Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

A Revolution in Evolution

1234689

Comments

  • #152
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Once again, I am not saying living organisms are not subject to Newtonian physics. I am saying to try and understand the mechanisms of life, Newtonian physics is largely irrelevant. To demonstrate this for yourself, compare a living cell with a dead cell, and tell me how Newtonian physics can help you determine which one is alive and which one is dead. Even better, distinguish life from non-life for me in terms of Newtonian physics.

    What about all the scientific methods we use for monitoring cell activity that rely on Newtonian physics?
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Purpose does not imply consciousness, but I suspect we will not agree on this, so lets let it go.

    How can we let this go when it is one of the key parts of your argument?
    nagirrac wrote: »
    "Nature is a blind machine" is an claim that needs evidence, evidence you have failed to provide. The null hypothesis for the universe (equivalent to nature as I explain below) is that the universe we partially observe (4% of it), is the only universe there is. Trying to ascribe specific words like "blind" to something we can only observe 4% of needs backup. Even if you limit yourself to the 4%, to claim this subset of the universe is blind needs evidence.

    "Nature is a blind machine" requires the least amount of assumptions and arbitrary defining, therefore it is the null hypothesis.
    You need to read up on the null hypothesis, because you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    It only appears nonsense to you because you do not understand it. I looked back over this thread and you have not written one syllable, word or phrase related to the thread topic. The topic is evolutionary Biology mechanisms, and how recent discoveries impact our understanding of evolution. You desperately want to turn the topic into a discussion of God, but it is not going to happen.

    There is lying to yourself and then there is just lying. Everything I have written has been in direct response to things you wrote, so if I'm off topic, it's because you went off topic first.
    Point to a single thing I have written that has been off topic.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    There you go again with meaningless analogies. We are discussing living organisms and their mechanisms, rain is not living, nor rubber balls, nor rocks. I have already defined life for you, stick to the topic.

    Nature is not alive. You are not getting out of this by switching terms behind your back.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Nonsense. I am defining these terms as they are used in life science, which is a very specific definition, rather than the common usage definition. You are the one defining them in terms of 18th century science.

    I am defining terms impartially as possible, as a scientist should. You are taking terms used in life science, and then using the most general definitions in order to twist them to make inane assertions. You are doing the exact same thing as a creationist saying "evolution is just a theory".
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Your worst example of confusion so far. From wiki, "Nature" is "the equivalent to the natural, physical or material world or universe. Nature refers to the phenomena of the physical world and life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmos". This may be part of the "talking past each other" problem, as if you define nature as the "chemical environment stuck to the outer layers of the earth", you are on a different page. I am referring to all of the natural world, and the laws of the natural world. The stuff around the surface of the earth is subject to all the laws of nature, just like anything else in the universe.

    See, I assumed you were going by nature as it is considered on earth (the biologically inhabited outer layer of the planet), because if you use the more general definition as you do here (nature is the physical world from the subatomic to the cosmos), then nature just means the universe. And I didn't think you meant that, because if you did you would need to explain how something could have a defence mechanism against itself. Also because I couldn't understand how someone could rumble themselves, yet again. Because now your argument becomes: The physical world, from the subatomic to the cosmos, has purpose.


  • #153
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nagirrac wrote: »
    We are going nowhere fast with this conversation due to your unwillingness to engage in the actual topic.

    Ok, everything else you post is almost quaint in its lack of sincerity but this BS stops now:
    POINT OUT ONE THING I HAVE WRITTEN THAT IS OFF TOPIC, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING DIRECTLY RESPONDING TO SOMETHING YOU SAID.


  • #154
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Ok, everything else you post is almost quaint in its lack of sincerity but this BS stops now:
    POINT OUT ONE THING I HAVE WRITTEN THAT IS OFF TOPIC, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING DIRECTLY RESPONDING TO SOMETHING YOU SAID.

