Epigenetic Inheritance in Humans

[Jumi]

And I've heard that argument before too- But you can see the problem with it, if the poker player plays 4 royal flushes in a row winning a million bucks, and as the 'anti fraud' guy at the casino- you tell your boss not to worry; it happened so it has a probability of 1! let him keep playing- no need to suspect cheating!

See this is what I meant by people not understanding probabilities. If you had been playing poker for billions of years many hands a second with trillions of stars holding trillions of "players" would you say that it would never happen?

A casino wouldn't let him play if he had two royal flushes in a row anyway even if was an antropomorphic God creating him the hand. I've played royal flush back in the day and it was of course just as likely as getting any other hand combination that exists four in a deck. Of course the mind said that this royal flush is an anomaly, but like luck would have it I didn't win the million dollars, because no one else had cards to play to the end and the bets were casual to begin with.

Point being- of course chance is always possible, that does not mean it's least improbable explanation.

I still see the point being that this is how you feel like, because you prefer the option that everything was just magically put together and hasn't changed since then. That kind of thing sounds incredible doesn't it?

Call it neo-Darwinism if you prefer, it still posits pure blind chance as the originator of new biological features/ information- that's the mathematically problematic part, and learning more about how DNA functions is not helping the case

To make it clear, you're talking about abiogenesis or just evolution here.

Right: computers don't share our subjective reasoning. That's why Darwinian evolution does not work as well in computer sims or lab experiments as it does in our imaginations.

Computers don't share any reasoning, subjective or objective. Neither does DNA. Which computer lab sims are you refering to?

Personally I believe this is ultimately (ironically? ) a case of anthropomorphism: everything we do and think and say, is in anticipation of a future consequence, just like optical illusions- it is utterly impossible for us to completely remove the bias of our fundamental brain-wiring from our thought experiments, but a computer can. And without the benefit of anticipation of future consequences, the ability to retain potentially advantageous design changing 'errors' is practically eliminated. The overwhelmingly greater number of deleterious mutations would reign- in a word: Entropy

That's a common creationist argument, still waiting on the proof of that.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I did for about 30 years, and so I still think most people who believe in Darwinism are perfectly intelligent, honest, and capable of critical thought. Are you conceding that you cannot say the same for considering dissenting opinions?

Then tell me what features a fossil would need to have in order for you to accept it as evidence for humans and chimps evolving from a shared ancestor. Or will you not accept any fossil as evidence, no matter what it looks like?

What about genetic evidence for humans and chimps evolving from a shared ancestor? What shared genetic markers would you accept as evidence? What patterns of mutations would you accept as evidence? Is there any genetic evidence that you would accept?

I'm saying that a jury should hear the evidence on both sides, there should not be an institutionalized bias in favor of declaring the fatality 'an accident', that any notion of intent is forbidden

But you are saying that the only evidence that they should see is the event itself. You are saying that no one should be able to use evidence created by an event in the past to reconstruct what happened in the past.

we can't directly observe anyone programming the digital code of DNA either, but I believe we have evidence that they did

We can directly observe natural processes producing mutations in the genomes of living species, and the patterns of differences those observed natural processes produce in genomes is the exact pattern we see between the genomes of different species. How is that not evidence?

That appears to be making a case for common descent, I'm not disputing that, nor does ID in general, nor does Genesis technically. I am skeptical that all the changes along the way were accidental as Darwinism demands (if seldom acknowledges)

What evidence would ease your skepticism?

But even common descent runs into difficultly when you try to look beyond the sudden appearance of the major phyla- many basic body plans all simply show up 'as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history' as Dawkins puts it

How can you make these claims when you reject fossils evidence of these transitions, such as the transitional hominid fossils?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

And I've heard that argument before too- But you can see the problem with it, if the poker player plays 4 royal flushes in a row winning a million bucks, and as the 'anti fraud' guy at the casino- you tell your boss not to worry; it happened so it has a probability of 1! let him keep playing- no need to suspect cheating!

Where is the analogous situation in biology?

Also, you are forgetting about selection. Let's say I draw 5 random cards. I then draw one random card at a time, and if that card improves my hand I keep it and discard one card. I keep repeating the process. What happens? I end up with a four of a kind or a royal flush every time through a process of random draws and selection.

