we're having this discussion at all, and my reason (David's as well, I presume) is the issue of chance v. design, and hence the existence or non-existence of a designer. Do we believe that chance could assemble the ingredients for life (abiogenesis) and for the mechanisms of adaptation and innovation (micro and macro evolution) without which evolution could not take place? How these mechanisms function "doesn't matter" for NS, and it "doesn't matter" if you are only concerned with why evolution happens. It does matter if you are arguing for or against design. David has posted article after article, emphasizing the complexities and the still unsolved mysteries which for him reinforce the design argument. That is why the attempt to synonymize evolution and natural selection ... i.e. to exclude the huge questions raised by these mechanisms ... is not acceptable to anyone who takes evolution and the design issue seriously.-You have concluded by saying that unfortunately you "will have to wait for biologists to answer these questions more completely." So will I. But they matter.
Inference and its role in NS
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, January 27, 2011, 23:30 (5047 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw > MATT: As far as natural selection is concerned, it does not matter whether or not we know exactly how the bacteria did what it did. > > DAVID: New genetics, same species. Microevolution, and it doesn't prove macroevolution. > > MATT: In the Dawkins view, your question gets pushed all the way back to abiogenesis... > > The crux of the matter is why we're having this discussion at all, and my reason (David's as well, I presume) is the issue of chance v. design, and hence the existence or non-existence of a designer. Do we believe that chance could assemble the ingredients for life (abiogenesis) and for the mechanisms of adaptation and innovation (micro and macro evolution) without which evolution could not take place? How these mechanisms function "doesn't matter" for NS, and it "doesn't matter" if you are only concerned with why evolution happens. It does matter if you are arguing for or against design. David has posted article after article, emphasizing the complexities and the still unsolved mysteries which for him reinforce the design argument. That is why the attempt to synonymize evolution and natural selection ... i.e. to exclude the huge questions raised by these mechanisms ... is not acceptable to anyone who takes evolution and the design issue seriously. >-Dawkins doesn't take it seriously? No, again the real issue is normative epistemology. You disagree to what valid evidence is. That's it in a nutshell. Science is not about finding 'truth' it is about models that work--and however incomplete it may be, name an explanation that works better? There's none on the table...
--
\"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.\"
Inference and its role in NS
I object to evolution being made synonymous with natural selection. NS is an automatic process which not even ID-ers would regard as needing guidance. The ID argument is based on the complexity of the mechanisms that have given rise to life, adaptation and innovation, without which evolution cannot take place. -dhw: That is why the attempt to synonymize evolution and natural selection ... i.e. to exclude the huge questions raised by these mechanisms ... is not acceptable to anyone who takes evolution and the design issue seriously.-MATT: Dawkins doesn't take it seriously? No, again the real issue is normative epistemology. You disagree to what valid evidence is. That's it in a nutshell. Science is not about finding 'truth' it is about models that work ... and however incomplete it may be, name an explanation that works better? There's none on the table...-Not for the first time you have quoted me, and then ignored what I've said. I stated that my reason for this whole discussion "is the issue of chance v. design". Nowhere have I questioned the model, and nowhere have I suggested there is a better explanation. I believe that evolution (micro and - still unexplained - macro) happened, I believe the theory of common ancestry, I do not question that natural selection happens, and I do not question the existence of the mechanisms for life, replication, adaptation and innovation. The sole issue here is whether the mechanisms could or could not have assembled themselves by chance. The design argument is that the greater the complexity, the greater the degree of improbability that chance could do it. "That's it in a nutshell." You may disagree with that argument, you may feel that since we can't know the answers, it's not worth asking the questions, but that is no reason for defining evolution in a manner that deliberately excludes the questions.
Inference and its role in NS
by David Turell , Saturday, January 29, 2011, 22:58 (5045 days ago) @ dhw
I object to evolution being made synonymous with natural selection. NS is an automatic process which not even ID-ers would regard as needing guidance. -> I stated that my reason for this whole discussion "is the issue of chance v. design". Nowhere have I questioned the model, and nowhere have I suggested there is a better explanation. I believe that evolution (micro and - still unexplained - macro) happened, I believe the theory of common ancestry, I do not question that natural selection happens.-Here is a form of natural selection which is an extreme natural challenge and causes the third largest extinction 450 million years ago. Hot to cold to hot again: -http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/01/how-to-read-a-prehistoric-thermo.html?ref=hp
Inference and its role in NS
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 29, 2011, 23:15 (5045 days ago) @ dhw
I object to evolution being made synonymous with natural selection. NS is an automatic process which not even ID-ers would regard as needing guidance. The ID argument is based on the complexity of the mechanisms that have given rise to life, adaptation and innovation, without which evolution cannot take place. > > dhw: That is why the attempt to synonymize evolution and natural selection ... i.e. to exclude the huge questions raised by these mechanisms ... is not acceptable to anyone who takes evolution and the design issue seriously. > > MATT: Dawkins doesn't take it seriously? No, again the real issue is normative epistemology. You disagree to what valid evidence is. That's it in a nutshell. Science is not about finding 'truth' it is about models that work ... and however incomplete it may be, name an explanation that works better? There's none on the table... > > Not for the first time you have quoted me, and then ignored what I've said. I stated that my reason for this whole discussion "is the issue of chance v. design". Nowhere have I questioned the model, and nowhere have I suggested there is a better explanation. I believe that evolution (micro and - still unexplained - macro) happened, I believe the theory of common ancestry, I do not question that natural selection happens, and I do not question the existence of the mechanisms for life, replication, adaptation and innovation. The sole issue here is whether the mechanisms could or could not have assembled themselves by chance. The design argument is that the greater the complexity, the greater the degree of improbability that chance could do it. "That's it in a nutshell." You may disagree with that argument, you may feel that since we can't know the answers, it's not worth asking the questions, but that is no reason for defining evolution in a manner that deliberately excludes the questions.-dhw,-I will point out that this discussion has been about Dawkins saying that the whole of life is explained by natural selection, which you take issue with. My job here has been to "be" Dawkins. -The mechanisms which brought about life are also responsible for how life changes. This is a separate discussion. Dawkin's statement is to look at what we've observed. The reason for what we see now is because of millions of years of selection at work. -Thus, the "whole of life."-Maybe I need more context for his claim, but I don't see anything wrong with it.
