AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

http://news.yahoo.com/astronomers-discover-18-huge-alien-planets-211802669.html?fb_acti...

--
\"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.\"

8533 views

http://news.yahoo.com/astronomers-discover-18-huge-alien-planets-211802669.html?fb_acti...

Lots of stars and lots of solar systems; and we have not gotten any radio signals yet. My guess is we never will.

8687 views

The age of the universe alone is enough for me not to discount intelligent life.

--
\"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.\"

8569 views

The age of the universe alone is enough for me not to discount intelligent life.

We are back to one million monkeys typing a Shakespeare sonnet. You still think it is time enough without 'help', just natural processes? The appearance of life seems 'destined' since it appeared so quickly on this planet, so I assume that you assume it is destined everywhere? SETI is still waiting.

See my other entry today, sticking a fork in natural selection as a driving force.

8492 views

The age of the universe alone is enough for me not to discount intelligent life.

Another new planet with an Earth position in the habitable zone, but it is not known if this solar system makes rocky planets:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-kepler-planet-habitable-zone-sun-like.html

8571 views

These types of stories are becoming a nuisance, particularly as they are normally followed up by detractors and contradictions. Ok, so they have redefined the Goldilocks zone, and found some planets. That does not tell us if they are habitable, what their composition is, if they have an atmosphere we can survive in, water, if the planet core is still active etc etc etc etc. That list could go on for years.

I'm seriously not trying to poo poo their work. I find it impressive and very amazing. I just wish that they would learn to be a little less sensational, and a little more conservative. After all, isn't science supposed to be about skepticism in the face of discovery?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

8498 views

I'm seriously not trying to poo poo their work. I find it impressive and very amazing. I just wish that they would learn to be a little less sensational, and a little more conservative. After all, isn't science supposed to be about skepticism in the face of discovery?

I think this proves that a solar system is a routine occurrance. A planet like Earth is very special as discussed by the books, Rare Earth and Privileged Planet. Odds for others is small, but with 100 billion galaxies and 100 billion stars per, there may well be others. SETI can only cover 35 light-years so far and the Milky Way is 100,000 light years across.

8612 views

No, it proves that there are earth sized planets in the so-called 'Goldilocks' zones. It does not prove that there are "Earth-like" planets at all. For the planet to be considered "Earth-like" it would need comparable chemical and resource composition of both land and air, along with water and an atmosphere. In addition, it would also need to have similar density, spin, EM fields, etc etc etc. As I said, the list could go on for a year. We must get out of this reductionist mindset. You can not take a complex system and compare it to another complex system based on one or two similar variables.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

8506 views

No, it proves that there are earth sized planets in the so-called 'Goldilocks' zones. It does not prove that there are "Earth-like" planets at all. For the planet to be considered "Earth-like" it would need comparable chemical and resource composition of both land and air, along with water and an atmosphere. In addition, it would also need to have similar density, spin, EM fields, etc etc etc. As I said, the list could go on for a year. We must get out of this reductionist mindset. You can not take a complex system and compare it to another complex system based on one or two similar variables.

Remember Tony, I wasn't quoting from the formal paper at Nasa, I was quoting from a source that probably followed this course:

1. Nasa publication
2. Nasa press release
3. AP writer reports
4. Source of my story.

Journalists care about what sells, not about truth, which in America is called yellow journalism.

It is this kind of journalism that keeps me from watching news.

--
\"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.\"

8590 views

Remember Tony, I wasn't quoting from the formal paper at Nasa, I was quoting from a source that probably followed this course:

1. Nasa publication
2. Nasa press release
3. AP writer reports
4. Source of my story.

Journalists care about what sells, not about truth, which in America is called yellow journalism.

It is this kind of journalism that keeps me from watching news.

Agreed, but has there been anything official from NASA discouraging commentary like that? Why would they? It's great for publicity. Unfortunately, its bad for science.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

8563 views

Remember Tony, I wasn't quoting from the formal paper at Nasa, I was quoting from a source that probably followed this course:

1. Nasa publication
2. Nasa press release
3. AP writer reports
4. Source of my story.

Journalists care about what sells, not about truth, which in America is called yellow journalism.

It is this kind of journalism that keeps me from watching news.

Agreed, but has there been anything official from NASA discouraging commentary like that? Why would they? It's great for publicity. Unfortunately, its bad for science.

Having worked for two scientists... they're usually WAY too busy to pay attention to what the media is saying or doing about their work, unless it gets so out of proportion that it gets brought up to them. NASA scientists are probably worse than most--because by the time one of your papers actually gets published, you're already 5-6 beyond it.

The PR wing of NASA has a job to display a good public image--not report the science in a "true" manner. But this is no different than any other large corporation. And it also underlines at least one reason that some kind of review process is in order.

--
\"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.\"

8578 views

The age of the universe alone is enough for me not to discount intelligent life.

> We are back to one million monkeys typing a Shakespeare sonnet. You still think it is time enough without 'help', just natural processes? The appearance of life seems 'destined' since it appeared so quickly on this planet, so I assume that you assume it is destined everywhere? SETI is still waiting.

Are we now? Do we actually know how common life is in the universe?

Never said that. Remember: I care about knowledge, not guesses.

I find it funny that you grabbed on this one. You of all people, who abhor randomness... SETI's goal is to listen... to suns "kinda like ours" in order to see if there's any signals... are you really suprised it hasn't turned anything up?

See my other entry today, sticking a fork in natural selection as a driving force.

I will... I'm stalling for a project though...

--
\"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.\"

8537 views

David writes...

See my other entry today, sticking a fork in natural selection as a driving force.

Okay... this is a prime example why I get all tied up like I did in the Natural Selection thread...

To a computer scientist... the MOST IMPORTANT PART OF ANY ALGORITHM IS THE STEP THAT DECIDES THE NEXT STEP... I've said before that the "filter" is the most important part of the process.

"Sticking a fork in natural selection..."

Is precisely the opposite of this.

--
\"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.\"

8524 views

Okay... this is a prime example why I get all tied up like I did in the Natural Selection thread...

To a computer scientist... the MOST IMPORTANT PART OF ANY ALGORITHM IS THE STEP THAT DECIDES THE NEXT STEP... I've said before that the "filter" is the most important part of the process.

The evolution of life is NOT a computer algorithm. That is where the trouble has been. NS does filtering, but it can only choose from what it is given. It is not in a feedback loop. You are right. Two differing ways of looking at it.

8584 views

Okay... this is a prime example why I get all tied up like I did in the Natural Selection thread...

To a computer scientist... the MOST IMPORTANT PART OF ANY ALGORITHM IS THE STEP THAT DECIDES THE NEXT STEP... I've said before that the "filter" is the most important part of the process.

The evolution of life is NOT a computer algorithm. That is where the trouble has been. NS does filtering, but it can only choose from what it is given. It is not in a feedback loop. You are right. Two differing ways of looking at it.

If evolution can't be modeled by computers why do I have 2 textbooks that xplain how to do exactly that? And if evolution isn't iterative, then why do we have generations? the only way your words are true is if generation 2 doesn't inherit from generation 1. Ball's in your court, David.

--
\"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.\"

8517 views

If evolution can't be modeled by computers why do I have 2 textbooks that xplain how to do exactly that? And if evolution isn't iterative, then why do we have generations? the only way your words are true is if generation 2 doesn't inherit from generation 1. Ball's in your court, David.

You are correct as far as you go. Any algorithm passes judgment om each stage as it is presented. But both dhw and I view the issue in biologic terms. You think each step is an active process, and that is right, but viewed in retrospect, each presentation to a filter is an active presentation, but viewed for the aspect of the filter, what is presented is actively chosen, but the filter has no control over what is presented, and therefore it is receiving its group to chose from in a passive manner. NS choses from whatever is presented and makes choices actively, but NS has no real control over evolution since it cannot initiate innovation, only approve of it of reject it. Random mutation of all sorts and epigenetics are the driving force. I've not read the book, but I assume that is the point of view of the authors.