    The thread topic is to discuss the scientific developments that have occurred in the past 5 - 7 years, specifically in molecular and cellular Biology, developments that are causing many scientists to rethink the theory of evolution and propose that the theory needs significant expansion and overhaul. There is a separate thread to discuss creationism versus evolution, which is where most of your comments belong.

    Proposing alternate hypotheses to explain the mechanisms that result in biological evolution is not attacking evolution as a scientific fact. This is a mistake that many laypeople make who think anyone who disagrees with any aspect of neo-Darwinism must be a creationist. While this may be understandable given the average layperson's abject ignorance of the science explaining evolution, it is simply unforgivable when a scientist makes this same comparison. It is absolute confirmation that for them ideology trumps science, and the "battle" against the evil theists is more important than scientific research.

    That is the second topic of my thread, that certain figures in science want to squash areas of research and launch personal attacks on scientists doing such research. This is driven not by science, but by their militant anti-theism. If you doubt this hop over to Jerry Coyne's blog where a majority of his posts are ranting against religion. It is instructive that your first post on this thread was to leap to their defense and label me just as "arrogant and militant". You are defending those who said "this is going to make my life very difficult" when the results of the ENCODE project were released, conforming that their primary motivation is battling theists rather than pursuing science. Instead of welcoming a huge advance in our understanding of the genome, these self appointed "high priests" of atheism instead attacked the researchers for daring to suggest that much of what they, the great minds in evolutionary Biology, had labeled "junk DNA" has function.

    The standard tactic used against those who question Neo-Darwinism is to label them as creationist. In post #68 you introduced the term "supernatural" for the first time in this thread. Science is the study of the natural, why introduce the term other than wanting to derail into a creationist vs evolution argument? In post #114 you introduced the word "God", again rumbling yourself. Now in your coup de grace, in your most recent post above, you label me a "creationist". That isn't just BS, that's an ignorant lie born out of total ignorance of the topic being discussed, and the hallmark of the type of individual I described above.


  • #155
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Any chance you want to discuss recent developments in evolutionary theory, or do you just want to continue to argue over words you don't appear to know the meaning of?
    Epigenetics is serious stuff ... and you guys should take what nagirrac is saying seriously as well.

    Here are the results of research that indicates that a lack of folate in the diet of male mice reprograms their sperm in ways that damages their offspring.
    http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21591547-lack-folate-diet-male-mice-reprograms-their-sperm-ways

    ... there is truly a revolution in Evolution ... away from the neo-Darwinian and towards the Lemarkian.


  • #156
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    J C wrote: »
    ... there is truly a revolution in Evolution ... away from the Darwinian and towards the Lemarkian.

    No, JC.

    Darwin also proposed "inheritance of acquired characteristics" as part of his theory, he called it pangenesis. It was the Neo-Darwinists of the early 20th century who rejected it, an assumption that has held since.

    In this regard, both Lamark and Darwin were right, and the Neo-Darwinists were wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    nagirrac wrote: »
    No, JC.

    Darwin also proposed "inheritance of acquired characteristics" as part of his theory, he called it pangenesis. It was the Neo-Darwinists of the early 20th century who rejected it, an assumption that has held since.

    In this regard, both Lamark and Darwin were right, and the Neo-Darwinists were wrong.
    You're correct and I have changed my posting to take account of your correction.


  • #158
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    I think it's worth exploring the theory proposed by Eva Jablonka in a bit more detail to try and advance the conversation. Jablonka is at the forefront of the revolution in evolution, and in my opinion will at some point be recognized with a Nobel prize, given that her theory dates from the 1980s and is only gaining acceptance now. Her theory in essence is that evolution, in particular as it applies to humans, can be understood best in four dimensions.

    1. Genetics.
    2. Epigenetics.
    3. Behavior.
    4. Language/Culture.

    It is a powerful theory as it provides a multifaceted picture of, for example, how the human brain evolved, something for which neo-Darwinian theory is hopelessly inadequate. The implication of this theory is that the human brain evolved due to genetics (the available building blocks), epigenetics (driven by changes in diet for example), behavior (habit formation) and language/culture. The latter may well be the most important in explaining how homo sapiens sapiens evolved cognitive reasoning and abstract thought which differentiates it from other species.

