EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[MysticPhD]

Some of the mutations occurred because they were useful for survival, others evolved that were not very useful.

How did these mutations know they would be useful for survival and decide to "occur?"

 

[MysticPhD]

It is quite simple really. When someone displays a complete lack of scientific understand in their posts it is reasonable to assume they have a complete lack of scientific understanding. When someone erroneously claims that randomness is used as an explanation for genetic mutations, and then completely ignores when the actual explanation for that phenomenon is posted, it is reasonable to assume you are not only ignorant but also hell-bent on maintaining that ignorance.

Where would be in the genome.

Would the genome be the "underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding" . . . you know a design?

When can be dated by molecular genetics and comparative genetics, at least on those mutations that remain extant.

So you are able to tell us when the next one will occur . . . right?

Why is due to the inherent flaws in the DNA transcription process.

Would this be the "it just is" answer . . . that is what "inherent" means . . . isn't it?

The fact is that had you wanted to lift yourself out of self-imposed ignorance to answer these questions you could have done so – the peer-reviewed literature is rife with this type of research and some journals, such as Genome for example, offer some of this research for free public viewing.

I have never encountered so many would-be science knowledge evaluators who seem so ignorant of basic epistemology and philosophy of science issues . . . and issue so many non-answers.

 

[MysticPhD]

OK, well, in regards to the topic of that comment, there doesn't have to be one single unifying field for the universe to exist as it does. There, now, that was simple and easy, wasn't it? Anything else?

Uh . . . yes there does . . . we just don't necessarily have to be able to find it. Reality is not self-contradictory . . . but our understanding and mathematical representations are.

 

[MysticPhD]

Perhaps, but I'll admit I'm not a physicist. I have a couple of friends who are, and they don't seem overly concerned about the issue.
Perhaps I'm spoiled by the almost messy nature of biology in comparison to physics? I certainly find the intricate workings of genes, individuals and ecosystems to be much more appealing.

For practical purposes it is not a big issue . . . pragmatically our patchworks work remarkably well for all intents and purposes . . . EXCEPT explaining the nature of reality and whether a God or God consciousness is a reasonable and plausible requirement for the "inherent" consistencies ("laws", etc.) and parameters (constants. etc.) that characterize it.

Again, I may be spoiled by Biology, but I find nothing is ever 100% consistent. Chaos always works it's way into things on some level. We can come close to 100% but we never reach it. Science is always open to that 1% possibility. Which is why scientists very rarely state things categorically in papers.
Again, this seems to be a physics issue to me.
wa:do

Actually it is an epistemological and philosophy of science issue.

 

[MysticPhD]

You're special. This treatment is purely because of your ridiculous claims.

And yet there have been no substantive efforts to substantiate these oft-repeated accusations . . . how ridiculous could they be?

So, you're saying science should be looking for design? I thought you already agreed that it couldn't test for such things. Please make up your mind.[/quote] No . . . they should not be going out of their way to impose a "no design" framework on their experiments and investigations . . . that is what we call a biased approach.

No, they found what you believe to be design (or more accurately, intelligent design).

No . . . they found design . . . "an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding."

 

[Magic Man]

Would the genome be the "underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding" . . . you know a design?

Could be, but it's certainly not intelligent, as you claim such a thing needs to be.

 

[Magic Man]

Uh . . . yes there does . . .

Uh...no, there doesn't. Do you really think that your saying it is enough? In a debate such as this, it's customary to back up your argument with something more than "Yuh-huh".

 

[Magic Man]

And yet there have been no substantive efforts to substantiate these oft-repeated accusations . . . how ridiculous could they be?

Wait, so now you're telling me you haven't even been paying attention this whole time? Well, that's a fine way to have a conversation.

No . . . they should not be going out of their way to impose a "no design" framework on their experiments and investigations . . . that is what we call a biased approach.

Come on, that wasn't even a good dodge. You claimed that science should be looking for design, which is contrary to your previous assertion that they shouldn't. I just wanted to nail down which way you stood on that.

Also, they don't go out of their way to impose a "no design" framework. The fact that you can't see that is what we call a biased approach on your part.

No . . . they found design . . . "an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding."

OK, I'll play. As I said in a previous post, let's say it is design in that sense. It's still not intelligent design, as in "designed with a purpose by some other being". So, you can equivocate all you want and move the goalposts, but you're still wrong.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Would the genome be the "underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding" . . . you know a design?

So you are able to tell us when the next one will occur . . . right?

Would this be the "it just is" answer . . . that is what "inherent" means . . . isn't it?

If you printed these on toilet paper, I believe they would actually be worth more after the paper had been used.

I have never encountered so many would-be science knowledge evaluators who seem so ignorant of basic epistemology and philosophy of science issues . . . and issue so many non-answers.

Don't worry, Mystic. Most of us have encountered people like you before.

You aren't the first person that has made it their mission in life to try to impress the rest of the world with your pseudo-intellect.