8587 views

I wasnâ€™t going to get involved, but Matt has summoned me with three exclamation marks to take notice, and since we seem to be teetering on the brink of another squabble over NS, and since the spur is yet another load of old cobblers about Darwinism and Natural Selection, I will join in.

DAVID: Excellent review with many editorial overtones on "What Darwin Got Wrong":

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=1111-scambray

REVIEW (first line): Modernism is built on Charles Darwinâ€™s idea that the world made itself.

Excellent review? Darwin was an agnostic. His theory of evolution tells us NOTHING about how the world was made or even about how life began. Great start!

REVIEW: Beyond such adaptations or adjustments, natural selection is incapable of any innovative, irreversible changes in an organism.

Ah, thatâ€™s good. Matt, take notice!!!

REVIEW: So natural selection, the force that supposedly made the cosmos, the dynamic that philosopher Daniel Dennett audaciously calls â€œthe single, best idea anyone has ever hadâ€ â€” this force which Darwinian materialists insist we must believe is our true creator upon pain of being ridiculed and marginalized â€”can be considered defunct.

Ugh! Take notice, Matt, of what nonsense arises out of equating NS with the whole of evolution. I donâ€™t know of anyone who has ever claimed that NS â€œmade the cosmosâ€, but David and I â€“ and no doubt thousands of other evolutionists, including Darwin â€“ have pointed out over and over again that NS is the filter which decides which adaptations and innovations will survive. I agree that Darwin was wrong to call his book the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, but his text attributes innovations to mutations, not to NS, and as a filter itâ€™s no more defunct than the theory of common descent, which is so fundamental to his argument.

REVIEW: Nonetheless, having dispensed with a literal reading of Darwin, our progressive authors, Fedor and Piattelli-Palmarini, lay claim to a â€œdiversityâ€ of alternative explanations as the forces that drive evolution. Indeed, our co-authors come up with a series of endogenous (inside the organism) forces, having to do with accidental and tandem genetic factors, which they offer as our creators. They then proceed to explain such forces as gene regulatory netÂ¬works, entrenchment, master genes, morphogenetic explosions, plasÂ¬ticity, epiÂ¬genetics, jumping genes, and so on.

And whatâ€™s wrong with that? The reviewers castigate the authors for being atheists (fair enough â€“ atheists would castigate the reviewers for being theists), but this scientific research has nothing to do with theism or atheism. If God exists, it is perfectly feasible that he devised a mechanism which would produce a vast variety of species. That enormously complex mechanism is what science is trying to unravel. Do the reviewers think their God merely waved his magic wand? The innovations HAVE taken place, and new species HAVE come into existence. The mechanisms will be the same whether Nature made them or God made them.

MATT: There is one and only one definitive test that would permanently displace Natural Selection: A species that emerges without a corresponding stimulus from environment.

DAVID: Whoa!! We have no idea HOW NEW SPECIES EMERGE!

Spot on, but we do know that NS did not create the new organs or enable the old ones to adapt. Nothing will â€œdisplaceâ€ NS. Even a random genetic mutation without environmental stimulation will survive or not survive according to whether it is useful or not, but the mutation must take place before NS can come into play.

MATT: Iâ€™ve said before that the â€œfilterâ€ is the most important part of the process.

Actually, before you saw the error of your ways (nasty dig, but youâ€™ve earned it!) you said that the filter WAS the process. And if youâ€™ve made this statement before, may I plead with you not to make it again. How can the filter be THE most important part? What would be the point of a filter if there was nothing to be filtered? Every phase in the process is indispensable. In other words, evolution could not happen without life, reproduction, adaptation, innovation and NS. Time to move on?

8566 views

MATT: Iâ€™ve said before that the â€œfilterâ€ is the most important part of the process.

Actually, before you saw the error of your ways (nasty dig, but youâ€™ve earned it!) you said that the filter WAS the process. And if youâ€™ve made this statement before, may I plead with you not to make it again. How can the filter be THE most important part? What would be the point of a filter if there was nothing to be filtered? Every phase in the process is indispensable. In other words, evolution could not happen without life, reproduction, adaptation, innovation and NS. Time to move on?

Excellent parsing of the review. The filter is properly filtered into its place. Let's move on.

8542 views

A story filled with wishful thinking; lots of guesses from srtatistical blips:-http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/earth-size-goldilocks-zone-planet-found-in-distant-solar-system/2014/04/17/0bd7188c-c63b-11e3-8b9a-8e0977a24aeb_story.html?wpisrc=nl%5Feve

8167 views

A story filled with wishful thinking; lots of guesses from srtatistical blips:
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/earth-size-goldilocks-zone-planet... response: They picked on one of 700+ planets discovered... more planets discovered in 1 year as opposed to two decades. More planets discovered in two decades than in 4.5Bn years. -A little early to start waving any flags, of any kind...

--
\"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.\"

8110 views

DAVID: A story filled with wishful thinking; lots of guesses from statistical blips: -http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/earth-size-goldilocks-zone-planet-found-in-distant-solar-system/2014/04/17/0bd7188c-c63b-11e3-8b9a-8e0977a24aeb_story.html?wpisrc=nl%5Feve--The fact that a planet seems habitable does not, of course, mean that there will be life on it. Why are we so keen to know if there is life elsewhere? Curiosity, obviously ... the fascination with forms of life other than our own. But I guess there are metaphysical reasons too. Atheists will no doubt seize on "alien" forms as proof that life can arise whenever and wherever conditions are right. Just another law of Nature. And theists will point out that there's no reason at all why their God should have confined life to a single planet. And if life elsewhere has not evolved ... if it's just bacteria, say ... atheists will still claim that earthly evolution is just a freak, and theists will still claim the Earth was specially chosen. Supposing there is no life on any of the habitable planets? Same interpretations: freak versus special choice. Hey ho, nobody can win.

8173 views

dhw: Supposing there is no life on any of the habitable planets? Same interpretations: freak versus special choice. Hey ho, nobody can win.-No, if Earth is the only special place for life, the theists would seem to have the stronger argument. The odds then imply God's hand in the mix.

8159 views

dhw: Supposing there is no life on any of the habitable planets? Same interpretations: freak versus special choice. Hey ho, nobody can win.
> 
> No, if Earth is the only special place for life, the theists would seem to have the stronger argument. The odds then imply God's hand in the mix.-Not quite. What dhw is driving at is simply that philosophy always allows you to infinitely regress to non-terminating questions. -The trump card for any claim is direct evidence, positive OR negative. Lacking that, no one has any kind of a "strong" case at all: Just speculation.

--
\"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.\"

8181 views

dhw: Supposing there is no life on any of the habitable planets? Same interpretations: freak versus special choice. Hey ho, nobody can win.
> > 
> > No, if Earth is the only special place for life, the theists would seem to have the stronger argument. The odds then imply God's hand in the mix.
> 
> Matt: Not quite. What dhw is driving at is simply that philosophy always allows you to infinitely regress to non-terminating questions. 
> 
> The trump card for any claim is direct evidence, positive OR negative. Lacking that, no one has any kind of a "strong" case at all: Just speculation.-I understand your points, but freak still carries the implication of enormous odds against. I know the odds cannot be calculated and we all just speculate snd there will never be direct evidence, just personal preferences.

8097 views

The trump card for any claim is direct evidence, positive OR negative. Lacking that, no one has any kind of a "strong" case at all: Just speculation.
> 
> I understand your points, but freak still carries the implication of enormous odds against. I know the odds cannot be calculated and we all just speculate snd there will never be direct evidence, just personal preferences.-...-So... lets just agree to sit around fires, drink beer, and talk about our kids? Don't get me wrong, among theists, you're the only one I've ever met willing to admit this publicly... -But it *does* drive the discussion into neutral... uninteresting territory! -Makes it harder to try and convince dhw... or his agnostic fellows one way or the other!

--
\"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.\"

8167 views


> Matt: So... lets just agree to sit around fires, drink beer, and talk about our kids? Don't get me wrong, among theists, you're the only one I've ever met willing to admit this publicly... 
> 
> But it *does* drive the discussion into neutral... uninteresting territory! 
> 
> Makes it harder to try and convince dhw... or his agnostic fellows one way or the other! -I'm not a driven bible-thumping theist, and I tbink you know that. I add up all the evidence and pick a side. I started as an agnostic, but all the inferential evidence has made me think theistically. To me the preponderance of the evidence points that way. To theism. The odds without any calcuations favor that view.