    You can only accept this theory however if you accept that 1) the brain is a plastic organ and can be modified by its owner, and 2) this new "wiring" or capability can be inherited. Both of these are now clearly demonstrated by scientific evidence, the first by neuroplasticity and the second by epigenetics.

    The discussion boils down really to a revival of the debate between neo-Darwinists and neo-Lamarkians dating to the late 19th century and early 20th century. This emotionally driven argument was between those who believed living organisms were like "puppets in a game of Russian roulette" (the neo-Darwinists), and those who believed that organisms could "choose new habits when confronted with new environmental challenges and actually influence the future of evolution" (the neo-Lamarkians). The tide has turned and the neo-Lamarkians are back in vogue.

    We are not lumbering slabs of meat subject to the whims of our genes, regardless of how some individual slabs of meat desperately want to cling onto this disproven idea.


  • #159
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    J C wrote: »
    You're correct and I have changed my posting to take account of your correction.

    One more "neo" and you will be there:), Lamark was wrong about a lot of other things.


  • #160
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    nagirrac wrote: »
    One more "neo" and you will be there:), Lamark was wrong about a lot of other things.
    ... and could I also say the same about you?
    ... one more 'neo' ... and you could also be there!!!:)


  • #161
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    nagirrac wrote: »
    We are not lumbering slabs of meat subject to the whims of our genes, regardless of how some individual slabs of meat desperately want to cling onto this disproven idea.
    Quite true ... but there are very good reasons (from their point of view), why the Darwinians want to desperately cling to their ideas.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nagirrac wrote: »
    The standard tactic used against those who question Neo-Darwinism is to label them as creationist. In post #68 you introduced the term "supernatural" for the first time in this thread. Science is the study of the natural, why introduce the term other than wanting to derail into a creationist vs evolution argument? In post #114 you introduced the word "God", again rumbling yourself. Now in your coup de grace, in your most recent post above, you label me a "creationist". That isn't just BS, that's an ignorant lie born out of total ignorance of the topic being discussed, and the hallmark of the type of individual I described above.

    Post 68 was talking about the placebo effect (and how it is the mistaking of a general physical effect for something supernatural) and you brought up the placebo effect. - ON TOPIC
    Post 114 had me compare your general posting style to that of other people who come to this forum with a superficially innocent question or discussion, only for it to turn out to be a silly set-up to try and prove god or some other theist notion. - ON TOPIC
    My last post (152) said you were arguing like a creationist, it didn't label you as a creationist. - ON TOPIC

    And all three of these posts say a lot more than just these three points, each having multiple paragraphs going through the different things you said in your preceding posts.

    Is that really the best you can come up with? Not including this post, I have 27 posts in this thread, surely you should be able to point to anyone to show how I have never been on topic.


  • #163
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Post 68 was talking about the placebo effect (and how it is the mistaking of a general physical effect for something supernatural) and you brought up the placebo effect. - ON TOPIC
    I must point out that the placebo effect is recognised in medecine ... and isn't regarded as supernatural.
    It is regarded as psychosomatic effect.

    I'll bow out and leave the rest in the capable hands of nagirrac.


  • #164
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    J C wrote: »
    I must point out that the placebo effect is recognised in medecine ... and isn't regarded as supernatural.
    It is regarded as psychosomatic effect.

    I'll bow out and leave the rest in the capable hands of nagirrac.

    I didn't say it was supernatural. I said the placebo effect is some general physic effect that is mistaken for something (usually) supernatural.


  • #165
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I didn't say it was supernatural. I said the placebo effect is some general physic effect that is mistaken for something (usually) supernatural.

    Mistaken by whom? The medical field has known about the placebo effect for centuries, and MDs have been prescribing placebos for centuries. The placebo effect is an established fact, that until recently we had no mechanism to explain, and we still have only a partial understanding of the mechanism. What we do know is the psychological expectation of getting well triggers various centers in the brain to release endorphins and other "feel good" chemicals. However, it is a temporary relief, just like a painkiller or antidepressant, and if the placebo is withdrawn the symptoms may recur.

