Leopolds Evolution Diversion

so, let's "peer review" this shall we?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can completely dehydrate some insects (which are DNA based) and then add water and they come right back to life. Looks like your theory fails its most basic test.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So that everyone is on the same page...

"In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said: 'We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.'"

Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 884

This "admission" is only what Lewin said Ayala said. When the Doctor was asked about the quote his reply was...

"I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the quotation he attributes to me. I presented a paper/lecture and spoke at various times from the floor, but I could not possibly have said (at least as a complete sentence) what Lewin attributes to me. In fact, I don't know what it means. How could small changes NOT accumulate! In any case, virtually all my evolutionary research papers evidence that small (genetic) changes do accumulate.

The paper that I presented at the conference reported by Lewin is virtually the same that I presented in 1982 in Cambridge, at a conference commemorating the 200 [sic] anniversary of Darwin's death. It deals with the claims of "punctuated equilibrium" and how microevolutionary change relates to macroevolution. (I provide experimental results showing how one can obtain in the laboratory, as a result of the accumulation of small genetic changes, morphological changes of the magnitude observed by paleontologists and presented as evidence of punctuated equilibrium.) The paper was published as part of the conference proceedings:"

So I don't care what Lewin said Ayala said or where he said it, the word of the good Doctor, the papers he has published and his whole life's work tell me Lewin is a liar, seeking validation for the point of his article by making up crap out of whole cloth. And that's the end of it. It's scientific effect is nil, it invalidates nothing and only indicates the desperation of the Creationists.

And, no leopold, I will not be responding to any private messages from you, don't bother.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

wellwisher

All you've shown with the above sentence is complete ignorance, red blood cell have no nucleus from the beginning(and thus no DNA to remove), and they survive only about a week before they are filtered out of the blood stream. In fact, they are only artifacts of living cells(bone marrow cells), not living cells on their own, little optimized discs of hemoglobin transporting oxygen and CO2 around, they are no more alive than your fingernail clippings. As to life needing water at all times, you should investigate spores, bacteria, yeasts and some extremophile insects, all of which routinely come back to life after desiccation.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If you have to come back to life you must have been dead before. Furthermore, if you come back to life from desiccation by rehydration it seems a clear indication that life needs water and that without water there is no life.

 

what was the alleged "point" of the article?
lewin isn't a creationist.

"science" is responsible for what it publishes.
"science" is a respected source.
"science" has said NOTHING concerning this matter.

 

sweet.
i guess arrowsmith never contacted "science" either.

edit:
i sourced my arguement from "science".
"science" isn't a creationist website trippy, so stop saying i am doing that.

 

Darwin's theory of evolution is based on a variable called natural selection. Natural selection is a subjective variable because it is most often evident only after the fact. It implies a logically consistent process, but most often proven only with hindsight. We can sometimes isolate situations and conditions and infer, what will be selected; largest buck, in advance. But for the most part, the variable is not an objective variable that makes accurate prediction easy.

The modern theory of evolution adds a more pro-active co-variable called genetics. The genetic variable for the evolution has the problem of starting too far away from the origins of life; it starts 100M's of years after abiogenesis begins. It unconsciously assumes the factors behind the first several hundred millions years of chemical selection, does not matter after the DNA appears. Genetic theory applied to evolution, is based on a random black box approach superimposed upon the selection process of Darwin that we infer to be true, mostly after the fact. Fossil data is all after the fact.

If I was to ask what will be the next stage in human evolution, random DNA can't help and selection has to be wait and see. Biologists may not see any problem with this. So, I need to place this schema of modern evolution, into perspective, by comparing this general method, to other theory methods. Say we were sending men or women to Mars and our theory of gravity was based on a type of random selection process, that will be clear after they get there. Maybe one out of a hundred we can get close to prediction. Once they get there (or not), we can add this data as support for the theory since it was indeed random and followed the rule, albeit, after the fact.

My problem has always been I was used to theory that is pro-active and can define the situation accurately before we begin. Evolutionary theory was sort of like looking for animals in the clouds, where you need to contort to see what others appear to see. My goal was to figure out how to make evolution more consistent with the pro-active theory approach of applied science. This way it would not be a religion that needs to censor but it could stand on the two feet of science like a man. Currently it is one leg science that needs propping and a science handicap parking spot.

My position is not too far from Darwin, in the sense, I claim that life, by evolving in water from day one of abiogenesis, is based on a chemical selection process that was constantly mediated by water. This chemical selection process is why you can't replace water with other solvents from macro to micro levels. This is an aspect of natural selection implied by Darwin, but at the chemical level he was not aware of. Darwin's theory comes in even later than the time scale implied by DNA based theory. He started selection with animals you could see with the eyes, and not cells. The DNA approach is earlier but not as early as the water.

I also content that the chemical selection process, that started on day one, based on water, continues even today, along side the DNA. I do not deny the DNA but only that water loads the dice such that what appears random is actually connected to water selection. The current theory always assumed (and still teaches) protein folds were average and therefore subject the random selection. But the reality, of recent science, proves the folds of protein are unique and not random; selection of water.

 

I was just remarking that private communication might not constitute publicly going on record.

