Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
September 14, 2014 at 7:17 pm (This post was last modified: September 14, 2014 at 7:22 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Darwin got plenty wrong, firstly, he was a human being...secondly, he lived in the 1800's. I think I'll cut him some slack. He's not a massive figure in history because he "got it right".....but because he pointed in the direction that we later found the answer to the question. Hell, he wasn't even the only person pointing in that direction.
Not, mind you, that it matters all that much what he did get wrong or didn't know..because modern synthesis =/= darwinism. Unless the point is to invent a time machine, go back to the 19th century, and point at him and snicker or something.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Desai's test, while really interesting, sort of oversimplifies environmental input on selection. If a 100 relatively genetically basic organisms are subject to the same environment and selected in the same method, only specific mutations will be beneficial to population selections. The important point is that genetically similar yeast can be "fit" in the same way. But it seems to me these populations of yeast were selected for the same fitness, why is it a surprise that they show similar paths to get to that fitness? And also, since when is selection pressure the exact same over multiple generations?
Very cool experiment in it's scale and scope.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join!--->There's an app and everything!<---
(September 14, 2014 at 9:12 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Desai's test, while really interesting, sort of oversimplifies environmental input on selection. If a 100 relatively genetically basic organisms are subject to the same environment and selected in the same method, only specific mutations will be beneficial to population selections. The important point is that genetically similar yeast can be "fit" in the same way. But it seems to me these populations of yeast were selected for the same fitness, why is it a surprise that they show similar paths to get to that fitness? And also, since when is selection pressure the exact same over multiple generations?
Very cool experiment in it's scale and scope.
To be fair, the comments also read:
"Michael Desai says: Basically I agree that in natural systems organisms will alter the environment, and that this could in principle lead to divergent selection. There are many other forces that could in principle lead to divergent selection as well. Our experiment was not designed to address all of these possibilities. Instead, we are focusing on one specific possible source of divergent pressures: the effects of initial mutations in shaping future evolutionary trajectories. We show that this specific aspect of evolutionary contingency leads to convergence rather than divergence at the fitness level.
For what it’s worth, it’s also true that in our system the yeast presumably do change the environment as they evolve, though one could argue that there isn’t as much opportunity for them to do so as might be present in a natural system."
September 15, 2014 at 12:33 pm (This post was last modified: September 15, 2014 at 12:35 pm by Ben Davis.)
Hi, I may be 17 pages too late but we've not had the chance to chat over our tea and I've got some things on my mind that haven't yet been articulated by others.
Starting with a philosophical point, it seems that you're on a search for 'absolute truth'. Further, your use of the word 'reality' seems interchangable with 'absolute truth'. Am I right in assuming that you would consider 'that which is real' to be 'that which is absolutely true' and that if it isn't 'absolutely true', it isn't 'real'? Also are you happy to work with 'the closest approximation of reality' as described by the mechanisms available to us, currently?
(September 12, 2014 at 11:47 am)sswhateverlove Wrote: Conscious Awareness
I will start with the little I do know, and it is this, “cogito ergo sum”, “I think, therefore, I am”. Descarte’s famous quote sums up, in a few words, everything that I know as absolute truth.
Descartes certainly doesn't describe an 'absolute truth' rather his point supports the argument that there's no such thing. It even contests the idea that we're thinking at all. After all, how can you really know?!
It seems that Descartes went one step too far, in to the realm where the question 'why' becomes useless as the possible answers have no explanatory power. I'm one who thinks that this is the case and I ascribe to the idea 'sum ergo sum', I am therefore I am: the facts of our existence are the evidence of our existence. By all mechanisms that have ever been available to humans, over the entire of our history, the closest thing to 'absolute truth' seems to be data. I'd like you to keep that in mind as you read because my responses will be phrased in line with that paradigm.
Quote:I perceive and form opinion. I observe and assess. I experience and evaluate, compare and assimilate based on all my previous experiences. The opinions I form will be dependent upon what I have observed prior and what information I have been socialized to accept as truth. However, the only thing I really know is that I have this experience. I do not know for sure you also experience this (the truth is, you could be a robot), but I know it happens for me.