    There are numerous recent studies that show that for a great number of mild to moderate cases of depression, the drug administered has simply a placebo effect and no more. That doesn't stop for example an industry in the US pumping antidepressants into kids who become dependent on them, perhaps for life. The over prescription of pharmaceuticals such as antidepressants and antibiotics is an absolute disgrace.

    This should not be confused with neuroplasticity which involves rewiring or remodeling the brain. This involves hard disciplined work, of the type seen when some people regain functions they had lost due to stroke.

    http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/publications/in-vivo/Vol3_Iss11_nov_dec_04/stroke.html


  • #166
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    My last post (152) said you were arguing like a creationist, it didn't label you as a creationist. - ON TOPIC

    .. and I can just as easily say you are arguing like a fundamentalist atheist and where is that going to get us in the discussion? As I said in my opening posts, I have no desire to get into that type of dialog, if for no other reason there is already a thread for that very dialog.

    The topic of the thread is recent advances in evolutionary theory, about which you have said nothing. A subplot of the thread is to highlight how some confrontational atheist scientists regard neo-Darwinian theory as dogma, and label anyone who questions it as either a creationist or empowering of creationists. In your haste to jump to their defense in your first post, you exposed yourself or as you like to say rumbled yourself.

    Should scientific endeavor stop because it might empower an ideology? Should Jablonka, Shapiro, Lamb, etc. all stop because their work is "making life difficult" for a few "militant atheist scientists" who happen to be highly influential in the public eye, although they haven't done a lick of science for decades?

    It is all so boring predictable. I mentioned her earlier but consider the case of Barbara McClintock. One of the most brilliant geneticists of the 20th century, she discovered the first evidence for transposable elements in the 1930s and 1940s. She was hounded by the then scientific establishment who refused to believe "jumping genes" were possible, to the extent that she stopped publishing. It wasn't until her work was reproduced over and over in the 1960s and 1970s that she was finally recognized and awarded a Noble prize in 1983.


  • #167
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    nagirrac wrote: »
    .. and I can just as easily say you are arguing like a fundamentalist atheist and where is that going to get us in the discussion? As I said in my opening posts, I have no desire to get into that type of dialog, if for no other reason there is already a thread for that very dialog.

    The topic of the thread is recent advances in evolutionary theory, about which you have said nothing. A subplot of the thread is to highlight how some confrontational atheist scientist regard neo-Darwinian theory as dogma, and label anyone who questions it as either a creationist or empowering of creationists. In your haste to jump to their defense in your first post, you exposed yourself or as you like to say rumbled yourself.

    Should scientific endeavor stop because it might empower an ideology? Should Jablonka, Shapiro, Lamb, etc. all stop because their work is "making life difficult" for a few "militant atheist scientists" who happen to be highly influential in the public eye, although they haven't done a lick of science for decades?

    It is all so boring predictable. I mentioned her earlier but consider the case of Barbara McClintock. One of the most brilliant geneticists of the 20th century, she discovered the first evidence for transposable elements in the 1930s and 1940s. She was hounded by the then scientific establishment who refused to believe "jumping genes" were possible, to the extent that she stopped publishing. It wasn't until her work was reproduced over and over in the 1960s and 1970s that she was finally recognized and awarded a Noble prize in 1983.
    I agree fully with you.
    Science needs to be more accepting of diversity ... because diversity of research is ultimately how it progresses.
    Conventional science needs to stop behaving as some kind of secular 'religion' with it's 'high priests', unquestioned 'dogmas' ... and 'heretics'!!!:)
    This 'revolution in evolution' could have happened years ago ... and we should have been able to benefit from its insights and findings long ago!!!