As for your claim that "no one is answering me", you might go back and actually read the posts in response to your drivel. Several of the others have answered your posts - but you simply walk right past them with your next foray, denouncing the imaginary bias you so desperately need to see in science.

 

[MysticPhD]

Could be, but it's certainly not intelligent, as you claim such a thing needs to be.

I would prefer not to be painted with the tainted label of Intelligent Design . . . which is a Creationist ploy and fraudulent attempt by the Discovery Institute to inject religion into science curricula. Since I know (personally . . . no one need believe me) that the universe is conscious . . . I would prefer to consider the design deliberate (not capricious or random or indifferent or . . . whatever).

 

[MysticPhD]

Uh...no, there doesn't. Do you really think that your saying it is enough? In a debate such as this, it's customary to back up your argument with something more than "Yuh-huh".

I guess the "can't be contradictory" kind of went over your head . . . a fly-by?

 

[MysticPhD]

Wait, so now you're telling me you haven't even been paying attention this whole time? Well, that's a fine way to have a conversation.

You must have missed the "substantive" part, eh?

Come on, that wasn't even a good dodge. You claimed that science should be looking for design, which is contrary to your previous assertion that they shouldn't. I just wanted to nail down which way you stood on that.

Also, they don't go out of their way to impose a "no design" framework. The fact that you can't see that is what we call a biased approach on your part.

I can only assume you are not familiar with the lengths to which they have gone to impose a "design" evolved over time by random processes over huge time frames . . . recognize the non-explanatory "random processes" of "inherent flaws" using the artificial mathematical constructs of "law of large numbers" and "probabilities?"

OK, I'll play. As I said in a previous post, let's say it is design in that sense. It's still not intelligent design, as in "designed with a purpose by some other being". So, you can equivocate all you want and move the goalposts, but you're still wrong.

I dealt with this earlier.

 

[MysticPhD]

If you printed these on toilet paper, I believe they would actually be worth more after the paper had been used.

That is your answer? Marvelous . . . quite intellectual.

Don't worry, Mystic. Most of us have encountered people like you before.

You aren't the first person that has made it their mission in life to try to impress the rest of the world with your pseudo-intellect.

Odd . . . I thought I was explaining an epistemological bias and philosophy of science issues with other intelligent folk . . . my mistake.

As for your claim that "no one is answering me", you might go back and actually read the posts in response to your drivel. Several of the others have answered your posts - but you simply walk right past them with your next foray, denouncing the imaginary bias you so desperately need to see in science.

I did as you asked . . . but all I found were unsubstantiated assertions and other useless diatribes and vitriol . . . like your "drivel" . . . and accusations about my motivations, knowledge and intelligence.

 

[kai]

It may look like a cross between a seal and an otter; but an Arctic fossil could, scientists say, hold the secret of seal evolution in its feet. A skeleton unearthed in northern Canada shows a creature with feet that were probably webbed, but were not flippers.
Writing in the journal Nature, scientists suggest the 23 million-year-old proto-seal would have walked on land and swum in fresh water.

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | 'Missing link' fossil seal walked

 

[themadhair]

Would the genome be the "underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding" . . . you know a design?

No. Unless you have some evidence to suggest design I don’t see why you seem so premeditated to conclude such. Also, I think you have confused the genome with the chemistry that acts on the genome.

So you are able to tell us when the next one will occur . . . right?

No. In order to make such a prediction it would be necessary to know the current state of every molecule on the planet. If you had that information, and a sufficiently large computer programmed with the relevant laws of physics and chemistry, I’d say you could do such a predication. Have you ever heard of argumentum ad ignorantiam?

Would this be the "it just is" answer . . . that is what "inherent" means . . . isn't it?

It stems from the chemistry and how, during the molecular interactions of transcription, errors creep in. Each interaction has a probability of success (which is ridiculously close to 100%) so, over times, it is unsurprising errors creep in. The fact is that random mutations aren’t actually that random, it just happens that the complexity of the environmental factors make the problem incalculable. You might as well complain that we don’t have an explanation for distilling salt from sea-water because we can’t predict the number of salt crystals that will result. Makes as much sense as your current rant.

I have never encountered so many would-be science knowledge evaluators who seem so ignorant of basic epistemology and philosophy of science issues . . . and issue so many non-answers.

I have never encounter a better more clear-cut case of the Dunning-Kruger effect that your good self.

 

[painted wolf]

How did these mutations know they would be useful for survival and decide to "occur?"

They don't. Mutations are neutral until environmental conditions put pressure on the individuals that have them. The vast majority of mutations are totally irrelevant to how an individual organism operates and will never face such pressure.

Would the genome be the "underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding" . . . you know a design?

Not entirely. Environment also plays a role in development and gene regulation.
And as far as designs go, it's pretty shoddy work. Full of non-coding areas, errors, bits of viral code that gets tacked on, prone to copy mistakes (some of which are deadly).

So you are able to tell us when the next one will occur . . . right?

Mutations happen with every generation (from hundreds to thousands per person).

Would this be the "it just is" answer . . . that is what "inherent" means . . . isn't it?