8142 views

dhw: Supposing there is no life on any of the habitable planets? Same interpretations: freak versus special choice. Hey ho, nobody can win.-DAVID: No, if Earth is the only special place for life, the theists would seem to have the stronger argument. The odds then imply God's hand in the mix.-MATT: Not quite. What dhw is driving at is simply that philosophy always allows you to infinitely regress to non-terminating questions. 
The trump card for any claim is direct evidence, positive OR negative. Lacking that, no one has any kind of a "strong" case at all: Just speculation.-Spot on, Matt. My point was that whether there is or isn't life and/or evolution on other planets will not make the slightest difference to the beliefs of theists or atheists, because any scenario can be adapted to either belief. Do you honestly think, David, that any atheist would agree with your statement? Now use your imagination and try this test: since you believe special Earth gives theists the stronger argument, if life is discovered elsewhere, do you think that will that give atheism the stronger argument?

8243 views


> dhw: Spot on, Matt. My point was that whether there is or isn't life and/or evolution on other planets will not make the slightest difference to the beliefs of theists or atheists, because any scenario can be adapted to either belief. Do you honestly think, David, that any atheist would agree with your statement? Now use your imagination and try this test: since you believe special Earth gives theists the stronger argument, if life is discovered elsewhere, do you think that will that give atheism the stronger argument?-Yes it would help the athiests. The more special the Earth appears as the only planet with life, the higher the odds for a special creation. If life is everywhere, then it appears to be more of a natural event. you and Matt don'tsee thiks line of reasoning. Why do you think I touted a special Earth so much in my first book with some mention in the second? Why is the book Privileged Planet so key to the ID folks arguments? Concepts of irreducable and specified complexity runs through the theist arguments, because it increases the odds against chance natural events..

8100 views

dhw: Spot on, Matt. My point was that whether there is or isn't life and/or evolution on other planets will not make the slightest difference to the beliefs of theists or atheists, because any scenario can be adapted to either belief. Do you honestly think, David, that any atheist would agree with your statement? Now use your imagination and try this test: since you believe special Earth gives theists the stronger argument, if life is discovered elsewhere, do you think that will that give atheism the stronger argument?

DAVID: Yes it would help the atheists. The more special the Earth appears as the only planet with life, the higher the odds for a special creation. If life is everywhere, then it appears to be more of a natural event. you and Matt don'tsee this line of reasoning. Why do you think I touted a special Earth so much in my first book with some mention in the second? Why is the book Privileged Planet so key to the ID folks arguments? Concepts of irreducable and specified complexity runs through the theist arguments, because it increases the odds against chance natural events.-I'm sure Matt sees this line of reasoning just as I do. But we both see all the lines of reasoning, and he and I agree that nobody can say one is "stronger" than any other because unless we get proof either way, there will never be a consensus.-ATHEIST: If Earth's the only place with life on it, one stroke of luck out of billions of combinations is all it needed. And why would your God create hundreds of habitable planets and only make one inhabited? Ugh, what a waste! But of course, if life is found elsewhere, that proves it's all perfectly natural.-THEIST: If life on Earth is unique, it must have been specially designed. If life is found elsewhere, as you so rightly asked, why would God only create life on one of his habitable planets? And if "life is everywhere", well, what's the difference? Even the simplest forms are too complex for us to create, so God must have created them and let them loose all over the place instead of just on Earth. -Yer takes yer money....

8141 views


> dhw: I'm sure Matt sees this line of reasoning just as I do. But we both see all the lines of reasoning, and he and I agree that nobody can say one is "stronger" than any other because unless we get proof either way, there will never be a consensus.
> 
> ATHEIST: If Earth's the only place with life on it, one stroke of luck out of billions of combinations is all it needed. And why would your God create hundreds of habitable planets and only make one inhabited? Ugh, what a waste! But of course, if life is found elsewhere, that proves it's all perfectly natural.
> 
> THEIST: If life on Earth is unique, it must have been specially designed. If life is found elsewhere, as you so rightly asked, why would God only create life on one of his habitable planets? And if "life is everywhere", well, what's the difference? Even the simplest forms are too complex for us to create, so God must have created them and let them loose all over the place instead of just on Earth. 
> 
> Yer takes yer money....-Except for the view that us humans are a very special form of life, and seem to be found in only one place in a vast universe. I'll accept your views for both sides for simple life, but when humans are required for the comparisons, then how do you view the two sides of the argument?

8112 views

Another theoretical approach to finding other Earths, using our Earth as the prime example, by computer simulation:-http://phys.org/news/2014-04-continents-key-feature-super-earths.html

8210 views

Planet postion in a solar system seems to be up to chance. Is Earth lucky or made special?-"Horner emphasized that the numerous simulations his team ran on Jupiter's influence in the solar system shows that where planets end up is often a result of chance as much as physics. -"Every object you add to [a planetary] system adds complexity, and the end result is a result of random chances," said Horner. "So if you change something very small when the solar system is forming, it's kind of chaotic.'"-
 Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-04-mighty-jupiter-earth-habitability.html#jCp

8101 views

More goldilocks foolishness:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2014/04/17/superhabitable-world/

8093 views

Planet postion in a solar system seems to be up to chance. Is Earth lucky or made special?
> 
> "Horner emphasized that the numerous simulations his team ran on Jupiter's influence in the solar system shows that where planets end up is often a result of chance as much as physics. 
> 
> "Every object you add to [a planetary] system adds complexity, and the end result is a result of random chances," said Horner. "So if you change something very small when the solar system is forming, it's kind of chaotic.'"
> 
> -Not kind of chaotic, its pretty much a textbook definition of mathematical chaos. Early fluctuations can have long-term consequences for the stability of a system. However, given an end condition and a start condition, we have the tools to be able to reconstruct (most) of the earlier states.-
> Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-04-mighty-jupiter-earth-habitability.html#jCp-In the case of planets, if there's literally an uncountable number of stars that can have planets, then it is mathematically certain that *somewhere* in the universe there will exist a planet like ours. I don't even flinch at that. I flinch at *any* speculation about life itself. There's a ton of questions to answer. -Consider the evolution of eusociality... we know of 15 species that exist that have ever evolved this trait. (It's the precursor to living in organized societies.) -Using a thought process like that, It might not be unreasonable to posit that life could be rare enough that it only happens in 1 out of every 10 galaxies. (And at those distances... why bother looking?)

--
\"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.\"

8100 views

Planet postion in a solar system seems to be up to chance. Is Earth lucky or made special?
> > 
> > "Horner emphasized that the numerous simulations his team ran on Jupiter's influence in the solar system shows that where planets end up is often a result of chance as much as physics. 
> > 
> > "Every object you add to [a planetary] system adds complexity, and the end result is a result of random chances," said Horner. "So if you change something very small when the solar system is forming, it's kind of chaotic.'"
> > 
> > 
> 
> Not kind of chaotic, its pretty much a textbook definition of mathematical chaos. Early fluctuations can have long-term consequences for the stability of a system. However, given an end condition and a start condition, we have the tools to be able to reconstruct (most) of the earlier states.-I agree with you Matt
the sentence ... shows that where planets end up is often a result of chance as much as physics.-Completely flummoxed me, I can't help wondering what chance means to Horner and if he is using it in any scientific sense; how is chance somehow independent of physics?-Also to ask whether Earth's orbit is somehow lucky, I am betting on rabbit's feet myself. ... Being Easter 'n all.