  • #168
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    I agree fully with you.
    Science needs to be more accepting of diversity ... because diversity of research is ultimately how it progresses.
    Conventional science needs to stop behaving as some kind of secular 'religion' with it's 'high priests', unquestioned 'dogmas' ... and 'heretics'!!!:)
    This 'revolution in evolution' could have happened years ago ... and we should have been able to benefit from its insights and findings long ago!!!
    That does not mean accepting "creation science", on account of, 1) It not being actual science, 2) it being bullsh1t and 3) It not being actual science.

    MrP


  • #169
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Mistaken by whom? The medical field has known about the placebo effect for centuries, and MDs have been prescribing placebos for centuries. The placebo effect is an established fact, that until recently we had no mechanism to explain, and we still have only a partial understanding of the mechanism. What we do know is the psychological expectation of getting well triggers various centers in the brain to release endorphins and other "feel good" chemicals. However, it is a temporary relief, just like a painkiller or antidepressant, and if the placebo is withdrawn the symptoms may recur.

    There are numerous recent studies that show that for a great number of mild to moderate cases of depression, the drug administered has simply a placebo effect and no more. That doesn't stop for example an industry in the US pumping antidepressants into kids who become dependent on them, perhaps for life. The over prescription of pharmaceuticals such as antidepressants and antibiotics is an absolute disgrace.

    This should not be confused with neuroplasticity which involves rewiring or remodeling the brain. This involves hard disciplined work, of the type seen when some people regain functions they had lost due to stroke.

    http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/publications/in-vivo/Vol3_Iss11_nov_dec_04/stroke.html

    Mistaken by the patient. You have someone taking some antidepressants or some homeopathic pill or even just praying. They improve their condition and attribute it to the specific thing they did or took, when in reality it was the simple act of making a specific change that improved their condition.


  • #170
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nagirrac wrote: »
    .. and I can just as easily say you are arguing like a fundamentalist atheist and where is that going to get us in the discussion?

    You could say it, but can you show it? I have shown it, repeatedly, with quotes from your posts. You arguing the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I" is not a counter.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    As I said in my opening posts, I have no desire to get into that type of dialog, if for no other reason there is already a thread for that very dialog.

    What the hell are you talking about? How many ways do I need to say this? I am not saying that you are arguing what a creationist argues, I am saying you are using their methods of argument. And your method of arguing is a perfectly point of criticism in a discussion, as it strikes to the heart of why your points are wrong.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    yada
    yada
    yada

    Eh, what happened to the rest of my post? You can't just ignore large swathes of what I am saying, chunks of text debunking each of your arguments, without either accepting or rejecting them. How can an honest discussion continue if thats the attitude you present?
    There is no point trying to go back to the basic points of the thread if none of the issues raised by myself, or others, have been addressed by you. Do you think that everyone else will forget what they said before and just agree without question this time? You have to address these before we move on, otherwise we are doomed to circle back around to them again.


  • #171
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    That does not mean accepting "creation science", on account of, 1) It not being actual science, 2) it being bullsh1t and 3) It not being actual science.

    MrP
    I wasn't talking about Creation Science (that's a matter, by common agreement, for another thread) ...

    I was talking about the two main 'denominations' within Evolutionism ... Darwinism and Lamarkism ... and the deep 'schism' that exists between them ... which has been holding back scientific progress for over a century now.:)

    ... it's no wonder that scientific progress has been so painfully slow within Darwinism ... which hasn't really progressed substantially beyond the discoveries of Darwin on The Beagle, as a result!!!:eek:


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    What the hell are you talking about? How many ways do I need to say this? I am not saying that you are arguing what a creationist argues, I am saying you are using their methods of argument.
    ... and what is wrong with that?
    ... Creationists are probably the best practitioners of the art of debate in the World today.

    Anyway, don't mind them nagirrac ... they have lost, when they start saying that you are arguing like a Creationist, when it is quite clear that you are an Evolutionist ... and speaking about cutting edge Evolution research, at that!!!

    ... research that is causing a revolution in evolution, as a result.


  • #173
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    ... and what is wrong with that?
    ... Creationists are probably the best practitioners of the art of debate in the World today.