Call it neo-Darwinism if you prefer, it still posits pure blind chance as the originator of new biological features/ information- that's the mathematically problematic part, and learning more about how DNA functions is not helping the case

There are 6 billion bases in the diploid human genome. There are 3 possible substitution mutations at every position in the genome, so there are 18 billion possible mutations. Each person is born with 50 to 100 mutations, so let's go with 50. If we divide 18 billion by 50 we get 360 million. So it takes just 360 million births to get every possible substitution mutation in the human genome. Why do you think this is so improbable?

The overwhelmingly greater number of deleterious mutations would reign- in a word: Entropy

How do less fit individuals outcompete fitter individuals who do not carry that detrimental mutation? Do you reject the very idea of natural selection?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

See this is what I meant by people not understanding probabilities. If you had been playing poker for billions of years many hands a second with trillions of stars holding trillions of "players" would you say that it would never happen?

A casino wouldn't let him play if he had two royal flushes in a row anyway even if was an antropomorphic God creating him the hand. I've played royal flush back in the day and it was of course just as likely as getting any other hand combination that exists four in a deck. Of course the mind said that this royal flush is an anomaly, but like luck would have it I didn't win the million dollars, because no one else had cards to play to the end and the bets were casual to begin with.

exactly- 4 royal flushes in a row is no more unlikely than any particular sequence of 20 cards right? i.e. the reason we know intelligent agency is involved, is not the improbability of that particular sequence relative to any others, but the higher probability of a better explanation for it- ID.

If the insurance company calculates the odds of fooling your security measures and cheating are one in a trillion, cheating is still the far more likely explanation than chance- which would exceed one in the number of stars in the universe.

and a few improbable poker hands is selling a self aware life form a little short!

I still see the point being that this is how you feel like, because you prefer the option that everything was just magically put together and hasn't changed since then. That kind of thing sounds incredible doesn't it?

which is the 'magic' explanation, the rabbit spontaneously appearing in the hat, or simply being put there on purpose?

To make it clear, you're talking about abiogenesis or just evolution here.


Computers don't share any reasoning, subjective or objective. Neither does DNA. Which computer lab sims are you refering to?


That's a common creationist argument, still waiting on the proof of that.

oh we have proof of that- try randomly corrupting the digital files in your operating system- what are the odds of accidentally creating a significantly superior version of windows? I have no idea, but they are not very good!


Now try randomly altering the parameters that determine text size, shape color- now you have a decent shot at happening upon some viable variations
That's adaptation, a pre-supported capacity that most sophisticated designs exhibit- this is what we can actually, scientifically verify occurring in life also. It's a design feature, not a design mechanism. You can never author a new software application this way (macro evolution)- no matter how long you tweak the variables- it's an insurmountable paradox inherent to hierarchical information systems,( both digital in this case), regardless of probabilities

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

exactly- 4 royal flushes in a row is no more unlikely than any particular sequence of 20 cards right?

How does this apply to biology?

i.e. the reason we know intelligent agency is involved, is not the improbability of that particular sequence relative to any others, but the higher probability of a better explanation for it- ID.

How is magical poofing a better explanation? When has that ever been a better explanation?

If the insurance company calculates the odds of fooling your security measures and cheating are one in a trillion, cheating is still the far more likely explanation than chance- which would exceed one in the number of stars in the universe.

What are the odds of God tripping the security systems?

which is the 'magic' explanation, the rabbit spontaneously appearing in the hat, or simply being put there on purpose?

According to you, magical poofing is the better explanation.

oh we have proof of that- try randomly corrupting the digital files in your operating system- what are the odds of accidentally creating a significantly superior version of windows? I have no idea, but they are not very good!

You can randomly change DNA and produce a superior gene. This has been done in the lab and it happens in the wild all of the time.

 

[Jumi]

i.e. the reason we know intelligent agency is involved, is not the improbability of that particular sequence relative to any others, but the higher probability of a better explanation for it- ID.