8123 views


> Matt: In the case of planets, if there's literally an uncountable number of stars that can have planets, then it is mathematically certain that *somewhere* in the universe there will exist a planet like ours. I don't even flinch at that. I flinch at *any* speculation about life itself. There's a ton of questions to answer.-That's the part that bothers me. 
> 
> Matt: Consider the evolution of eusociality... we know of 15 species that exist that have ever evolved this trait. (It's the precursor to living in organized societies.) 
> 
> Using a thought process like that, It might not be unreasonable to posit that life could be rare enough that it only happens in 1 out of every 10 galaxies. (And at those distances... why bother looking?)-Bacteria don't need eusociality, so I don't follow your reasoning to get to 1 in 10 galaxies

8130 views

MATT: I've said before that the "filter" is the most important part of the process. 
> 
> Actually, before you saw the error of your ways (nasty dig, but you've earned it!) you said that the filter WAS the process. And if you've made this statement before, may I plead with you not to make it again. How can the filter be THE most important part? What would be the point of a filter if there was nothing to be filtered? Every phase in the process is indispensable. In other words, evolution could not happen without life, reproduction, adaptation, innovation and NS. Time to move on?-3 years with no response... yikes... I probably seem awful...- What would be the point of a filter if there was nothing to be filtered?-That's a little "meta" but the short answer is that it is the *filter* that determines the outcome: What actually is, vs what could be.

--
\"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.\"

8137 views

MATT [in 2011]: I've said before that the "filter" is the most important part of the process. -Dhw: Actually, before you saw the error of your ways (nasty dig, but you've earned it!) you said that the filter WAS the process. And if you've made this statement before, may I plead with you not to make it again. How can the filter be THE most important part? What would be the point of a filter if there was nothing to be filtered? Every phase in the process is indispensable. In other words, evolution could not happen without life, reproduction, adaptation, innovation and NS. Time to move on?-MATT [in 2014]: 3 years with no response... yikes... I probably seem awful...
What would be the point of a filter if there was nothing to be filtered?
That's a little "meta" but the short answer is that it is the *filter* that determines the outcome: What actually is, vs what could be.-Welcome back, Mr Van Winkle. But even three years later, I still fail to see how the filter can be THE MOST IMPORTANT part of evolution. Yes it determines the outcome, but you can't have an outcome if there's nothing to come out. You are saying that the process by which life diversifies into different forms is less important to evolution than the process by which some of those forms survive and others perish. Ask yourself: would evolution be possible without reproduction? No. Without adaptation? No. Without innovation? No. Once life began, it could not have advanced beyond the level of bacteria. So all these phases are INDISPENSABLE to the process, and it's pointless to allocate degrees of importance to them or to NS. I need to make a tiny adjustment to the final sentence of what I wrote three years ago:-Time to move on!

8137 views

MATT [in 2011]: I've said before that the "filter" is the most important part of the process. 
> 
> Dhw: Actually, before you saw the error of your ways (nasty dig, but you've earned it!) you said that the filter WAS the process. And if you've made this statement before, may I plead with you not to make it again. How can the filter be THE most important part? What would be the point of a filter if there was nothing to be filtered? Every phase in the process is indispensable. In other words, evolution could not happen without life, reproduction, adaptation, innovation and NS. Time to move on?
> 
> MATT [in 2014]: 3 years with no response... yikes... I probably seem awful...
> What would be the point of a filter if there was nothing to be filtered?
> That's a little "meta" but the short answer is that it is the *filter* that determines the outcome: What actually is, vs what could be.
> 
> Welcome back, Mr Van Winkle. But even three years later, I still fail to see how the filter can be THE MOST IMPORTANT part of evolution. Yes it determines the outcome, but you can't have an outcome if there's nothing to come out. You are saying that the process by which life diversifies into different forms is less important to evolution than the process by which some of those forms survive and others perish. Ask yourself: would evolution be possible without reproduction? No. Without adaptation? No. Without innovation? No. Once life began, it could not have advanced beyond the level of bacteria. So all these phases are INDISPENSABLE to the process, and it's pointless to allocate degrees of importance to them or to NS. I need to make a tiny adjustment to the final sentence of what I wrote three years ago:
> 
> Time to move on!-My perspective when I wrote that was this: Without the filter... there is no observable change. No observable change means stasis. Before we can start explaining differences--the differences have to be manifest! So yes, I do think its fair to assign a higher weight towards the filter: All the sources of change you bring up quite literally mean *nothing* otherwise. -I think a basic analogy works: Picture a bowling ball at the top of a ramp. Without an initial force or bump... there's nothing to make the ball roll down the hill. -Imagine a device that sits under the ball and keeps increasing elevation. That's your genetic changes collecting. WIthout an initial force to knock it down the ramp, the system is simply gaining potential energy... but its never going to use any of it without a nudge. In this analogy, the nudge is natural selection.

--
\"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.\"

8213 views


> Matt:My perspective when I wrote that was this: Without the filter... there is no observable change. No observable change means stasis. Before we can start explaining differences--the differences have to be manifest!-But that is an necessarily active part. Epigenetic changes, mutation, genetic drift, all active processes produce variety. Then natural selection, up to that point passive, comes into action to produce choices. -> Matt: I think a basic analogy works: Picture a bowling ball at the top of a ramp. Without an initial force or bump... there's nothing to make the ball roll down the hill. 
> 
> Imagine a device that sits under the ball and keeps increasing elevation. That's your genetic changes collecting. WIthout an initial force to knock it down the ramp, the system is simply gaining potential energy... but its never going to use any of it without a nudge. In this analogy, the nudge is natural selection.-Your analogy doesn't work. It is simply exactly parallel to my description. The devise is actively raising the ball (making varieties) and the nudge is natural selection, having been presented variety while it sits passively by, now can act on the varieties and become active. It is a two step process. Natural selection never creats variety.

8148 views


> > Matt:My perspective when I wrote that was this: Without the filter... there is no observable change. No observable change means stasis. Before we can start explaining differences--the differences have to be manifest!
> 
> But that is an necessarily active part. Epigenetic changes, mutation, genetic drift, all active processes produce variety. Then natural selection, up to that point passive, comes into action to produce choices. 
> 
> > Matt: I think a basic analogy works: Picture a bowling ball at the top of a ramp. Without an initial force or bump... there's nothing to make the ball roll down the hill. 
> > 
> > Imagine a device that sits under the ball and keeps increasing elevation. That's your genetic changes collecting. WIthout an initial force to knock it down the ramp, the system is simply gaining potential energy... but its never going to use any of it without a nudge. In this analogy, the nudge is natural selection.
> 
> Your analogy doesn't work. It is simply exactly parallel to my description. The devise is actively raising the ball (making varieties) and the nudge is natural selection, having been presented variety while it sits passively by, now can act on the varieties and become active. It is a two step process. Natural selection never creats variety.-I'm confused. Because you agree with me, except you don't...-Let me focus here: 

Natural selection never creats variety.-Yes it does: It is responsible for forcing organisms to adapt. That means precisely that variety doesn't come into tangible fruition, without selection. And my analogy was absolutely perfect: you agreed to it exactly... but didn't! -Simple case: Asteroid crashes into the earth. THAT is the impetus that then FORCES organisms into rapid adaptation. My position 3 years ago, and in this case, as it is now--is that you can have ALL the epigenetic and random neutral/good mutations going on that you want. But those changes rarely result in observable phenotypes. (I'm leaving room for "simple" changes such as fur color/eye colour/size variations etc.) -But if an event never happens that puts pressure against those alleles, evolution does not happen! This echoes a previous post, where I stated to prove that epigenetics is a stronger source of evolutionary change, you needed to be able to demonstrate that an organism exhibits enough of a change as to be called a different species, without the presence of selective pressure. -Maybe a football (soccer) analogy is in order: Natural selection is the goalie. It doesn't matter at all what happens on the other side of the field, except in the ultra-rare instances when the ball gets past the goalie.

--
\"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.\"

8127 views

Matt: Let me focus here: 
> 
> David: Natural selection never creates variety.
> 
> Yes it does: It is responsible for forcing organisms to adapt. That means precisely that variety doesn't come into tangible fruition, without selection. And my analogy was absolutely perfect: you agreed to it exactly... but didn't!-That's because I think you look at it backwards. The genome is built to produce experimentation. Natural selection does not force genetic drift or random mutation. It does cause epigenetic attempts at new accommodations. But it is the genome that methylates DNA and the adaptations are juddged by competition in nature.
 