    Anyway, don't mind them nagirrac ... they have lost, when they start saying that you are arguing like a Creationist, when it is quite clear that you are an Evolutionist ... and speaking about cutting edge Evolution research, at that!!!

    ... research that is causing a revolution in evolution, as a result.
    You suck the fun and usefulness out of every thread you post in.

    MrP


  • #174
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,279 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    MrPudding wrote: »
    You suck the fun and usefulness out of every thread you post in.

    I think you missed this statement:
    J C wrote: »
    Creationists are probably the best practitioners of the art of debate in the World today.


  • #175
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,192 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    J C wrote: »
    Creationists are probably the best practitioners of the art of debate in the World today.

    Did you post that on Opposite Day? :rolleyes:


  • #176
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    Creationists are probably the best practitioners of the art of debate in the World today.
    Indeed, Kent, Ken, Willy and the rest are amongst the most practiced mass debaters the world has produced.


  • #177
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    They improve their condition and attribute it to the specific thing they did or took, when in reality it was the simple act of making a specific change that improved their condition.

    That would suggest that wearing a hat or changing the color of your underwear would also be effective. The placebo effect is due to the expectation of getting better and nothing to do with the actual treatment. It is a psychological cause with a physiological effect. The simplest example is when someone goes to the doctor with some general symptoms of feeling unwell, the simple reassuring words from the doctor that there is nothing wrong is enough in itself to trigger the placebo effect. However, in many cases the doctor will prescribe a placebo (something they know has no known physiological effect for the condition) as patients expect medicine when they go to the doctor; "I think I need an antibiotic" the classic example. While this is relatively harmless in the case of an aspirin, it can be very harmful for example when antibiotics are prescribed for viral infections.

    In fact studies have been done to demonstrate that it is actually the attitude and manner of the person administering the placebo that has the biggest impact, if say the doctor is calm and reassuring this has a much bigger impact than say if the doctor is hurried and abrupt. The placebo effect is entirely due to the mental state of the patient.


  • #178
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You can't just ignore large swathes of what I am saying, chunks of text debunking each of your arguments, without either accepting or rejecting them. How can an honest discussion continue if thats the attitude you present?

    I am ignoring your attempts to turn this into another creationist thread, although sadly that may already have happened:(.

    The topic is quite specific, and I will repeat it again in the form of a question:

    The standard assumption in evolutionary theory since the early 20th century is that random events lead to variation. Variation that leads to improved fitness is selected for in populations leading to the variation becoming commonplace. Over long periods of time variation leads to speciation. In terms of genetics the underlying mechanism of variation is random mutation, mostly due to copying errors, that lead to deleterious, neutral and beneficial variations. In populations, over time, the beneficial variations are selected.

    This is indeed very plausible and "makes sense". However, the evidence, as opposed to the assumption, is that organisms or phenotypes are selected, not genes. Genes are simply a tool or organ that the organism uses to develop, survive and reproduce. When the organism is under environmental stress, it will modify and morph into a different phenotype (the adaptive mutation of E-Coli example I gave for example). Epigenetics is further evidence that changes in gene expression, which lead to phenotype variation, are anything but random, they are a direct result of environmental change, and frequently choices made by the organism, for example a human choosing to eat one thing rather than another.

    I agree that the claim regarding "purpose" in any lower level organisms is controversial. However, let's just focus on humans. Humans can chose what to eat, what thinking patterns they focus on, what they choose to learn, how they communicate with others, their social activities, etc. The evidence is that this is how the human brain evolved, from that of a hunter gatherer to one capable of space travel.

    So the question simply is, given the evidence, is variation a blind, random process or is variation an adaptive process? The evidence I would suggest from studying humans is that it is mainly an adaptive process. If you disagree then provide the evidence for the claim that variation is random.


  • #179
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,168 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    nagirrac wrote: »
    So the question simply is, given the evidence, is variation a blind, random process or is variation an adaptive process? The evidence I would suggest from studying humans is that it is mainly an adaptive process. If you disagree then provide the evidence for the claim that variation is random.