--
\"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.\"
Inference and its role in NS
MATT: I will point out that this discussion has been about Dawkins saying that the whole of life is explained by natural selection, which you take issue with. My job here has been to "be" Dawkins. -Errrm, not quite, but perhaps this has led to our talking at cross purposes. The discussion began with my asking David (17 January at 11.14) how the available living space theory could lead to diversification (new organs and species), as this question had been glossed over by statements like: "when birds evolved the ability to fly". In my thank you response to David on 18 January at 12.11, I wrote: "I find it galling that scientists continue to talk of evolution by natural selection, as if adaptation and innovation ... without which there would be no diversification and nothing to select from ... could be taken for granted. This is a linguistic device used, among others, by Dawkins, who claims that NS "explains the whole of life"." -I used Dawkins only as an added example, following on from the living space article, and in my post to you on 22 January at 10.21 I explained exactly how and why this linguistic device is used. Since then, I've continued to object to the claim that NS and evolution are synonymous, and you've continued (apparently) to defend it. I appreciate, however, that you've been acting as the devil's advocate without actually knowing what the devil has to say (though the title The God Delusion gives you a pretty good idea), but the same "glossing over" is all too common in articles about evolution. -As you agree that "the mechanisms which brought about life are also responsible for how life changes", you clearly agree that evolution and natural selection are not synonymous, and so I suggest we shake hands and move on ... which is what we usually do anyway!
Inference and its role in NS
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, January 31, 2011, 01:05 (5044 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,-I will continue to serve my function as long as it is appreciated an/or called for! -As a minor aside, I appreciate your willingness to join me in building a framework to discuss these details... but I'm constantly reminded about how impossible it is to exclude the "philosophical" from these discussions...-My opposition to Dawkins is purely in the realm of an adherence to "truth." If we don't have evidence of "truth" we don't have truth. So if we have no evidence of God (as he himself has said publicly) we don't have any evidence based upon which to say "God does not exist." -Dawkins (and similar thinkers) look only upon those religious claims that have been made since the dawn of time and don't consider (mainly for operational reasons) things such as my strawman deism. Sam Harris has taken the position that it is only the claims that have been made that atheism attacks, but being who I am I must point out that all of us are metaphysicians. The corollary here is that if every person is a metaphysician, then every person makes some kind of claim and that atheism in this light is then in the position of attacking every conceivable form of theism.
--
\"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.\"
Inference and its role in NS
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 19, 2011, 02:10 (5056 days ago) @ David Turell
> > David seems to see epigenetics as the answer ... certainly a more satisfactory solution than chance mutations ... but is there any evidence that epigenetic changes (a) produce new organs, (b) produce new species, and (c) are anything but short-term? (This is a genuine question, not a criticism.) > > The best example I've seen is Reznick's study of guppies. Small guppies changed their size when presented to danger in a two year period, rapid by any theory. Large guppies did the same. Small to large, large to small. Same species but an 'immediate' adaptation. Does a series of 'dangers' or challenges finally cause the epigenetic 'rapid response team' genetics to drive the species to a new species? That is the 64 dollar question. Current research is looking at methods of rapid change, methylation, recombination,etc., not requiring mutation. These seem to cause only small adaptations, not a jump in species type. I'm not aware of other Reznick-like studies. > > Of greater importance is that the genomic researchers have no idea why one series of amino acids is functional and when altered is not. It appears that most mutations lab-created are deleterious. Lab research trying to mimic evolution doesn't work. With 20 amino acids that are essential, available,and all used in various sequences, and with functional segments using 100 amino acids or more, the odds (according to one reviewer) are 10^170 against finding a new functional segment de novo.-Like I said... if we're going to crack this nut we really need to take an approach that doesn't try to mimic life's conditions until we know that we can create it in a test tube with ANY material, reagent, etc...
--
\"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.\"