> 
> Matt: But those changes rarely result in observable phenotypes. (I'm leaving room for "simple" changes such as fur color/eye colour/size variations etc.)
 
 You are trying to bring in speciation with the phenotype proposal. You forget the famous experiment with Reznick's guppies. There whole populations changed size. I know you tried to exclude size, but we are not discussing speciation, just adaptation. We have no idea how speciation occurs, despite Darwin's theory.
> 
> Matt:But if an event never happens that puts pressure against those alleles, evolution does not happen! This echoes a previous post, where I stated to prove that epigenetics is a stronger source of evolutionary change, you needed to be able to demonstrate that an organism exhibits enough of a change as to be called a different species, without the presence of selective pressure. -Yes, natural selection applies selective pressure among all the varieties produced by an organism, and epigenetics appears to be the main adaptive mechanism that is applied, but it is the variety produced by the organism from which natural selection results in surviving choices, all adaptations, not new species. I agree that challenges in nature force the genome to create adaptations, but natural selection is only an arbiter or judging system. Perhaps we should define what you think the term natural selection means. I think it is the result of competition between organisms or competition with natural events and forces.
> 
> Matt:Maybe a football (soccer) analogy is in order: Natural selection is the goalie. It doesn't matter at all what happens on the other side of the field, except in the ultra-rare instances when the ball gets past the goalie.-That I can accept as an analogy. Note the goalie sits on his hands until the ball finally starts to come his way. All of the preliminary action is elsewhere. His stopping the ball or missing it is a final step.

8170 views

We have no idea how speciation occurs, despite Darwin's theory.-http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VCCausesSpeciation.shtml

8127 views

David: We have no idea how speciation occurs, despite Darwin's theory.
> 
> Romansh: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VCCausesSpeciation.shtml-The website you present is filled with modifying 'mays' and 'probables"'-You have presented a theory which on its face might work, but show me some proof. As you know I accept the fact that evolution occurred, bit I admit I have no idea how it actually happens, and if you are intellectually honest, you must make the same admission.

8159 views

David: We have no idea how speciation occurs, despite Darwin's theory.
> > 
> > Romansh: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VCCausesSpeciation.shtml
... 
> The website you present is filled with modifying 'mays' and 'probables"'
> 
> You have presented a theory which on its face might work, but show me some proof. As you know I accept the fact that evolution occurred, bit I admit I have no idea how it actually happens, and if you are intellectually honest, you must make the same admission.-You said we have no idea of how it works ... the link presented several ideas.

8140 views


> Romansh; You said we have no idea of how it works ... the link presented several ideas.-Ideas are simply hypotheses, not any acceptable plan for how it really works, which is what I meant to imply.

8091 views

Matt: Let me focus here: 
> > 
> > David: Natural selection never creates variety.
> > 
> > Yes it does: It is responsible for forcing organisms to adapt. That means precisely that variety doesn't come into tangible fruition, without selection. And my analogy was absolutely perfect: you agreed to it exactly... but didn't!
> 
> That's because I think you look at it backwards. -I look at it from a different perspective for sure, but backwards? Nope. Evolution is a cyclical process, there is no "backwards" on a circle. -
>The genome is built to produce experimentation. Natural selection does not force genetic drift or random mutation. It does cause epigenetic attempts at new accommodations. But it is the genome that methylates DNA and the adaptations are juddged by competition in nature.
> -The key point behind my placing Natural selection as the premier component is that it is the change in the environment that prompts the organism to respond... epigenetically... DNA methylation... the whole 9 yards. Natural selection explains *why* we see progressions of species throughout the fossil record. One of your key arguments always comes back to speed... Romansh's paper demonstrates that the kind of research that will provide us with those kinds of answers isn't being done! This is more cause to suspend belief than it is to walk your line towards a creator! There's fields of stones that we've left unturned! -
> > 
> > Matt: But those changes rarely result in observable phenotypes. (I'm leaving room for "simple" changes such as fur color/eye colour/size variations etc.)
> 
> You are trying to bring in speciation with the phenotype proposal. You forget the famous experiment with Reznick's guppies. There whole populations changed size. I know you tried to exclude size, but we are not discussing speciation, just adaptation. We have no idea how speciation occurs, despite Darwin's theory.
> > -On the contrary, as Romansh has already shown you, there are dozens of ideas about how speciation occurs, the simplest definition I've seen is one I've already provided: A sub group can no longer form viable offspring with its parent group. The talkorigins link provides an encyclopedia of examples. -> > Matt:But if an event never happens that puts pressure against those alleles, evolution does not happen! This echoes a previous post, where I stated to prove that epigenetics is a stronger source of evolutionary change, you needed to be able to demonstrate that an organism exhibits enough of a change as to be called a different species, without the presence of selective pressure. 
> 
> Yes, natural selection applies selective pressure among all the varieties produced by an organism, and epigenetics appears to be the main adaptive mechanism that is applied, but it is the variety produced by the organism from which natural selection results in surviving choices, all adaptations, not new species. I agree that challenges in nature force the genome to create adaptations, but natural selection is only an arbiter or judging system. Perhaps we should define what you think the term natural selection means. I think it is the result of competition between organisms or competition with natural events and forces.
> > -That line. In red. Right there. Stop. We're in the same arena here. -What's the explanation for the fossil progression of horses? -"Some force of the environment, acts on species, and the organisms respond adapting to the new forms." NS is the judge by which each fossil horse came to take its form. -> > Matt:Maybe a football (soccer) analogy is in order: Natural selection is the goalie. It doesn't matter at all what happens on the other side of the field, except in the ultra-rare instances when the ball gets past the goalie.
> 
> That I can accept as an analogy. Note the goalie sits on his hands until the ball finally starts to come his way. All of the preliminary action is elsewhere. His stopping the ball or missing it is a final step.-If you accept that analogy, than you accept this extension:-The only thing that matters in any game of soccer: the balls that hit the back of the net. Everything else? Unimportant.

--
\"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.\"

8213 views

Matt:On the contrary, as Romansh has already shown you, there are dozens of ideas about how speciation occurs, the simplest definition I've seen is one I've already provided: A sub group can no longer form viable offspring with its parent group. The talkorigins link provides an encyclopedia of examples. -Examples of conjectures. 
> 
> > > Matt:But if an event never happens that puts pressure against those alleles, evolution does not happen! This echoes a previous post, where I stated to prove that epigenetics is a stronger source of evolutionary change, you needed to be able to demonstrate that an organism exhibits enough of a change as to be called a different species, without the presence of selective pressure. 
> > > 
> 
> Matt: That line. In red. Right there. Stop. We're in the same arena here. -What we are agreeing on here is that NS is a final arbitor of forms that it receives passively and the it acts on what it receives. I am splitting the whole process into succeeding parts, and you want to lump it all into one item. Yes, NS only acts at the end of the process and does nothing until then.-> > > Matt:Maybe a football (soccer) analogy is in order: Natural selection is the goalie. It doesn't matter at all what happens on the other side of the field, except in the ultra-rare instances when the ball gets past the goalie.
> > 
> > That I can accept as an analogy. Note the goalie sits on his hands until the ball finally starts to come his way. All of the preliminary action is elsewhere. His stopping the ball or missing it is a final step.
> 
> Matt:If you accept that analogy, than you accept this extension:
> 
> The only thing that matters in any game of soccer: the balls that hit the back of the net. Everything else? Unimportant.-Your interpretation. Of course NS is a final arbitor, and is active as a goalie, but the goalie controls nothing of the action until the ball comes at him. Everything passive from his viewpoint until that final moment. NS has no control until the end point. Waht NS does matters very much, but it cannot control what comes at it for selection. We havee two different ways of disecting the process.