I've emboldened part of your quote because I don't think you realise how important the implications of this are: we don't have perception in isolation. Our sensory tools are personal to us, yes, but we have an active instinct to check our senses against external measures. We see the value in corroborating data. That's because data is repeatable and reproducable, irrespective of one's personal experience. Data is objective (at least 'as objective as you can get', since you buy into Descartes )
Quote:Beyond this, there are many claims of truth, for which I will explore. But please bear in mind, the absolute nature of the claims depend upon current technology and the accumulation of observation, experience, and opinion formed by those deemed worthy of forming such an opinion. As far as I’m aware, there are no experts who claim to be omniscient, wherefore we must always consider that there may be variables uncontrolled for and information left out.
Indeed. Further, we must always remember that our ability to experience reality in no way limits or describes the nature of reality. However that doesn't reduce the value of the data that we can collect. Any data is better than none and a greater amount better than lesser. We can be 'absolutely' right about one aspect of the data whilst being wrong about another.
Quote:Sensory Perception
Biological scientists have attempted to expand upon Descarte’s truth to try to explain the mechanisms involved. Many claim that vibrating waves and particles interact with our awareness and are experienced based on the frequency of the vibration. Labels have been assigned to aspects of, what have been called, “biological systems” to assist with the communication of these concepts. “Baroreceptors”, for example, are said to correlate with our experience of, what has been labeled “pressure”. “Chemoreceptors”, are said to correlate with our experience of, what has been labeled “chemical stimuli”. “Electromagnetic receptors”, are said to correlate with our experience of, what has been labeled “infrared radiation, visible light, and magnetic fields”. “Hydroreceptors”, are said to correlate with our experience of, what has been labeled “humidity”. “Mechanoreceptors”, are said to correlate with our experience of, what has been labeled “mechanical stress or mechanical strain”. “Nociceptors”, are said to correlate with our experience of, what has been labeled “noxious or potentially noxious stimuli”. “Osmoreceptors”, are said to correlate with our experience of, what has been labeled “the osmolarity fluids”. “Photoreceptors”, are said to correlate with our experience of, what has been labeled “sense of position”. “Thermoreceptors”, are said to correlate with our experience of, what has been labeled “temperature”. According to many, there is no experience beyond what is capable of being picked up by these receptors (or assistant technologies). According to public opinion, these receptors tell us the truth about what “is”. Unfortunately (brace yourself), there is no evidence that the mechanisms convey to us anything that resembles what actually “is”. The biological systems are said to produce an experience based on the vibration of particles interacting with receptors and the subsequent biological processes.
The truth about what “is” cannot be deduced from this, it simply confirms Descartes' claim that we experience and form opinion.
Not true, it allows us to collect & corroborate data. That is the purpose of the mechanisms which you've described. The 'truth' is that certain objects reflect light at differing wavelengths and that the differentiation of those wavelengths can offer advantage to certain lifeforms. They eye and the brain have developed in concert to try and take that advantage. Is there any 'truth' to 'red'? Well, yes, from a data perspective: 'red' is defined as wavelengths of light between 620 & 740 nm as that is what can be corroborated.
Quote:Similar to the concept of the “Matrix”, if we choose to believe we are experiencing reality, then our reality is real regardless of what actually “is”. This is at the root of all we know, but for the sake of moving on in our exploration of truth, let’s assume the reality of our experience is a given.
But it is a given. Reality exists irrespective of our existence. I've used this example on other threads but matter would still attract matter with a force in proportion to its mass even if there were no way to ever know about it. As I said earlier, remember that our ability to experience reality in no way limits or describes the nature of reality.