I have been aware that this is your belief. I know that you believe that you know things were created and didn't change at all (except degenerate, like humans losing our tails) because it's mindboggling that we could have had microbes as ancestors. Others don't see that as proof, merely preference.

and a few improbable poker hands is selling a self aware life form a little short!

Over a few billion years evolving from simpler lifeforms is indeed not at all like poker hands. We don't know what odds of any particular occurrance are, yet. But some of us are uncomfortable with uncertainty so they say there must have been one busy designer who magically made it all pop up from the void.

which is the 'magic' explanation, the rabbit spontaneously appearing in the hat, or simply being put there on purpose?

Rather, the rabbit having never existed, the magician creating it out of nothing without there having been rabbits before, but maybe the magician used bits of some creatures that existed before, right?

oh we have proof of that- try randomly corrupting the digital files in your operating system- what are the odds of accidentally creating a significantly superior version of windows? I have no idea, but they are not very good!

You can make up many improbable things for comparison, I can make up other probable and improbable occurances. It's not convincing to either of us apparently. Also there's a joke about that Windows, what are the odds of a ragtag group of programmers creating something better than a company whose owner is worth billions... and there you have linux.

Now try randomly altering the parameters that determine text size, shape color- now you have a decent shot at happening upon some viable variations
That's adaptation, a pre-supported capacity that most sophisticated designs exhibit- this is what we can actually, scientifically verify occurring in life also. It's a design feature, not a design mechanism. You can never author a new software application this way (macro evolution)- no matter how long you tweak the variables- it's an insurmountable paradox inherent to hierarchical information systems,( both digital in this case), regardless of probabilities

Well you are convinced of your view, I get it. It's of course not convincing to me.

 

[Astrophile]

For the record I was brought up atheist, argued strongly for Darwinian evolution for many decades, but there is something very humbling about arguing with a computer!

When you were an atheist, what, in your opinion, were the strongest arguments against the existence of gods? Why do you now think that these arguments were invalid?

You say that you 'argued strongly for Darwinian evolution for many decades'. Exactly how many decades is many - four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, etc.? How long ago did you stop arguing for Darwinian evolution?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

When you were an atheist, what, in your opinion, were the strongest arguments against the existence of gods? Why do you now think that these arguments were invalid?

Like many atheists, I refused to acknowledge my belief as such- so I didn't need a whole lot of arguments against God, according to atheist tenets, a-theism is not a belief at all, it is merely a disbelief (of the alternative) so I imagined that my belief was immune from any burden of proof - that's a pretty comfortable position!

Once I recognized my belief as such, and let it compete on a level playing field with others- not so easy!

You say that you 'argued strongly for Darwinian evolution for many decades'. Exactly how many decades is many - four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, etc.? How long ago did you stop arguing for Darwinian evolution?

four, which is many in our brief lifespans! It was a slow transition because I'd been taught by pop science celebs like Dawkins, that anyone who questioned Darwinian evolution was probably intellectually inferior in some way. Like Fred Hoyle on the Big Bang, once you mock something and throw names at people with different beliefs, it's very difficult to change your mind despite any amount of overwhelming evidence

 

[blü 2]

Agreed entirely- and very refreshing to hear it. Unfortunately not everyone has the same grasp of basic scientific principles

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact.: Dawkins

Yes, evolution is a fact, that is, the name of a real and demonstrable phenomenon.

As long as there are critters, there'll be critters breeding, and not every new critter will be identical to its ancestor or ancestors. And any difference that aids survival and breeding will tend to be more successful at surviving and breeding, and any difference that doesn't will tend to be less successful.

Nothing subtle there ─ just the obviouis.

And that;s the backbone of evolution, as everyday fact, and as scientific theory.

The alternative offered, not least by creationists, is magic, a universe ruled by Gandalf, who's so wise that the rules of physics do whatever he imagines them doing from time to time. Having no reason to think that's true, I'm unmoved in my preference for science.

 

[Audie]

Like many atheists, I refused to acknowledge my belief as such- so I didn't need a whole lot of arguments against God, according to atheist tenets, a-theism is not a belief at all, it is merely a disbelief (of the alternative) so I imagined that my belief was immune from any burden of proof - that's a pretty comfortable position!