8150 views

Matt has returned to his argument that Natural Selection is "the most important part of the process" of evolution. Our disagreement (which he also has with David) is vividly illustrated by the following exchange :-D AVID: Natural selection never creates variety.-MATT: Yes it does: It is responsible for forcing organisms to adapt. [...] Simple case: Asteroid crashes into the earth. THAT is the impetus that then FORCES organisms into rapid adaptation.-I simply cannot see how an asteroid crashing into the earth can be called Natural Selection. It is ... or results in - a change in the environment. But if the change kills every single organism, there will be no evolution. Only those organisms that can adapt to the new environment will survive, and those are the ones that Nature "selects". Yes, the asteroid (changed environment) is the trigger, but the selection can only take place when organisms do or do not adapt, and adaptation could not happen unless some organisms were already possessed of the mechanisms that allowed them to change. David has quite rightly asked what you think the term "Natural Selection" means, and I'm almost sure I've asked you that every time we've had this discussion. I have never seen a definition along the lines of: "NS is the change in the environment which causes organisms to adapt and either survive or perish." It's always the other way round: "NS is the process by which those organisms best able to adapt to a particular environment will survive." In other words, the order of events with your asteroid is: 1) environment change, 2) adapt or die = selection.-Evolution is not just adaptation anyway. Adaptation generally preserves, but evolution requires innovation, and although Romansh is right that there are lots of ideas, David is right that nobody knows how it happens. From your perspective, though, you can argue that changed environments may be the trigger. And I will argue that a change in the environment is the first stage in the process of change, and NS is the last. ALL the stages and mechanisms are indispensable, and so what is the point in claiming that one or other is "the most important part"?-Finally, once more, please give us your definition of Natural Selection.

8186 views

I simply cannot see how an asteroid crashing into the earth can be called Natural Selection. -For me natural selection and the environment are inseparable. -Asteroids are major step changes in the environment, -and evolution could be considered an incremental change, ie the flora and fauna within an ecosystem change slowly. A biological entity shapes its environment (not intentionally) and that environment in turn shapes the entity's evolution.

8381 views

Romansh: I simply cannot see how an asteroid crashing into the earth can be called Natural Selection. 
> 
> For me natural selection and the environment are inseparable. 
> 
> Asteroids are major step changes in the environment, 
> 
> and evolution could be considered an incremental change, ie the flora and fauna within an ecosystem change slowly. A biological entity shapes its environment (not intentionally)and that environment in turn shapes the entity's evolution.-The problem is interpreting and defining where in a time sequence does natural selection take place. I agree that an asteroid is part of a process of various changes that can end up challenging survival. As I see it, there must be changes in competition and in environment, then adaptations, and then finally as a result of competition, survival of some phenotypes. I view natural selection only as the competition/survival part of the process.

8137 views

Romansh: I simply cannot see how an asteroid crashing into the earth can be called Natural Selection. 
> > 
> > For me natural selection and the environment are inseparable. 
> > 
> > Asteroids are major step changes in the environment, 
> > 
> > and evolution could be considered an incremental change, ie the flora and fauna within an ecosystem change slowly. A biological entity shapes its environment (not intentionally)and that environment in turn shapes the entity's evolution.
> 
> The problem is interpreting and defining where in a time sequence does natural selection take place. I agree that an asteroid is part of a process of various changes that can end up challenging survival. As I see it, there must be changes in competition and in environment, then adaptations, and then finally as a result of competition, survival of some phenotypes. I view natural selection only as the competition/survival part of the process.-Addressing the red claim: -This isn't a problem. Natural selection takes place at any given instance where a collection of organisms is being stressed. This can be as trivial as a herd of cattle being forced to eat new plants... some of which are poisonous. -Please note, I think that overall, there are at least four levels of selection present in nature, Natural Selection being the one at the lowest level. -More on that after I get more time...

--
\"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.\"

8110 views

David: As I see it, there must be changes in competition and in environment, then adaptations, and then finally as a result of competition, survival of some phenotypes. I view natural selection only as the competition/survival part of the process.
> 
> Matt: Addressing the red claim: 
> 
> This isn't a problem. Natural selection takes place at any given instance where a collection of organisms is being stressed. -No. You are starting at the beginnng of a process that leads to a point when NS can take action.

8102 views

Why do I always choose to jump back in at the ends of semesters? Me thinks I like to torture myself! ;-) -I'll keep this quick (and David, please note that I'll get to your post as soon as possible. -> 
> Finally, once more, please give us your definition of Natural Selection.-The way I understand it: "Evolution by natural selection."-Natural selection is a function that takes two inputs, a group of genetically compatible organisms, as well as changes in environment, and its output is changes in frequencies of certain alleles within that group of organisms, where the alleles can be traced back to the changes in environment. -In the crude case, it works by simply killing those that lack certain traits. (Plague.) In the more nuanced cases it provides small statistical advantages to sub-populations within a given group. -Central to my definition is the presence of both organisms and environmental events. (Catastrophic events such as asteroids are just the easiest way to envision it.) To me, I consider a species entering a new environment as an environmental event as well. -I'm not conflating asteroid events with natural selection dhw, I'm stating that without a changed environment, there is NO evolution. The central point to "Natural Selection" is that changes we see in the fossil record happened by the challenge/response relationship between organisms and their environment. -Refuting it, is simple: demonstrate speciation without a corresponding environmental change, and without human intervention.

--
\"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.\"

8526 views

Matt: I'm not conflating asteroid events with natural selection dhw, I'm stating that without a changed environment, there is NO evolution. The central point to "Natural Selection" is that changes we see in the fossil record happened by the challenge/response relationship between organisms and their environment. 
> 
> Refuting it, is simple: demonstrate speciation without a corresponding environmental change, and without human intervention.-Did environmental change cause multicellularity? Answer, we don't know. We can see that the most successful biomass on Earth are bacteria. Why bother with multicelualarity if so successful? And we still don't know how speciation is created, so your demonstration is wanting. Certain weird developments like mammals taking to water look like deliberate changes with n o obvious cause. My point is that we still do not know enough to know why we see evolutionary changes in form resulting from descrete jumps, not tiny increments. Most Darwin scientists seem to now recognize it is a major problem for the theory.

8131 views

Did environmental change cause multicellularity? Answer, we don't know.-We don't know but we do have evidence it can happen-http://discover.umn.edu/news/science-technology/university-minnesota-biologists-replicate-key-evolutionary-step-As an agnostic I don't claim to know very much if anything.-But going around saying we don't know is sort of pointless for me. -Give me data, and if you don't have data, evidence will do.

8057 views

Did environmental change cause multicellularity? Answer, we don't know.
> 
> We don't know but we do have evidence it can happen
> 
> http://discover.umn.edu/news/science-technology/university-minnesota-biologists-replica... 
> As an agnostic I don't claim to know very much if anything.
> 
> But going around saying we don't know is sort of pointless for me. 
> 
> Give me data, and if you don't have data, evidence will do.-romansh.... that's amazing and it underlines a point I've brought up in this forum multiple times: -""I don't think anyone had ever tried it before," says lead author Ratcliff. "There aren't many scientists doing experimental evolution, and they're trying to answer questions about evolution, not recreate it." "-This is perhaps because my training is in engineering/math, but the general thought among people in my discipline is that you *cannot* say you really *know* something if you can't reproduce it. Math students are coaxed to reinvent the wheel, precisely because its the reproduction of such activities that you gain crucial insights and understandings in whatever it is you're trying to study. -Modern physical sciences to me seem to be extraordinarily *lacking* in this department. -Modern biology is primarily a descriptive science. But the answers to big questions aren't going to be solved by observation and experimentation alone! Construction is a key, and as recognized by that paper, missing step in modern evolutionary science!

--
\"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.\"

8172 views

Did environmental change cause multicellularity? Answer, we don't know.
> 
> Romansh: We don't know but we do have evidence it can happen
> 
> http://discover.umn.edu/news/science-technology/university-minnesota-biologists-replica... 
> As an agnostic I don't claim to know very much if anything.
> 
> But going around saying we don't know is sort of pointless for me. 
> 
> Give me data, and if you don't have data, evidence will do.-This happened in a lab under intelligent guidance, which is the next best thing I guess. I agree with you about evidence and data.

8047 views

This happened in a lab under intelligent guidance, which is the next best thing I guess. I agree with you about evidence and data.-Yep the centripetal forces and angular momentum in a testube are pretty intelligent.