Quote:The Beginning of the Material Universe
The next set of truth claims involve “the beginning”. The two commonly held opinions are “from nothing, God created everything” and “from nothing, the Big Bang created everything”. One is called “religion” and the other is called “scientific fact”, but both make the same claim. This claim contradicts Einstein’s “truth” that “energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another”, but for the sake of exploring further, let’s ignore that. The “Big Bang” theory was proposed by physicists and astronomers and is based on the idea of “gravitational pressure” and how gravity interacts with “matter” and “antimatter”. It relies on “laws” of astrophysics and is said to describe the origins of all of reality. To try to get a better understanding of this “truth”, let’s explore the “scientific facts” about gravity. First, “little g”, or the observed “G-force”, was believed to be “constant” with regard to the “the law” of acceleration until it was realized that acceleration actually depends on mass size and distance, wherefore it cannot predict acceleration through space or on different planets. Due to this the “the law” was revised. From here, Newton’s “Big G” became “the law” as the “universal gravitational constant”. However, “Big G” has not actually been observed to be constant when measured. Further, it predicts that without an external force, two objects traveling along parallel paths will always remain parallel and never meet. Particles that start off on parallel paths, however, are sometimes observed to end up colliding. Due to this, the “the law” was revised and Einstein’s general relativity became “the law” stating those objects are still traveling along the straightest possible line, but due to a distortion in space-time, the straightest possible line is now along a spherical path. This, however, predicted that the attractive force of gravity pulls all matter together, wherefore subsequent to the “Bang” the expansion of the universe should be observed to slow. This has not been observed, however, and instead, recent evidence confirms the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. To explain this, another revision is now necessary and a few theories have been proposed. What seems to be the common opinion now is that 96% of reality is actually unknown and undetectable substances called “dark matter” and “dark energy”. Making this assumption is said to be the only way to confirm general relativity is still a “scientific fact”. Again, the “truth” about “Big Bang” and the evolution of the universe is currently relying upon the assumption that with all our technology, we are capable of only observing 4% of what “is”. The remaining 96% is some mysterious “other stuff” that we know nothing about. So much for getting clarification of truth through astrophysics.
So, the truth about the material universe as presented by the scientific community and accepted by public opinion is obviously lacking, but it goes further. When observed on a smaller scale, “truth” becomes even more confusing. The matter supposedly created by the “Big Bang”, which evolved into the total of our material reality, has actually been observed to act as both matter and energy when viewed on a quantum level. It has further been observed to act in spooky and “entangled” ways that defy all our previous held “truths” of physics. Quantum physicists report evidence that particles can instantly communicate with each other, even when extremely far apart, that photons pop in and out of existence, and that the observer is actually an influential factor in the perception of matter. There is currently no commonly accepted theory that unifies the observations of astrophysics with quantum mechanics.
Plenty of other people have picked you up on the flaws in this section. My tuppenceworth? You misrepresent scientific explanations. I don't know if this is to try and 'reduce' the validity of modern knowledge in some way, for some reason or because your Descartesian paradigm truly prevents you from understanding the nature of data, fact, law, theory or scientific methodology. I'm no psychologist so I've probably offered a false dichotomy there. Feel free to explore this more in our conversation.
Quote:Evolution of Life
Despite the lack of concrete evidence with regard to the nature and origin of the universe, for the sake of further exploring truth, we can assume the absolute nature of material reality as a given in order to delve deeper. From here, we will explore the truth about what has been called “life”, or the “origin of species”.
The nature of material reality has nothing to do with the validity of the ToE. It seems that not only are you conflating evolution with cosmology (a common mistake) but you're adding philosophy to the mix! I know some people need a 'theory of everything' but I think you're taking it to extremes
Quote:Darwin’s “theory of evolution” isn't representative of our current level of knowledge but the data tells us that all species which exist (at least on planet earth) are genetically similar. The data tells us that that all forms of life have a common ancestor and that differentiation has occurred due to a number of mechanisms including natural selection and sexual selection.
Fixed that for you.
Quote:There seems to be little as to theory of how non-living matter and energy originally became that first life form, however, again, for the sake of delving deeper, we will accept it as a given.
Abiogenesis is fact. It's been done in a lab. Repeatably, reproducably. Also, it has nothing to do with evolution. Another common conflation.
Quote:“Natural selection” is based on the data that demonstrates that over great lengths of time, genetic variation occurs and is inherited, resulting in speciation. It has been demonstrated that mutations that were beneficial to the organism in it’s environment allowed the organism to be more likely to survive and reproduce whereby encouraging the transmission of that mutation in that environment. It is further demonstrated that the mutations that were harmful to the organism in it’s environment interfered with reproduction, preventing the transmission of that mutation in that environment. This is referred to as “survival of the fittest” and is said to explain how very small differences in genetic code resulted in the extreme diversity of species. This is the best explanation of the facts that has existed over the past hundred years. It is widely accepted because of the evidence. It is demonstrably true and epigenetics is a study of a particular aspect of evolution, futher demonstrating the validity of the Theory
Fixed again.