Once I recognized my belief as such, and let it compete on a level playing field with others- not so easy!



four, which is many in our brief lifespans! It was a slow transition because I'd been taught by pop science celebs like Dawkins, that anyone who questioned Darwinian evolution was probably intellectually inferior in some way. Like Fred Hoyle on the Big Bang, once you mock something and throw names at people with different beliefs, it's very difficult to change your mind despite any amount of overwhelming evidence

Getting science or religion from pop celebs does not
sound very sensible.

Questioning is always good, as I think your "Dawkins"
would agree, tho many a religion will make you
sorty if you try it.

I think you have rotated the questioning / intellectual
thing a few degrees,and gotten it profoundly wrong.

We dont doubt that a lot of evolution - deniers are very
bright. They are smart, they dont accept it- but why?

Not a one has ever come up with fact one contrary to
ToE. Yet deny they do. What is their real reason?

Statidtical arguments sre not data. And, to misquote the
noted mathematician Mark Twain, "there's damn lies,
and there's statistics". Stats are a weak weak crutch
Why such effort to try to use it?

It is not intellectual inferiority that plagues the creationists.

It is inferior argument, if a complete lack of anything
to work with can be properly termed merely "inferior"
to the combinrd efforts of the world scientific community
over the past 150 yrs.

This is why we get bright well informed people
like Dr. K WIise, PhD paleontology, who says
he would still be a yec if all the data in the
universe turned against yec-because of what the
Bible seems to say. He knows there is no argument
to be made, it is all belief and faith on his side.

So no, it is not intellectual inferiority as such,
it is intellectual dishonesty that makes a creationist.

 

[Astrophile]

Like many atheists, I refused to acknowledge my belief as such- so I didn't need a whole lot of arguments against God, according to atheist tenets, a-theism is not a belief at all, it is merely a disbelief (of the alternative) so I imagined that my belief was immune from any burden of proof - that's a pretty comfortable position!

Once I recognized my belief as such, and let it compete on a level playing field with others- not so easy!

Unlike you, I was brought up as a Christian, so when, at the age of 30, I started having doubts about the truth of Christianity I had to do a lot of research (four years' worth) to find out whether it was true or not. The strongest points against were the fact that the Gospels are not eye-witness accounts but were written more than 30 years after the events they describe, that the works of first-century historians like Josephus say nothing about the origins of Christianity, and that although the whole of the New Testament teaches that Jesus will soon return to judge the world, nearly 2000 years have passed since his death.

four, which is many in our brief lifespans! It was a slow transition because I'd been taught by pop science celebs like Dawkins, that anyone who questioned Darwinian evolution was probably intellectually inferior in some way. Like Fred Hoyle on the Big Bang, once you mock something and throw names at people with different beliefs, it's very difficult to change your mind despite any amount of overwhelming evidence

Unlike you, I had read quite a lot about evolution before the publication of The Selfish Gene in 1976. The first of Dawkins's books that I read was The Blind Watchmaker, which I bought in about 1988; I learnt a lot from it, although I suppose it has long been superseded by later work. Before that I had read The Origin of Species, which I still think is one of the best introductory books to evolution; parts of The Descent of Man, which I found heavy going;The Theory of Evolution by John Maynard Smith (also heavy going for a non-biologist); some of the books of G.G. Simpson; Lucy by Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey; and Darwinism Defended by Michael Ruse. Except for Darwinism Defended, these books deal almost entirely with the science of evolution and have hardly anything to say about creationism. Even in Darwinism Defended, Ruse gives a detailed exposition of Henry Morris's Scientific Creationism before explaining why it is wrong; he does not rely on mockery and name-calling.

I suppose that Professor Dawkins's attitude to creationists is much the same as my attitude to people who believe in astrology or 'flying saucers'. Fortunately there is no major religion that teaches astrology or ufology, so I don't have to worry about such people. It's odd, though, that you should mention Fred Hoyle and the Big Bang. I read Hoyle's book Frontiers of Astronomy during the early 1960s (before I was old enough to understand it properly), but after the discoveries of quasars and the cosmic microwave background I accepted that the observational evidence supported the Big Bang in spite of Hoyle's mockery of the theory.