8048 views

David: This happened in a lab under intelligent guidance, which is the next best thing I guess. I agree with you about evidence and data.
> 
> Romansh: Yep the centripetal forces and angular momentum in a testube are pretty intelligent.-No, it is the intelligent scientists who put the yeast into the centrifuge to push a process to make uncellular organisms lump together as if they are truly multicellular. Whereas it results in a simplistic form of what is truly multicellular. On the other hand, this may represent how multicellularity started. We cannot relive the history, so all the OOL lab work is an educated guess.

8097 views

Matt: I'm not conflating asteroid events with natural selection dhw, I'm stating that without a changed environment, there is NO evolution. The central point to "Natural Selection" is that changes we see in the fossil record happened by the challenge/response relationship between organisms and their environment. 
> > 
> > Refuting it, is simple: demonstrate speciation without a corresponding environmental change, and without human intervention.
> 
> Did environmental change cause multicellularity? Answer, we don't know. -But we can point to the fact that we've never seen adaptation happen without an environmental cause. Just like we can point to the fact that the sun will rise tommorrow. ->We can see that the most successful biomass on Earth are bacteria. Why bother with multicelualarity if so successful? -This here is a problem for you because you desire to see a purpose for everything. Romansh's paper demonstrates that multicellularity *just happened.* ->And we still don't know how speciation is created, so your demonstration is wanting. Certain weird developments like mammals taking to water look like deliberate changes with n o obvious cause. -Mammals add intelligence to the scenario which complicates things. A mammal can roam far beyond its range and be faced with an intelligence problem of finding unfamiliar food. Intelligence is a factor of evolution too, which has been a strong backdrop for my posts here. And if I recall, speciation happens when a subgroup can no longer create viable offspring with its parent group. -Here's a complete treatise on the entire subject: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html->My point is that we still do not know enough to know why we see evolutionary changes in form resulting from descrete jumps, not tiny increments. Most Darwin scientists seem to now recognize it is a major problem for the theory.-Could you do better to explain what you mean by discrete jumps, because every time you bring this up, you always make me think you're talking about the fossil record, and the canned explanation "we don't have a fossil for every form in-between!"

--
\"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.\"

8167 views


> Matt: But we can point to the fact that we've never seen adaptation happen without an environmental cause. Just like we can point to the fact that the sun will rise tommorrow.-I don't know how you can claim that. A new predator is in a sense environmental but really a new organism on the block, to be fought with. New oganisms are new challenges. And how do you know that some species don't arrive de novo without a challenge?- 
 
> 
> This here is a problem for you because you desire to see a purpose for everything. Romansh's paper demonstrates that multicellularity *just happened.* -The yeast are sort of multicellular, as they are single celled bunched together. It is a simplistic form of some sort of multicellular beginning with a large stretch of imagination.
> 
> >And we still don't know how speciation is created, so your demonstration is wanting. Certain weird developments like mammals taking to water look like deliberate changes with n o obvious cause. 
> 
> Madtt: And if I recall, speciation happens when a subgroup can no longer create viable offspring with its parent group.-You are quoting pure speculation. 
> 
> Matt; Could you do better to explain what you mean by discrete jumps, because every time you bring this up, you always make me think you're talking about the fossil record, and the canned explanation "we don't have a fossil for every form in-between!"-I can parphrase Gould. The palentologist's guarded secret is that all we have got is the tips and nodes of branches of the trees.

8131 views


> > Matt: But we can point to the fact that we've never seen adaptation happen without an environmental cause. Just like we can point to the fact that the sun will rise tommorrow.
> 
> I don't know how you can claim that. A new predator is in a sense environmental but really a new organism on the block, to be fought with. New oganisms are new challenges. And how do you know that some species don't arrive de novo without a challenge?
> -My thinking here is hinged on exactly that "in a sense" thinking you parsed here. A new predator in a new territory is an alteration of the environment for the prey species--AND an alteration of the environment of the predator species. -I think you need to explain a little more precisely what you're really targeting here. At face value, the same way I know I'm not a brain in a vat: I have no reason to believe I'm a brain in a vat. However my reasons for believing a new species won't just arise "de novo" are manifold:-1. It has never been observed. <--That's a big one. 
2. We know that evolution intrinsically linked with reproduction, which we have observed, and we have also observed allele shifts within populations. 
3. Because of 2, and combined with the fact that the fossil record clearly shows a progression of accumulating more complicated structure, we have very strong reasons to believe that at one point all life shared a single common ancestor.-Because life is iterative, and provably generational, it stands to reason that we shouldn't expect a cat when a two dogs mate. -
> 
> 
> > 
> > This here is a problem for you because you desire to see a purpose for everything. Romansh's paper demonstrates that multicellularity *just happened.* 
> 
> The yeast are sort of multicellular, as they are single celled bunched together. It is a simplistic form of some sort of multicellular beginning with a large stretch of imagination.-Really, then what about the symbiotic thesis that stands for how we grabbed mitochondria? And the way our intestines work with our flora, it pretty much means precisely that one strategy for survival is many, different communities of organisms working together in tandem. E.O. Wilson has argued extensively that Eusocial behavior exposes organisms to a whole new plateau of evolutionary development that wasn't possible before. -> > 
> > >And we still don't know how speciation is created, so your demonstration is wanting. Certain weird developments like mammals taking to water look like deliberate changes with n o obvious cause. 
> > 
> > Madtt: And if I recall, speciation happens when a subgroup can no longer create viable offspring with its parent group.
> 
> You are quoting pure speculation. -No, I'm quoting theory that's used in actual research:-http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/g84-038-This particular paper recreated in the lab precisely what was observed in nature, demonstrating that not only is that definition of speciation valid, its testable. Something lacking in any alternative you've presented. -> > 
> > Matt; Could you do better to explain what you mean by discrete jumps, because every time you bring this up, you always make me think you're talking about the fossil record, and the canned explanation "we don't have a fossil for every form in-between!"
> 
> I can parphrase Gould. The palentologist's guarded secret is that all we have got is the tips and nodes of branches of the trees.-Except in certain clear-cut cases, such as the progression of horse fossils.

--
\"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.\"

8128 views

I must stress again, that the paper I just linked in my previous post, shows something significant: It demonstrates that scientists understand speciation to the point that they are elucidating the actual genetic mechanisms that make it happen.

--
\"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.\"

8152 views

Matt: However my reasons for believing a new species won't just arise "de novo" are manifold:[/color]
> 
> 1. It has never been observed. <--That's a big one.-How do you explain all the new findings from the Cambrian explosion? It all seems very de novo to me.
 
> 
> Matt:Really, then what about the symbiotic thesis that stands for how we grabbed mitochondria? And the way our intestines work with our flora, it pretty much means precisely that one strategy for survival is many, different communities of organisms working together in tandem. E.O. Wilson has argued extensively that Eusocial behavior exposes organisms to a whole new plateau of evolutionary development that wasn't possible before. -Perfectly reasonable for me. 
> > 
> > David:You are quoting pure speculation. 
> 
> Matt:No, I'm quoting theory that's used in actual research:
> 
> http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/g84-038
> 
> This particular paper recreated in the lab precisely what was observed in nature, demonstrating that not only is that definition of speciation valid, its testable. Something lacking in any alternative you've presented.-The abstract I found looked at mosquito hybridization. Must be an incorrect reference. Makes no sense in your line of reasoning. 
> 
> > > 
> > > Matt; Could you do better to explain what you mean by discrete jumps, 
> > 
> > David: I can parphrase Gould. The palentologist's guarded secret is that all we have got is the tips and nodes of branches of the trees.
> 
> Matt: Except in certain clear-cut cases, such as the progression of horse fossils.-You could mention the whale series also, but note both fit Gould. Where are the intermediate forms? In both cases we are seeing giant leaps of morphology. I'm still with Gould and Eldredge on punctuated equil.