[quote]The Progression of Time
Finally, it would not be a thorough exploration of the truth of reality without discussing the aspect of time progression. As I stated above, there are currently no commonly accepted theories that unify the observations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, but that does not mean there are no theories. A theory that has been said to unify and explain these conflicting observations assumes first that the progression of time, as we perceive it, is illusory.
No, not illusory, time is relative. You use a lot of value-laden language which detracts from the accuracy of your statements.
Quote:To put this in context, Einstein first proposed a thought experiment with regard to how this applies to acceleration through space. He claimed that perception of time, relative to time on earth, slows down the closer one travels toward a black hole. The thought experiment concludes that an organism traveling as such would return to earth, in the future, having aged very little, while similar organisms on earth would have aged as expected.
Close enough.
Quote:If we are to assume the perception of time progression as illusory...
...not illusory, relative. That you would reuse such an obviously misleading term makes me think that your choice is deliberate. If you keep using this tactic, you'll find yourself rapidly losing the attention of the audience on this board.
Quote:...then the truth of reality could be such that, observed from an outside perspective, everything in our reality began and ended, was created and destroyed, started and finished without following the slow progression we experience.
No. It couldn't. That's because we can demonstrate that time differentials are caused by extremes of gravity. For a universe which is billions of years old to have ended but still be visible to us, it would require a massive well right on top of us. That would require an object of such incredible density so close to us as to make a joke of the probability of the existence of a human-sustaining planet.
Quote:In this sense, the total of the reality experience is only perceived by our conscious awareness, in increments, as the progression of time, but time itself, would not be factual.
No, time would still be factual, just relative.
Quote:Some promoters of quantum woo are claiming just that.
Another repair.
Quote:If this is the case, the foundational principles of all the “truths” explored above would also be negated. Without time progression as a given, perception of expansion and evolution would also be illusory.
So we can ignore the rest of this as it's clearly not a conclusion supported by the facts.
Quote:Conclusion
So, is any of this truth? How can you tell? When we have no choice but to accept given after given to try to understand what we’re observing, how can we ever know anything for sure?
So you're back to my first point: you seem to require 'absolute' truth or else 'truth' has no worth.
Quote:When “scientific facts” often don’t live up to their predictions, how can we trust?
Because of the billions of predictions which are fulfilled, every day. In fact, just typing this sentence has meant the fulfillment of billions of scientific predictions.
Quote:There are many claims about the truth of reality, and many people who pose themselves as experts capable of making such claims.
Indeed. You've provided statements consistent with many of those claims. How do you check your sources?
Quote:As for me, however, I trust that I perceive. I trust that I observe and form opinion. Beyond that, I humbly admit that I am ignorant with regard to the truth.
Yet you demand absolute truth and dismiss your perception, observation and opinion?
Final question: if you can't use data, how do you separate fact from fiction?
September 15, 2014 at 2:57 pm (This post was last modified: September 15, 2014 at 3:03 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(September 14, 2014 at 7:05 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Just saw this today. Not that it negates Darwin's theory, as Darwin did not specifically identify how natural selection occurs. I do realize that. http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/2...ame-place/
The headline is a bit much but the article makes a good point of explaining that genetic inheritance sans epigenetic considerations isn't the whole story of heredity, or of evolution. With epigenetics, there seems to be a bit of Lamarckianism going on as well. It's a bit superficial though, what the creationists would insist is 'adaptation, not evolution'.
Well-noted that epigenetics is not a problem for 'Darwinism', but the modern synthesis will have to synthesize epigenetics into the model.
(September 15, 2014 at 12:33 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: Abiogenesis is fact. It's been done in a lab. Repeatably, reproducably. Also, it has nothing to do with evolution. Another common conflation.
I think this requires a bit of expansion. We've inserted a synthetic genome into a denucleated cell, which then went on to reproduce with the synthetic genome. That's close enough to laboratory abiogenesis in the literal sense for most purposes, though some will hold out for making the entire cell from 'scratch'.
However, 'abiogenesis' in the sense of producing life from non-life in the laboratory through duplicating the initial conditions believed to have held on earth just before life appeared has not been accomplished yet, though some fairly lengthy strands of DNA and independent metabolic elements have been achieved.