No, this is a ... "observation shows us" answer. Inherent in this case means that the process itself is, while impressive, nothing near 100% reliable. It is prone to error.

For practical purposes it is not a big issue . . . pragmatically our patchworks work remarkably well for all intents and purposes . . . EXCEPT explaining the nature of reality and whether a God or God consciousness is a reasonable and plausible requirement for the "inherent" consistencies ("laws", etc.) and parameters (constants. etc.) that characterize it.

That isn't science's job. The philosophical issue of the "nature of reality" and the existence of God is not a scientific one. Science deals with the "reality of nature".

Actually it is an epistemological and philosophy of science issue.

Exactly... not a Science issue, a philosophy issue.
One needs to keep ones philosophy (metaphysics) and ones Science (physics) separate. One can philosophize about science, but this isn't the same as doing scientific research.

Even scientists like Hawking who publish popular works that include philosophy know better than to include it in their research papers. It simply doesn't belong there.

wa:do

 

[MysticPhD]

They don't. Mutations are neutral until environmental conditions put pressure on the individuals that have them. The vast majority of mutations are totally irrelevant to how an individual organism operates and will never face such pressure.

That was a sarcastic question . . . forgot the "roll eyes" smiley. But thanks for your civility.

Not entirely. Environment also plays a role in development and gene regulation.
And as far as designs go, it's pretty shoddy work. Full of non-coding areas, errors, bits of viral code that gets tacked on, prone to copy mistakes (some of which are deadly).

We don't know the design features of the non-coding areas (nor do we know that what we consider errors aren't part of the propagation design). . . but recent epigenetic processes have been seen to use them in activation/ deactivation processes . . . some of which are heritable.

Mutations happen with every generation (from hundreds to thousands per person).

A design feature to ensure change (the essence of life itself?) or error?

No, this is a ... "observation shows us" answer. Inherent in this case means that the process itself is, while impressive, nothing near 100% reliable. It is prone to error.

Or designed to produce change over time to provide life the flexibility needed for survival?

That isn't science's job. The philosophical issue of the "nature of reality" and the existence of God is not a scientific one. Science deals with the "reality of nature".

Note the useof Nature AS IF it were separate.

Exactly... not a Science issue, a philosophy issue.
One needs to keep ones philosophy (metaphysics) and ones Science (physics) separate. One can philosophize about science, but this isn't the same as doing scientific research.

Even scientists like Hawking who publish popular works that include philosophy know better than to include it in their research papers. It simply doesn't belong there.
wa:do

We agree . . . too bad so much attention is focused on those aspects in science classes AS IF they were part of what science has VALIDATED . . . leading to the arrogant proclamations of such as Dawkins, et al.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I would prefer not to be painted with the tainted label of Intelligent Design . . . which is a Creationist ploy and fraudulent attempt by the Discovery Institute to inject religion into science curricula.

You're doing great so far. Up to this point, the best post you've put up.

Since I know (personally . . . no one need believe me) that the universe is conscious . . . I would prefer to consider the design deliberate (not capricious or random or indifferent or . . . whatever).

... alas, it was too good to last.

 

[doppelganger]

... alas, it was too good to last.

I hate to have to say it, but he actually has a point there. The universe we experience is necessarily constructed out of our thoughts about it. So it is to the extent we interface with it "designed" and ordered - though I hesitate to use the word "deliberate" or "conscious" because telos gives all the shape and form to the design and I'm suspicious about the ability to choose or alter telos.

 

[MysticPhD]

No. Unless you have some evidence to suggest design I don’t see why you seem so premeditated to conclude such. Also, I think you have confused the genome with the chemistry that acts on the genome.

Hardly . . . but epigenetic changes in response to environment seem to use the non-coding areas some of which are heritable . . . opening up the question of their importance rather than their uselessness.

No. In order to make such a prediction it would be necessary to know the current state of every molecule on the planet. If you had that information, and a sufficiently large computer programmed with the relevant laws of physics and chemistry, I’d say you could do such a predication. Have you ever heard of argumentum ad ignorantiam?

I am . . . are you? It is a double-edged sword.The informal structure has two basic patterns:

Statement p is unproved. (God exists)
Not-p is true. (No God is the default)

Statement not-p is unproved.
p is true.

I seek only neutrality . . . which is woefully missing.

It stems from the chemistry and how, during the molecular interactions of transcription, errors creep in. Each interaction has a probability of success (which is ridiculously close to 100%) so, over times, it is unsurprising errors creep in. The fact is that random mutations aren’t actually that random, it just happens that the complexity of the environmental factors make the problem incalculable. You might as well complain that we don’t have an explanation for distilling salt from sea-water because we can’t predict the number of salt crystals that will result. Makes as much sense as your current rant.

I knew the mathematical constructs would be mentioned . . . you are right about random . . . there is no such thing . . . it represents our IGNORANCE (as you conveniently point out).

I have never encounter a better more clear-cut case of the Dunning-Kruger effect that your good self.

Given the self-contradictions in your own arguments . . . I would agree about you.