8140 views

David has already dealt with some of the major points raised, but I'll continue my own dialogue with Matt (and Romansh) in the hope that this will lead to greater clarity. There are two points at issue between Matt and myself, summed up by the following:
1) Matt thinks Natural Selection is "the most important part of the process" of evolution.
2) DAVID: Natural selection never creates variety.
MATT: Yes it does. [...] Simple case: Asteroid crashes into the Earth. "THAT is the impetus that then FORCES organisms into rapid adaptation.-MATT: I'm not conflating asteroid events with natural selection.-If you give an asteroid event as a "simple case" of NS, you are quite clearly conflating the two. That is why I asked you for a definition of NS, and you have responded with "Evolution by natural selection", which is not a definition. You then explain how you think evolution proceeds, which is fine, and I agree almost totally with your concluding summary:-MATT: I'm stating that without a changed environment, there is NO evolution. The central point to "Natural Selection" is that changes we see in the fossil record happened by the challenge/response relationship between organisms and their environment.-Our dispute only lies in your use of "Natural Selection", which initially you conflated with changes in the environment, and which here I would replace with "evolution", a word which automatically entails change,whereas "selection" only entails choice between organisms that already exist. I agree that without a changed environment there is NO evolution. Do you agree that without adaptation and innovation there is NO evolution? Do you agree that some creatures do adapt and others don't, and those that adapt survive and those that don't adapt perish? And that innovations that are unhelpful won't survive, and innovations that are helpful will survive? The latter is the phase that rounds off the process, and is the definition of Natural Selection that I offered you: "NS is the process by which those organisms best able to adapt to a particular environment will survive." I can quote you a dozen reference books with similar definitions. To sum up, please see my response to Romansh below :-D hw: I simply cannot see how an asteroid crashing into the earth can be called Natural Selection. 
ROMANSH: For me natural selection and the environment are inseparable. 
Asteroids are major step changes in the environment...-I totally agree. But inseparable does not mean synonymous. Every part of evolution is indispensable and inseparable, from environmental change to adaptation to innovation to NS. My disagreement with Matt is over his apparent definition of NS as a change in the environment, and my question is: why single out one part as being "the most important"?-A final word to Matt. This is how I see evolution proceeding: environmental change triggers organic change, and NS decides which changes will survive and which ones won't. What is your objection to this description?

8160 views

If you give an asteroid event as a "simple case" of NS, you are quite clearly conflating the two. That is why I asked you for a definition of NS, and you have responded with "Evolution by natural selection", which is not a definition. You then explain how you think evolution proceeds, which is fine, and I agree almost totally with your concluding summary:
> -Whoa! Whoa! Hold on just a minute here! My definition of Natural Selection was this:-"Natural selection is a function that takes two inputs, a group of genetically compatible organisms, as well as changes in environment, and its output is changes in frequencies of certain alleles within that group of organisms, where the alleles can be traced back to the changes in environment. "-
I'm going to address the rest of this in a separate reply, because I think you may have missed my point entirely!

--
\"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.\"

8065 views

MATT: I'm stating that without a changed environment, there is NO evolution. The central point to "Natural Selection" is that changes we see in the fossil record happened by the challenge/response relationship between organisms and their environment.
> 
> Our dispute only lies in your use of "Natural Selection", which initially you conflated with changes in the environment, and which here I would replace with "evolution", a word which automatically entails change,whereas "selection" only entails choice between organisms that already exist. I agree that without a changed environment there is NO evolution. Do you agree that without adaptation and innovation there is NO evolution? Do you agree that some creatures do adapt and others don't, and those that adapt survive and those that don't adapt perish? And that innovations that are unhelpful won't survive, and innovations that are helpful will survive? The latter is the phase that rounds off the process, and is the definition of Natural Selection that I offered you: "NS is the process by which those organisms best able to adapt to a particular environment will survive." I can quote you a dozen reference books with similar definitions. To sum up, please see my response to Romansh below:
> -
Do you agree that the definition of natural selection that I have provided neatly encompasses the cases you have raised here? Most dictionary definitions of "Natural Selection" state "The process..." as a leading phrase That's why I chose the word "function." Natural Selection takes organisms, and environmental events, and the repeated application of that function over time leads to evolution. So when I said "Evolution by natural selection" in the preceding post, I was separating out "Evolution" (the observed phenomenon) and focusing on "natural selection" (the mechanism proposed to explain the observed phenomenon.) -If we agree that natural selection is a process, and we can agree that it requires both existing organisms and environmental changes, and that its output are sub-populations with traits that didn't exist prior, then we are in complete agreement. --
> Dhw: I simply cannot see how an asteroid crashing into the earth can be called Natural Selection. 
> ROMANSH: For me natural selection and the environment are inseparable. 
> Asteroids are major step changes in the environment...
> 
> I totally agree. But inseparable does not mean synonymous. Every part of evolution is indispensable and inseparable, from environmental change to adaptation to innovation to NS. My disagreement with Matt is over his apparent definition of NS as a change in the environment, and my question is: why single out one part as being "the most important"?-I think it would be fair to say that my exact formulation of Natural Selection wasn't fully fleshed out until this conversation. It was a bit more ambiguous. I think now, I have it straightened out. 
> 
> A final word to Matt. This is how I see evolution proceeding: environmental change triggers organic change, and NS decides which changes will survive and which ones won't. What is your objection to this description?-I hope my first paragraphs up above explain this: Natural selection is just a mechanism proposed to explain evolutionary change. The mechanism requires organisms and environmental events, and by repeated application of the mechanism, you'll have your explanation for evolution. Admittedly, I get caught up sometimes into conflating evolution *with* natural selection, but that's because it is the only mechanism for evolution that has really been worked on. There are other possible mechanisms, it just happens that the one that usually gets brought up here can't be studied...

--
\"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.\"

8158 views

MATT: Whoa! Whoa! Hold on just a minute here! My definition of Natural Selection was this: "Natural selection is a function that takes two inputs, a group of genetically compatible organisms, as well as changes in environment, and its output is changes in frequencies of certain alleles within that group of organisms, where the alleles can be traced back to the changes in environment."-I'm sorry I didn't recognize this as a definition, but as your previous post continued, I thought I was getting a clearer idea of what you were trying to say, and pointed out that my only disagreement was with your use of "NS", which I would have replaced with "evolution". I have a similar objection to this definition. (I appreciate your honesty in admitting that you sometimes conflate the two terms.) It seems to me that you are trying to incorporate all the phases of evolution into a computer programme called NS (function, input, output etc.?). Your definition does not even indirectly involve selection or the outcome of selection, which I would have thought was essential ... a dead organism will also undergo changes! ... and also it suggests that NS is responsible for the changes (see below), whereas it selects existing changes which are beneficial. I do wish you would say why you object to the conventional definitions. Here's another nice, simple one: "the process by which only plants and animals that are naturally suitable for life in their environment will continue to live and breed, while all others will die out." (Longman Dic. of Contemporary English)
 
Let me skip now to your summary: "If we agree that natural selection is a process, and we can agree that it requires both existing organisms and environmental changes, and that its output are sub-populations with traits that didn't exist prior, then we are in complete agreement."-I agree and I don't agree (and I much prefer the word "process"), because you have phrased it in such a way that it is highly ambiguous, as is made clear by your last paragraph:
 
MATT: Natural selection is just a mechanism proposed to explain evolutionary change. The mechanism requires organisms and environmental events, and by repeated application of the mechanism, you'll have your explanation for evolution.-Firstly, I don't like the word "mechanism", which I think would be far more applicable to whatever physical "machinery" exists within the organism that enables it to adapt (and innovate). That's why I prefer "process", which you have also accepted. Secondly, NS does not "explain" evolutionary change, it only explains why some organisms survive and others don't. That is the "selection". And this is where the ambiguity of your earlier summary comes into play. Of course NS requires existing organisms and environmental changes, because it can only come into operation when these exist. But what it requires does not tell us what it is or does. And if by "output" you mean what is left for us to see, then yes, the output is new traits. But if you mean the new traits are the PRODUCT of NS, then no, they are the product of the evolutionary process in which environmental change triggers organic change, whereas NS decides which of the changes will survive. NS does not produce anything, and Nature cannot select organisms or changes in organisms until they exist. NS preserves what is useful. Again, let me ask you why you object to this description of the evolutionary process.

8176 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum