(2017-11-24, 06:41 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]There is often talk that evolution is too weak to cause major changes, including speciation. It's also an interesting article.
~~ Paul
Do you really consider that a major change? Interesting isn't what steve was going for.
(2017-11-24, 11:57 PM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]a. How the term "species" is defined is up for substantial debate, and just saying something is a new species does not establish that some substantial amount of change has been undergone.
b. This is nebulous and not adding anything new to the conversation. It's not anything novel to suggest that a genetic change is one way in which an analysis of how species are defined is done.
c. Complete, unfounded assertion that has no support but your personal opinion. You (and all the scientists who claim to) do not have a clue as to how evolution operates in total. That's the entire discussion we've been having here. Further, having a "new species" of bird that is a minor variant of its predecessor in no way describes or gives any sort of help to figuring out how supposed R+M evolution boomed into the diversity of species observed today, allegedly from a single-celled organism that randomly just happened to self assemble (somehow - scientific community is at least willing to admit that that problem is confounding in a number of ways). It seems that you like to act like everyone who disagrees with you on this topic just refutes evolution at large or is some sort of young earth creationist, which is obviously not the case at all.
I learned that a bird that is extremely similar to another bird was declared to be a new species based on a minor variation that in no way changed the fact that it was a bird, or what kind of bird it was.
I've notice none of your replies elucidates another method how life evolves. Scientists of course don't know all the details, but they know enough to be confident natural means is the only way living things evolve.
So far the four respondents, that includes you Dante, refute evolution by natural means. One thinks design is involved. One favors morphic fields and another thinks the answer lays with psi. I'm don't know what you think, but it's probably some idea resting on shaky ground.
(2017-11-25, 12:45 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]I've notice none of your replies elucidates another method how life evolves. Scientists of course don't know all the details, but they know enough to be confident natural means is the only way living things evolve.
So far the four respondents, that includes you Dante, refute evolution by natural means. One thinks design is involved. One favors morphic fields and another thinks the answer lays with psi. I'm don't know what you think, but it's probably some idea resting on shaky ground.
I think it's important to always remember that a lack of an alternative does not magically make issues with the primarily accepted model disappear. They are real issues. Those issues are not rendered irrelevant because people don't have a fully supported alternative, especially when little research has been conducted into any such alternative path. Additionally it seems clear that it might be difficult to scientifically uncover intelligent intent or something of the like, if such a thing exists. Regardless, evolutionary theory as it is rests on incredibly shaky reasoning that is rarely challenged at all, which probably has led to a lot of the discord surrounding the issue.
(2017-11-25, 12:52 AM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's important to always remember that a lack of an alternative does not magically make issues with the primarily accepted model disappear. They are real issues. Those issues are not rendered irrelevant because people don't have a fully supported alternative, especially when little research has been conducted into any such alternative path. Additionally it seems clear that it might be difficult to scientifically uncover intelligent intent or something of the like, if such a thing exists. Regardless, evolutionary theory as it is rests on incredibly shaky reasoning that is rarely challenged at all, which probably has led to a lot of the discord surrounding the issue.
Some things I've noticed. People love science as long as it does not threaten their existential beliefs. TOE does just that. If study of psi had the same depth of knowledge as does evolutionary theory does you'd and a few others would say psi is a bonifide science backed up by a big marching band. Tell me what really chaps your arse about TOE?
(2017-11-25, 01:26 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Some things I've noticed. People love science as long as it does not threaten their existential beliefs.
Ah, you mean, say, the way the science of parapsychology threatens the existential beliefs of "skeptics"?
(2017-11-25, 03:56 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Ah, you mean, say, the way the science of parapsychology threatens the existential beliefs of "skeptics"?
Not in the least. I dare you to ask any skeptic if they have parapsychological existential angst. You can ask here or better yet since there are so many more at The international Skeptics forum.
I'm still working on a post that features biomimicry, but meanwhile, there's an
interesting article in the
New Scientist about how blindness in Mexican cave fishes is due to epigenetic changes and not genetic ones. I thought I'd post this because it's a purported example of how epigenetics can produce changes that persist over more than just a few generations.
Darwinists will hate it and are even as we speak trying to find some underlying genetic reason for the blindness. Note that:
Shuker is suspicious of some efforts to promote the idea of an “extended evolutionary synthesis”. He thinks some people are trying sneak religious ideas back into evolutionary theory. They are trying to allow organisms to have agency not controlled by genes...
How dare they! No matter that third way people, generally speaking, are hardly religious. For those interested, here's a piece at
EN&V that discusses the NS article.
(2017-11-25, 12:22 PM)Michael Larkin Wrote: [ -> ]I'm still working on a post that features biomimicry, but meanwhile, there's an interesting article in the New Scientist about how blindness in Mexican cave fishes is due to epigenetic changes and not genetic ones. I thought I'd post this because it's a purported example of how epigenetics can produce changes that persist over more than just a few generations.
Darwinists will hate it and are even as we speak trying to find some underlying genetic reason for the blindness. Note that: Shuker is suspicious of some efforts to promote the idea of an “extended evolutionary synthesis”. He thinks some people are trying sneak religious ideas back into evolutionary theory. They are trying to allow organisms to have agency not controlled by genes...
How dare they! No matter that third way people, generally speaking, are hardly religious. For those interested, here's a piece at EN&V that discusses the NS article.
It’s a very interesting study and I’m sure is very exciting to anyone working in the field. You have made Shuker’s comments look quite prescient by linking to a shameless propaganda spin piece right at the end of your post.
Is it your contention that god/MAL is actively encouraging the methylation process in this cave fish?
(2017-11-25, 01:26 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Some things I've noticed. People love science as long as it does not threaten their existential beliefs. TOE does just that. If study of psi had the same depth of knowledge as does evolutionary theory does you'd and a few others would say psi is a bonifide science backed up by a big marching band. Tell me what really chaps your arse about TOE?
TOE absolutely does not do just that, though I know you take great solace in thinking that it does. There are plenty of scientists and other subscribers to Darwinian evolution who are fully secure in their religious beliefs or beliefs in god.
Here steve, let me lay it out as absolutely clear as possible for you since you can't seem to wrap your head around it: Darwinian evolutionary theory is incredibly speculative (especially see evolutionary psychology, which is based on so little empiricism it's astonishing that it's wormed its way into being considered a legitimate "science" as the "consensus" would describe it), rests on unfounded and unobserved ENORMOUS leaps of faith in attempting to establish how descent has occurred via primarily random mutation and natural selection, and to me, it is outrageous that people who claim to like science and are intellectually honest could attempt to defend it as vigorously as they do without (GASP!) the same exact motives you attempt to criticize at every turn on the opposing front. It is clear, absolutely, impossible to miss clear, that people on the side you defend fear opening up evolutionary theory because they're just terrified of the notion that it is something other than completely blind processes at work. What might be at work, how it might otherwise work, I do not know. However, unlike you, I have a degree in the biological sciences and have actually worked in microbiology labs; Dave and Michael both have degrees and experience in those or related fields as well, as do others who have posted here and everywhere who oppose your version of TOE. In no way is this an appeal to authority, but it is to dismiss some ridiculous notion you have that anyone rebutting your, and the Darwinian version of, TOE, must have purely religious motive or something like that, or are just fanboys/fangirls of science "as long as it does not threaten their existential beliefs." As Laird pointed out, your hilarious ignorance of the existence of such a thing on both sides reflects your shallow and biased thinking.
As I already said (and I do realize that you need information repeated multiple times to get it through that unreasonably unrelenting view of yours),
there are actual problems with Darwinian evolutionary theory that are the foundation on which many of those who want to acknowledge those issues base their arguments,
not religion or some fear of TOE challenging their beliefs. Your unwillingness to acknowledge that at this point is simply blatant or intentional ignorance on your part, and a complete disregard for anything resembling a legitimate discussion on the topic.
(2017-11-25, 06:08 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]It’s a very interesting study and I’m sure is very exciting to anyone working in the field. You have made Shuker’s comments look quite prescient by linking to a shameless propaganda spin piece right at the end of your post.
Is it your contention that god/MAL is actively encouraging the methylation process in this cave fish?
I'm not sure you are getting it yet, malf. Nobody here is pushing a religious agenda and your inclusion of MAL in your question does nothing to hide the direction of your probing. You seem determined to out us as the religionists you are obsessed with believing that we are. I said in an earlier post that it is not a case of some god - no matter how you conceive that god - tinkering with the mechanisms and process from the outside. Do you really think we are all sitting at home reading that article and saying to ourselves, "Ah well, it is clear: God decided that a fish in a dark cave doesn't need eyes so I'll just tweak that chemical process a little - job done."?
Or is it more reasonable to consider that the process itself is acting upon information and is part of a larger process which, itself, can make intelligent choices? Not necessarily impeccable choices because the system itself is evolving but informed choices nontheless. And that is all within a somatic system but mind (in my worldview) is omnipresent so there is no somatic boundary so the intelligent process extends to the species and beyond. Something like Sheldrake suggests with morphic resonance.