    Not going to pretend I understand half of this thead, but why can't evolution be both? I.e it is an adaptive process and it adapts in a blind random way.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #180
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    nagirrac wrote: »
    The standard assumption in evolutionary theory since the early 20th century is that random events lead to variation. Variation that leads to improved fitness is selected for in populations leading to the variation becoming commonplace.

    An oversimplification of the truth actually. Sometimes harmful or even neutral changes can be selected and disseminate in a population too. "Survival of the fittest" and other common media phrases have led lay people to the assumption only advantageous traits are selected for.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    This is indeed very plausible and "makes sense". However, the evidence, as opposed to the assumption, is that organisms or phenotypes are selected, not genes.

    I half agree. But only in that I think they are ALL selected for. There are people who strongly support the selection of one... such as Dawkins "Genes eye" view of Evolution. Which is very powerful and works. But he also writes about the Extended Phenotype too.

    Some people support gene selection and rubbish...say... group selection. Some support Group Selection and would rubbish something else.

    From my studies of all the arguments and papers over the year my feeling is they are all right and wrong. I think EVERY level is subject to selection. Gene selection, phenotype selection, sexual selection, group selection on up to even the inter dependencies of Ecosystem selection.

    Humans love when science reduces to one simple set of rules that we can learn and subscribe to and many people would love Evolution to be a simple set of selections at a single level. I remain totally unconvinced of that however and see horizontal and vertical selection effects at every level.

    While not convinced of Epigenetics myself, I have read enough papers on the subject to at least find it compelling and interesting. I feel a lot of what scientists are mistaking as "epigenetics" will turn out to be the simple reactivation of dormant pathways through the reintroduction of inputs that have become absent over time. Which will give us the IMPRESSION that we subjected a test population to a stimulus and then their off spring appeared to inherit traits on their basis.

    So when you talk of an environment altering to "stress" an organism and its phenotype morphs and this morph passes on to the off spring.... I think we should be very very careful to THEN check whether this was not really a morph or adaption at all... but the mere reactivation of gene pathways, via environmental changes, that had otherwise become unused.

    At the same time however I find the idea of the "Evolution of Evolvibility" which people like Dawkins and Dennett have brought to the lay man to be compelling too and so I would be slow to write off Epigenetics at all.

    But there are also areas of Evolution I simply can not make sense of without taking a genes eye view of selection and evolution so I would not come as close as you to rubbishing the idea of gene selection at all. Quite the opposite.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    So the question simply is, given the evidence, is variation a blind, random process or is variation an adaptive process?

    Both and neither perhaps. I think "adaptive" can be a misleading word. If you build a tube with different kinds of shapes, turns, passages and the like.... and pour water through it... the water will change its "shape" to "fit" through it. It appears to "adapt" to the passage way before it. But that adaption is an illusion and it is a mere effect of the environment on the liquid.

    I have a similar impression of evolution. Life is like a liquid torrent passing through, in, over and around the obstacles as it merely moves forwards. The effect of this gives a powerful illusion of adaption and design.... so poweful that it actually benefits us to use those kinds of words to describe and discuss it.... but we must do so while keeping one eye on it, and ourselves, and what it is we are actually saying.

    Because as many of your posts demonstrate all too clearly... our mind can run away with the linguistics we use and lead us to all kinds of nonsense conclusions such as suggesting the process to be exhibiting intelligence or intention or even communication.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    koth wrote: »
    Not going to pretend I understand half of this thead, but why can't evolution be both? I.e it is an adaptive process and it adapts in a blind random way.

    That is essentially the standard view of evolution, although in the specific example you quoted I was discussing variation rather than evolution.

    You have various genetic mechanisms that result in variations between individuals in a population. These are commonly described as "random", meaning the frequency that they occur at is not related to whether they are beneficial or not. This is what I am questioning.

    Natural selection favors some variations over others based on their "fitness" in a given environment, or how well they adapt to their environment. Over time these variations or traits become more common in a population due to differential reproduction i.e. the traits that provide an advantageous reproductive rate win out.


Advertisement