As far as Leopold goes, I think that Ayala having been coerced is almost certainly fanciful. If, just for the sake of argument, anyone was pressuring Ayala to issue a public retraction, the individual doing it would probably have demanded something more public than a private e-mail message to the owner of an obscure anti-creationist website.

I think that Lewin was news editor at 'Science' at the time. 'Science' is a tremendously respected scientific publication, the American equivalent of 'Nature'. I wouldn't expect editors at that publication to intentionally misrepresent things. But it's also true that Lewin is a science-writer and not a professional evolutionary biologist and he may have misunderstood some of what he heard at the conference that he attended.

One annoying habit that evolutionary biologists sometimes have is speaking in hyperbole. It's part of the broader academic culture and professors everywhere do it. If a particular scholar agrees with the scholars who came previously, whatever he or she says isn't considered interesting and the individual might even be dismissed as something of a hack. But if the scholar announces something 'new' and 'revolutionary', and if he or she gores a few sacred cows doing it, everyone starts talking. The paper becomes something that everyone has to have an opinion on and it rises like a rocket in the citation-rankings. That's how careers are made in contemporary academia.

So scholars occasionally say things that they later regret. Steven Jay Gould spent his whole career trying to live down his own remarks at some conference at which he proclaimed the "death of Darwinism". It's happened multiple times and the creationists eagerly lap it up and make out-of-context use of it. We've seen it happening with 'punctuated equilibrium' and so on.

In other words, even if Ayala really did say something along the lines of what Lewin says he said (he says he didn't) it might not be anything new. Maybe Ayala overspoke hyperbolically for effect at the conference, was misunderstood by a science-writer in attendence, the science-writer's subsequent distorted account was quoted out of context by the creationists, and the original speaker subsequently was confused (I said that?) and embarassed. (That's roughly what happened to Gould and to a number of others.)

I think that the experts overwhelmingly agree on the big picture. But when it gets down to the smaller details, there's lots of disagreement. I don't think that's a bad thing at all, it's healthy. Evolutionary biology isn't a catechism, it's an active growing field of research. Sometimes biologists might even disagree with some speculation that Charles Darwin made about something in one of his huge body of biological publications. Giving rise to the predictable over-the-top media headlines: Darwin proved wrong! (Hey... it increases readers.)

I think that's fanciful at best. Nevertheless, I don't believe that it's a good idea to start a whole thread devoted to trying to burn the heretic at the stake for believing it.

 

leopold

“Evolution Theory under Fire,” The point. His "mistake" added to the point of his article(ie fanned the flames). He took the discussion of Punctuated Equilibrium and distorted it to questioning evolution and the Creationists distorted his reporting to totally misrepresent what ALL the scientists were saying.

Science is not a journal of record, it is a pop-sci rag(at least Popular Science puts it's pop-sci bona fides in their name). Everything in pop-sci rags should be consumed with lots of salt.

Aayala did not say what Lewin said he said in that article. Source? The horse's mouth. When your world view is based on quote mining and distortions, you are likely a Creationist. If it looks like a duck...

Enmos

The exact same thing could be said of carbon, oxygen and iron. The point of my reply was the overemphasis of water's importance Wellwisher thinks science is ignoring(it isn't). MANY things are necessary for the complex chemistry we call life to exist, there is nothing magical about water's role relative to any other factor or substance. Life is a synergy of many parts which need to work together to continue to live, water is just one of them, and not even the most important thing(Carbon is).

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

While I am sure you are quite correct, Grumpy, that blood is not 'alive', isn't it curious that 'the life is in the blood'? Blood may be non-living but it is what gives creatures life! I don't mean to go on a religious jag here, no, not at all, but modern science is said to have discovered what The Bible has been saying all along. The whole reason blood is not kosher for consumption is that it contains 'the life'. Please see this article.

 

'Science' is widely considered to be one of the top two general scientific journals in the world, alongside Britain's 'Nature'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_(journal)

 

"No intention"? He doesn't say that he doesn't have an alternative in mind, only that if he does, he's not going to tell us what it is. Does anyone actually believe someone can argue so vehimently and crackpotily against evolution without having a flavor of creationism in mind?

 

That is also true of oxygen, sodium, potassum and hydrogen, and about a dozen other elements. Without all those things a human would die instantly. So they also are "what gives creatures life."

 

Hope you are joking here. The two top peer-reviewed science journals in the world are Science and Nature. Are you perhaps thinking of Science News or something?

 

Arne, I do not know what you really mean by "the life is in the blood". The article you reference seems to be getting excited by the fairly obvious observation, for a primitive tribesman such as Moses, that blood is key to life. I would expect every stone age man to have known that releasing the blood from an animal or a person kills it. This has been the Jewish ritual method of slaughter for thousands of years and everyone wounded in a fight would know that loss of blood is associated with weakness, passing out and death. Ergo, blood is essential for life in such creatures.

"The life is in the blood" , or to put it in scientific rather than literary language, "the life of higher organisms depends on the blood" is thus obviously true, but it is not what "gives creatures life", any more than the brain, say, or the lungs or gills or heart. It is a necessary but not sufficient component for life in these organisms, surely?